Jill Greenberg Studio

Posted on August 07, 2006

manipulator | jill greenberg

Jill Greenberg's wonderful hyper-realistic portrait photography. I especially like the angry kids section. (See above. It's all too familiar.) Nicely put together flash site too, made by Belgium's finest.

Comments (9)

Why Musteye said

Flash is for obnoxious advertisements. To avoid such advertisements, I -- and, I suspect, others -- avoid flash. It is unfortunate that I am not welcome at group94's sites because of this choice.

Posted by: Why Musteye at August 14, 2006 12:32 PM .

bsn said


ever considered that obnoxious advertising might be a misuse of flash? I, and I suspect the vast majority of internet users, would say that you're missing out by avoiding flash entirely, just because some commercial sites allow such invasive advertising forms. I tend to just avoid those sites.

In the immortal words of the Goldie Lookin Chain: "Guns don't kill people, rappers do".

Posted by: bsn at September 7, 2006 07:44 AM .

Mike Halloran said

Why is it that the so called “Artist” feels they have the right to abuse children and that they are above the law just because they are an “Artist”?
These people are so far up themselves they act god like, the people who agree with their reasoning are most likely serial child abuser themselves. (I know that’s a bit harsh but my god just look at those poor children’s faces, now tell me its art…)
She is nothing but a criminal, she feels that abusing her own child justifies the right to abuse other children, it’s about time this sick world woke up to the fact that these people cannot abuse children and get away with it in the name of “Art”.
We track down and prosecute paedophiles who take disturbing pictures of children (as we should), how is this different?
I’m sure some smart arse child abuser will read this and give some slimy reply trying to justify child abuse as “Art”.

Posted by: Mike Halloran at September 10, 2006 08:46 AM .

bsn said

Hi Mike,

Thanks for your comments.

The children in the photographs were promised a sweet, which was then subsequently taken away. This provoked the tears. To describe this as child abuse and criminal is, in my opinion, an over-reaction.

Anyone who has a three-year-old knows that they often cry when denied something they want, but that they can be easily distracted seconds later and the tears are forgotten.

Surely there are millions of other children in the world living under inhuman conditions who are more deserving of our attention, whether in the west or in the developing world?

I remember reading an article by Stephen Fry about his boarding school experiences. He stated that the lack of love was the real abuse, one that left a lasting impression, rather than the beatings that subsequently became illegal. Not to say that I condone corporal punishment, but I found the comment insightful.


Posted by: bsn at September 10, 2006 09:56 AM .

Aron said

I like Jills photography also, but this was on CoolHunting.com about 6 months ago.

Posted by: Aron at September 13, 2006 03:33 PM .

Blatherskite said

Well, the fact that it is pictures of kids crying, but withdrawing a gift isn't abusing them. If you done such a thing to an adult, they would simply look at you strangely. Obviously this proves that the pictures are demonstating infant overreation, as well as all that other stuff Greenberg said it represented...

Posted by: Blatherskite at November 24, 2006 05:28 AM .

De Sueno said

There has been a trememndous amount of volume of inane frothing about how abusive this practice is. No abuse was done here:

(1) At MOST Greenberg gave them a lollipop, then took it away. Children often have things taken away from them, and they often react (especially when they're young) with a total lack of proportion to the insult.

(2) Greenberg play off of this immature reaction by selecting very young models, as older models wouldn't get very worked up.

(3) The lighing and camera angle causes the scene to look very much more dramatic than it is; that's part of her skill.

(4) After a few minutes of bright lights, the kids return to their parents who soothe them, and make them feel that all is right.

(5) When you're talking about child abuse, remember that child abuse is wide-spread, and it is usually brutal. To compare the withdrawl of a lollipop with the criminal neglect or beatings that many children recieve in thier own sad lives, IS TO LIKEN A FRIENDLY PAT ON THE BACK WITH CHILD MOLESTATION.

So before you raise up your arms, best to put it all into proportion, and realize that Greenberg has manipulated you into thinking something awful was done, when virtually nothing wrong was done at all. IT IS THE WHOLE POINT.

Posted by: De Sueno at November 28, 2006 11:55 PM .

longwindother said

All that needs be said, and a variation of "THE WHOLE POINT".... made you look.

Posted by: longwindother at November 29, 2006 08:32 AM .

Robin Shepperson said

After reading a number of reactions to this both for and against I note one thing. The people against this are reacting due to the glorification of childrens distress over why they have had a treat taken from them without good cause, that amounts to being bullied, bullying is a form of abuse, now, my point here is this, that all the arguements for the photos are ALL taking the lesser of two evils.

Those "for" are saying, "hey look, its just a kid crying over a lollipop, take a look at abuse where children are beaten or starved, neglected, etc." Well for them I can only say this, how DARE you put a standard or level on what is abuse. The role of any parent or adult is ensure that a their child of whatever age is kept within a safe, calm, happy and loving environment at all times within human ability.

Jill Greenberg failed to do this, those parents who submitted their children failed to do this, those people defending this outrage, are failing to do this.

There is absolutely no excuse whatsoever to make a child cry deliberately, it is the most disgusting manner to which parents can make a quick buck and for an artist to make herself known.

If a parent/guardian fails to do their duty to ensure the safe, caring and happy environment for their child to which they are entrusted, they are failures in their duty.

All those who argued "for" this disgusting exhibition have also failed. Even if some of these people are not yet parents, they have failed before they even got started.

The exhibition is tasteless, desperate and glorifies a child's distress, how on earth can anyone defend that?

Some of those arguing for are saying that the pictures are, and I quote "beauitful"

"Here look a photo of a child crying their eyes out because a photographer took their treat away without good cause causing the child momentary distress, to an extent that some suffered uncontrollable salivation isnt that just beautiful?"

Err what? Pardon? Sorry?

Beautiful? Please seek help!

On another note, all these children if you notice are disrobed, disrobed and crying, as anyone with any knowledge of child abuse, peadophiles have had images found on their computers of children, disrobed and crying.

So what exactly is this exhibition about then? Politics? Please do not bullshit me.

Jill Greenberg is sick, the people defending this are sick, the parents who submitted their children to this are sick.

My daughter started school today, she is 4, 5 next month, anytime she is distressed or upset I am there for her, anytime she is crying about something I am there to put it right, even if she be needing of just a hug, hence when she went through those school gates for the first time today, she was a happy smilling confident child, she was this way because she knows that when she isnt I am there, cant say the same for anyone involved the creation and defence for this exhibition.

The unfortunate sad thing is, is that with everyone reacting to this, its given Jill Greenberg exactly what she wanted, money and exposure.

She should be blacklisted!!

Posted by: Robin Shepperson at August 30, 2007 04:23 PM .