Alada
The Living Force
There are a series of photgraphs in the news at the moment, that were created by presenting children with lollypops, then, deliberately taking those lollies away order to make the children cry, to make art, artistic reputation and no doubt, in order to make money.
Is it harmless, merely 'soon to be forgotten' moments for the children, or is it abuse? That seems the dominant question where the story is covered, but perhaps more pertinent is to question the inner world of the photographer, Jill Greenberg?
Perhaps to some its a small thing, no 'big deal', or a taste of 'the real world', but is it only a matter of scale and what we see is the inicator of something other? When one considers it is precisely a lack of conscience and empathy that engenders suffering on much larger scales, then what are we being asked to assimilate as 'normal' or 'acceptable' here?
It seems these images ask one to accept a view of reality that is not 'normal' to human empathy, to set aside ones own conscience under the banner of identifying with a greater cause, in this case 'art'. To accept viewing and making profit from the suffering of others as one would make use of a tree for its timber, where it makes no difference to the psychopath or those induced to think like them.
Yet, here below is the press release to go with the exhibition:
---
Paul Kopeikin Gallery in Los Angeles Presents
Politically Charged Photo Exhibition "End Times"
By Acclaimed Artist Jill Greenberg
April 22 - July 8, 2006
Opening Reception Saturday, April 22, 2006
Los Angeles, CA April 28, 2006 "End Times", a politically charged photography exhibition by internationally acclaimed contemporary photographer Jill Greenberg, has been extended. The new dates are April 22nd through July 8th, 2006. A catalogue from the show is available.
Following her enormously successful series 'Monkey Portraits', which debuted in October 2004, Jill Greenberg's new work takes a more serious turn and has already hit a national nerve . "End Times" combines beautiful, poignant imagery, impeccably executed, with both political and personal relevance. Greenberg's subject is taboo: children in pain. She utilizes this uncomfortable image as a way to break through to the pop mainstream and begin a national dialogue. Jill Greenberg's images are sharp and saturated, stunning and quirky; her work is soaked with realism and imagination.
Bill Moyer's article "There is No Tomorrow" more than touches on Mrs. Greenberg's subject matter. In the article he states the amazing statistics: "For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington. Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a worldview despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. The offspring of ideology and theology are not always bad but they are always blind. And that is the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts.
One-third of the American electorate, if a recent Gallup Poll is accurate, believes the Bible is literally true. This past November, several million good and decent citizens went to the polls believing in what is known as the "rapture index."
These true believers subscribe to a fantastical theology concocted in the 19th century by a couple of immigrant preachers who took disparate passages from the Bible and wove them into a narrative that has captivated the imagination of millions of Americans. Its outline is rather simple, if bizarre: Once Israel has occupied the rest of its "bibli-cal lands," legions of the Antichrist will attack it, triggering a final showdown in the valley of Armageddon. As the Jews who have not been converted are burned, the messiah will return for the rapture.
That is why the invasion of Iraq for them was a warm-up act, predicted in the Book of Revelations, where four angels "which are bound in the great river Euphrates will be released to slay the third part of man." For them a war with Islam in the Middle East is something to be welcomed - an essential conflagration on the road to redemption. The rapture index - "the prophetic speedometer of end-time activity" - now stands at 153."
Jill Greenberg explains, "The children I photographed were not harmed in any way. And, as a mother, I am quite aware of how easily toddlers can cry. Storms of grief sweep across their features without warning; a joyful smile can dissolve into a grimace of despair. The first little boy I shot, Liam, suddenly became hysterically upset. It reminded me of helplessness and anger I feel about our current political and social situation. The most dangerous fundamentalists aren't just waging war in Iraq; they're attacking evolution, blocking medical research and ignoring the environment. It's as if they believe the apocalyptic End Time is near, therefore protecting the earth and future of our children is futile. As a parent I have to reckon with the knowledge that our children will suffer for the mistakes our government is making. Their pain is a precursor of what is to come."
---
So, Greenberg would seem to be trying to point out something else, yet she chooses to violate the free will of the children not to have suffering inflected upon them. On the surface, the images tell you nothing of this 'back story', I wonder if she just got hold of a 'neat idea' (to a psychopath) and is trying here to post rationalise it with the 'moral cause'?
My immediate emotional reaction is to reject the images as 'morally wrong', to declare that Greenberg has no empathy for others. Ponder it and there is the free will question too. But my question is am I miss-reading a more complex moral point here, if Greenberg IS trying to point out the madness of reality and this route can achieve a "national dialogue"? It almost seems right/wrong at the same time. Still I find myself erring on the side of its not being a good thing.
