Forums >
General Industry >
Photo Art or child abuse?
On Good morning a america there was a story of photographer who takes pictures of children who have been crying or are upset from an experience. Is the media making it a bigger issue than it deserves? Do you believe the photographer should labeled a child abuser? Jul 28 06 11:46 am Link Not unless he causes the crying through some overt act. Jul 28 06 11:48 am Link Maybe the child is crying because he knows how bad the pictures are going to turn out! Jul 28 06 11:50 am Link They were most likely referring to Lauren Greenfield. There was a rather long thread about this a week or so ago. Jul 28 06 11:53 am Link Been done before... Jul 28 06 12:18 pm Link Lens N Light wrote: The act was taking candy away. Jul 28 06 01:46 pm Link thank goodness for the ACLU! Jul 28 06 01:50 pm Link MHana wrote: BASTARD Jul 28 06 01:52 pm Link MHana wrote: I guess one could say that is a good thing? Jul 28 06 01:52 pm Link Lens N Light wrote: Not giving it to them in the first place would be a good thing. Jul 28 06 01:54 pm Link MHana wrote: That sounds like child abuse to me. Yup. Never say no to an infant. They'll write a tell all book about it. Jul 28 06 01:54 pm Link MHana 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. Jul 28 06 01:59 pm Link Carpe Imago Photography wrote: It was done by a woman photographer. Jul 28 06 02:12 pm Link ![]() Jul 28 06 02:24 pm Link The amazing thing is they both have the same IQ. Jul 28 06 02:29 pm Link Carpe Imago Photography wrote: That is a bold statement about the philosophy of photography... Jul 28 06 02:29 pm Link MHana wrote: If you havent noticed recently, women can actually be guilty of the worst crimes on record. Jul 28 06 02:30 pm Link Jack D Trute wrote: He has that effect on a lot of us. Jul 28 06 02:31 pm Link How does Hollywood get babies to cry on camera? I have a feeling it's not going to be all that different. Jul 28 06 02:35 pm Link I hardly think that constitutes "abuse." They probably give the candy to the kid in the end anyway. Jul 28 06 02:38 pm Link MMDesign wrote: and I just thought the picture was showing that they both needed their diapers changed. Jul 28 06 02:43 pm Link MHana 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. Jul 28 06 02:49 pm Link Lens N Light wrote: 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. Jul 28 06 02:52 pm Link James Jackson wrote: Another way of saying they're both full of shit, eh? Jul 28 06 02:53 pm Link Bryan Patrick Coleman wrote: 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? Jul 28 06 02:54 pm Link I think Good Morning America is child abuse. Jul 28 06 02:54 pm Link Ximena Bright 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. Jul 28 06 02:56 pm Link johnkphotography wrote: LOL...that was good. Jul 28 06 03:00 pm Link Shawn Kuck wrote: 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. Jul 28 06 03:01 pm Link I don't believe interupting the peace at a funeral is a protected right. I think grieving families should be allowed to grieve and they should protest before or after, but not during. It's disgusting. Or they should have at least one sign saying "this person died so I can do this protest". It's disgusting and there should be laws against it. It's a funeral!!! even worse it's a soldiers funeral!! I'm not saying they can't say it, I'm saying they shouldn't be able to say it there. The law the ACLU is suing Missouri about says they have to be 300 feet away, I don't think that is too much to ask for a family to say goodbye ... Even if it was Hilters family. Shawn Jul 28 06 03:09 pm Link Shawn Kuck wrote: 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... Jul 28 06 04:28 pm Link Jul 28 06 04:29 pm Link Carpe Imago Photography wrote: I once gave a model candy and took it away: Jul 28 06 05:07 pm Link 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 . Aug 04 06 08:50 am Link missing fingers product wrote: Taking candy away is NOT child abuse. lol Aug 04 06 08:52 am Link 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. Aug 04 06 10:40 am Link can someone post a link to these photos? i cannot seem to find anything on her site. additionally, i would assume that all these children had their parents present, as well as permission to do whatever she did. taking candy away from a child is NOT child abuse. Aug 04 06 11:01 am Link Carpe Imago Photography wrote: 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. Aug 04 06 11:09 am Link Mandy McKeating wrote: 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? Aug 04 06 11:10 am Link byReno wrote: LOLOLOLOL!!!!! Thats what I am talkin about!! Aug 04 06 11:11 am Link |