Lens N Light wrote:
Not unless he causes the crying through some overt act.

The act was taking candy away.
This was not done by just waiting for them to cry.

MHana wrote:

The act was taking candy away.
This was not done by just waiting for them to cry.

BASTARD

Stealing candy from babies.

Heh...

MHana wrote:

The act was taking candy away.
This was not done by just waiting for them to cry.

I guess one could say that is a good thing?

Lens N Light wrote:

I guess one could say that is a good thing?

Not giving it to them in the first place would be a good thing.

MHana wrote:

The act was taking candy away.
This was not done by just waiting for them to cry.

That sounds like child abuse to me.  Yup. Never say no to an infant.  They'll write a tell all book about it.

MHana wrote:

The act was taking candy away.
This was not done by just waiting for them to cry.

Okay, if he did it to my daughter just to make her cry I'd kick his ass from hear to China.  And I'm a non-violent sort of guy. 

Photography in its purest form should be about capturing moments that happen...not making them happen.  I realize that flies in the face of what most of us do in the area of glamour or fashion, but how many times do you see photographers hurting models just to make them cry?

Kids?  Yeah, I'd hurt him.

Carpe Imago Photography wrote:

Okay, if he did it to my daughter just to make her cry I'd kick his ass from hear to China.  And I'm a non-violent sort of guy. 

Photography in its purest form should be about capturing moments that happen...not making them happen.  I realize that flies in the face of what most of us do in the area of glamour or fashion, but how many times do you see photographers hurting models just to make them cry?

Kids?  Yeah, I'd hurt him.

It was done by a woman photographer.

Carpe Imago Photography wrote:
Photography in its purest form should be about capturing moments that happen...not making them happen.

That is a bold statement about the philosophy of photography...

I disagree.  Even sports and event photographers make thousands of split-second decisions about composition, light etc.  They may be capturing a moment, but the act of photography changes that moment- gives it a meaning, editorializes it, gives it moral force beyond "the moment."  Photographers put things in front of their lens like painters put paint on canvas.

I don't like the idea of taking the candy from the baby- it's just mean, but as far as "capturing the moment", it is no different than what all photographers do.

MHana wrote:

It was done by a woman photographer.

If you havent noticed recently, women can actually be guilty of the worst crimes on record.

Jack D Trute wrote:

He has that effect on a lot of us.

MMDesign wrote:
The amazing thing is they both have the same IQ.

and I just thought the picture was showing that they both needed their diapers changed.

MHana wrote:

The act was taking candy away.
This was not done by just waiting for them to cry.

Taking candy away from a baby is hardly abuse.  Letting them cry is hardly abuse.  If they were like bitch slapping the kids, shaking them violently, dislocating joints, chopping off members, shooting them, making them drink gallons of water, throwing them in the ocean to drown them.  Those are abuse, but not taking candy away.

Lens N Light wrote:
Not unless he causes the crying through some overt act.

Actually she causes the crying, in one instance she did it by giving the kid some candy and then snatching it away. They're beautiful images and most of you democrats should appreciate the sentiment, since it's her statement against the Bush Administration and the War. The fact is artist do things outside of what most people would consider normal to accomplish their ideas and its not like she punched the kid in the nose.

Shawn

James Jackson wrote:

and I just thought the picture was showing that they both needed their diapers changed.

Another way of saying they're both full of shit, eh?

Bryan Patrick Coleman wrote:

Taking candy away from a baby is hardly abuse.  Letting them cry is hardly abuse.  If they were like bitch slapping the kids, shaking them violently, dislocating joints, chopping off members, shooting them, making them drink gallons of water, throwing them in the ocean to drown them.  Those are abuse, but not taking candy away.

Um, I disagree.  You take a child and teach them to distrust adults and that they can be mean?  They'll turn out like me.  Do you really want that?

Ximena Bright wrote:
thank goodness for the ACLU!

What???!!!??? Yeah thank goodness we have them to protect people disrupting funerals of soldiers with signs that say "Thank God for IED's" and oh wait "Fag Sin = 9-11". Yeah I'm sooo happy they're around.

Shawn

johnkphotography wrote:
I think Good Morning America is child abuse.

LOL...that was good.

I still have to read the article, but I have the Calendar section from the L.A. times with the story on this photographers show, the photos are damn awesome in my book.  (If we're talking of the same photographer and photos, I'm sure we are).

Shawn Kuck wrote:

What???!!!??? Yeah thank goodness we have them to protect people disrupting funerals of soldiers with signs that say "Thank God for IED's" and oh wait "Fag Sin = 9-11". Yeah I'm sooo happy they're around.

Shawn

You can't just pick and choose what groups can exercise their constitutional rights. While I obviously disagree with what those religious nuts are doing, it is a constitutionally protected right.

Shawn Kuck wrote:
I'm not saying they can't say it, I'm saying they shouldn't be able to say it there.

And I'm not saying you can't say you're hungry or order food ever again, I'm just saying you can't say it at a restaurant or anywhere someone who would get you food is located...


Unless the speech is going to immediately and directly put an actual risk of danger in to a situation it should be allowed.  (ie, fire in an amphitheater isn't allowed, because people will run and trample each other)

Shawn Kuck wrote:
The fact is artist do things outside of what most people would consider normal to accomplish their ideas and its not like she punched the kid in the nose.

Carpe Imago Photography wrote:
But how many times do you see photographers hurting models just to make them cry?

I once gave a model candy and took it away:

missing fingers product wrote:
ive seen the photos and i dont like how the photographer is making these kids cry , it seems very staged and fake in the photos. perhaps if the photos where done spontaneouly it have better results but forcing kids to cry is pretty much child abuse art or not .

Taking candy away is NOT child abuse. lol

Carpe Imago Photography wrote:

Okay, if he did it to my daughter just to make her cry I'd kick his ass from hear to China.  And I'm a non-violent sort of guy. 

Photography in its purest form should be about capturing moments that happen...not making them happen.  I realize that flies in the face of what most of us do in the area of glamour or fashion, but how many times do you see photographers hurting models just to make them cry?

Kids?  Yeah, I'd hurt him.

Amen brother!!!!!  It may not be abusive as in hitting a child, but it is abusive in the manner that it is cruel to do something to a child in which they have ability to understand why....then to do it so you can get a "strong emotional" image....pure selfishness seeing that the child gets nothing great out of it other than some emotional sadness.  Basically, only a complete loser and sorry ass photographer would feel that it is OK to be mean and cruel to a child to promote themself.

Mandy McKeating wrote:
taking candy away from a child is NOT child abuse.

While I wouldn't want my kid forced to cry for a photograph (hell I could do it myself by saying "time to turn off the tv and go to bed"), I agree the term abuse is a bit much. Maybe child misuse?

byReno wrote:
There are a lot of ways to look at this.  Maybe she should have pointed her camera at the mothers who are dragging their screaming kids out of Toys R Us.

LOLOLOLOL!!!!! Thats what I am talkin about!!