Is it harmless, merely 'soon to be forgotten' moments for the children, or is it abuse? That seems the dominant question where the story is covered, but perhaps more pertinent is to question the inner world of the photographer, Jill Greenberg?
Perhaps to some its a small thing, no 'big deal', or a taste of 'the real world', but is it only a matter of scale and what we see is the inicator of something other? When one considers it is precisely a lack of conscience and empathy that engenders suffering on much larger scales, then what are we being asked to assimilate as 'normal' or 'acceptable' here?
It seems these images ask one to accept a view of reality that is not 'normal' to human empathy, to set aside ones own conscience under the banner of identifying with a greater cause, in this case 'art'. To accept viewing and making profit from the suffering of others as one would make use of a tree for its timber, where it makes no difference to the psychopath or those induced to think like them.
Yet, here below is the press release to go with the exhibition:
---
Paul Kopeikin Gallery in Los Angeles Presents
Politically Charged Photo Exhibition "End Times"
By Acclaimed Artist Jill Greenberg
April 22 - July 8, 2006
Opening Reception Saturday, April 22, 2006
Los Angeles, CA April 28, 2006 "End Times", a politically charged photography exhibition by internationally acclaimed contemporary photographer Jill Greenberg, has been extended. The new dates are April 22nd through July 8th, 2006. A catalogue from the show is available.
Following her enormously successful series 'Monkey Portraits', which debuted in October 2004, Jill Greenberg's new work takes a more serious turn and has already hit a national nerve . "End Times" combines beautiful, poignant imagery, impeccably executed, with both political and personal relevance. Greenberg's subject is taboo: children in pain. She utilizes this uncomfortable image as a way to break through to the pop mainstream and begin a national dialogue. Jill Greenberg's images are sharp and saturated, stunning and quirky; her work is soaked with realism and imagination.
Bill Moyer's article "There is No Tomorrow" more than touches on Mrs. Greenberg's subject matter. In the article he states the amazing statistics: "For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington. Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a worldview despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. The offspring of ideology and theology are not always bad but they are always blind. And that is the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts.
One-third of the American electorate, if a recent Gallup Poll is accurate, believes the Bible is literally true. This past November, several million good and decent citizens went to the polls believing in what is known as the "rapture index."
These true believers subscribe to a fantastical theology concocted in the 19th century by a couple of immigrant preachers who took disparate passages from the Bible and wove them into a narrative that has captivated the imagination of millions of Americans. Its outline is rather simple, if bizarre: Once Israel has occupied the rest of its "bibli-cal lands," legions of the Antichrist will attack it, triggering a final showdown in the valley of Armageddon. As the Jews who have not been converted are burned, the messiah will return for the rapture.
That is why the invasion of Iraq for them was a warm-up act, predicted in the Book of Revelations, where four angels "which are bound in the great river Euphrates will be released to slay the third part of man." For them a war with Islam in the Middle East is something to be welcomed - an essential conflagration on the road to redemption. The rapture index - "the prophetic speedometer of end-time activity" - now stands at 153."
Jill Greenberg explains, "The children I photographed were not harmed in any way. And, as a mother, I am quite aware of how easily toddlers can cry. Storms of grief sweep across their features without warning; a joyful smile can dissolve into a grimace of despair. The first little boy I shot, Liam, suddenly became hysterically upset. It reminded me of helplessness and anger I feel about our current political and social situation. The most dangerous fundamentalists aren't just waging war in Iraq; they're attacking evolution, blocking medical research and ignoring the environment. It's as if they believe the apocalyptic End Time is near, therefore protecting the earth and future of our children is futile. As a parent I have to reckon with the knowledge that our children will suffer for the mistakes our government is making. Their pain is a precursor of what is to come."
---
So, Greenberg would seem to be trying to point out something else, yet she chooses to violate the free will of the children not to have suffering inflected upon them. On the surface, the images tell you nothing of this 'back story', I wonder if she just got hold of a 'neat idea' (to a psychopath) and is trying here to post rationalise it with the 'moral cause'?
My immediate emotional reaction is to reject the images as 'morally wrong', to declare that Greenberg has no empathy for others. Ponder it and there is the free will question too. But my question is am I miss-reading a more complex moral point here, if Greenberg IS trying to point out the madness of reality and this route can achieve a "national dialogue"? It almost seems right/wrong at the same time. Still I find myself erring on the side of its not being a good thing.
