Poseur Alert
vatoengland has alerted me to what has to be the most empty, ridiculous exercise ever to pass itself off as art or political commentary: photographs of crying children, lots of them, by Jill Greenberg, an "internationally acclaimed contemporary photographer." The press release that describes the exhibit, and the "artist's" rationale for it, is here, and the Sunday Times has an article about it here.
The sheer fatuousness of the whole enterprise begins early in the press release:
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.
By all the gods that live, how much empty posturing can be packed into one paragraph? First, how can a photograph of a real event be "soaked in imagination?" Second, there's the obligatory boast that the "artist" has "hit a nerve," by taking on a subject that is "taboo;" which is how hack artists and stupid talking-heads always pretend to be relevant. Third, since when was children in pain "taboo?" International charity organizations show photos of children in real pain -- not just temporarily deprived of candy, but sick, crippled, filthy and/or starving -- all the time. Fourth, are we supposed to believe that an "Acclaimed Artist" has been locked out of the "pop mainstream" and had to "break through to" it? Finally, the claim that the "artist" intended to "begin a national dialogue" is a sure sign that she didn't actually contribute anything to that dialogue (which, in fact, began about six years ago, when Bush took office).
The press release then goes on with a lot of blather about ideology, theology, and the loony Christian right, none of which has anything to do with the crying children. Finally, the artist offers this explanation:
"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."
One word: Bollocks. "Their pain" -- deliberately inflicted by their parents for the photographer's benefit -- had nothing at all to do with "what is to come," and everything to do with one photographer's fifteen minutes of shock value.
Here's some further explanation from the Times:
The photographer Jill Greenberg intended her images of sobbing babies to be a metaphorical commentary on what she sees as the evils of the Bush administration and the dangerous influence of the evangelical religious right.
As Dilbert said to Wally, "That was wrong on so many levels." First, a work of art whose meaning or intent has to be painstakingly explained by the artist is nothing more than bad art -- in this case, even worse than all those "Elegies to the Spanish Republic" and "Untitled No. Umpteens" cranked out by abstract expressionists in the last century. Second, it's a bit dishonest to use the faces of other people's kids to express one's own views of political events that the kids themselves did not comprehend -- especially when we all know that the suffering she photographed had to be deliberately staged by the kids' own parents. Why can't this woman go out and photograph people who are actually suffering from the policies she's trying to criticize? Why can't she at least photograph her own reaction, rather than someone else's?
This is the most manipualtive use of children since Helen Caldicott's campaign to drum up anti-nuclear hysteria in schools. When Greenberg uses the faces of children to "express" her own feelings or opinions, she is, quite literally, trying to infantilize the public dialogue -- just like Bush and his handlers. As a critic of Bush, who is sick of his ever-more-infantile excuse for dialogue, I'm embarrassed to have this hack photographer pretending to be on my side. Grow up, Ms. Greenberg -- parenting and politics are adult activities.
The sheer fatuousness of the whole enterprise begins early in the press release:
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.
By all the gods that live, how much empty posturing can be packed into one paragraph? First, how can a photograph of a real event be "soaked in imagination?" Second, there's the obligatory boast that the "artist" has "hit a nerve," by taking on a subject that is "taboo;" which is how hack artists and stupid talking-heads always pretend to be relevant. Third, since when was children in pain "taboo?" International charity organizations show photos of children in real pain -- not just temporarily deprived of candy, but sick, crippled, filthy and/or starving -- all the time. Fourth, are we supposed to believe that an "Acclaimed Artist" has been locked out of the "pop mainstream" and had to "break through to" it? Finally, the claim that the "artist" intended to "begin a national dialogue" is a sure sign that she didn't actually contribute anything to that dialogue (which, in fact, began about six years ago, when Bush took office).
The press release then goes on with a lot of blather about ideology, theology, and the loony Christian right, none of which has anything to do with the crying children. Finally, the artist offers this explanation:
"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."
One word: Bollocks. "Their pain" -- deliberately inflicted by their parents for the photographer's benefit -- had nothing at all to do with "what is to come," and everything to do with one photographer's fifteen minutes of shock value.
Here's some further explanation from the Times:
The photographer Jill Greenberg intended her images of sobbing babies to be a metaphorical commentary on what she sees as the evils of the Bush administration and the dangerous influence of the evangelical religious right.
As Dilbert said to Wally, "That was wrong on so many levels." First, a work of art whose meaning or intent has to be painstakingly explained by the artist is nothing more than bad art -- in this case, even worse than all those "Elegies to the Spanish Republic" and "Untitled No. Umpteens" cranked out by abstract expressionists in the last century. Second, it's a bit dishonest to use the faces of other people's kids to express one's own views of political events that the kids themselves did not comprehend -- especially when we all know that the suffering she photographed had to be deliberately staged by the kids' own parents. Why can't this woman go out and photograph people who are actually suffering from the policies she's trying to criticize? Why can't she at least photograph her own reaction, rather than someone else's?
This is the most manipualtive use of children since Helen Caldicott's campaign to drum up anti-nuclear hysteria in schools. When Greenberg uses the faces of children to "express" her own feelings or opinions, she is, quite literally, trying to infantilize the public dialogue -- just like Bush and his handlers. As a critic of Bush, who is sick of his ever-more-infantile excuse for dialogue, I'm embarrassed to have this hack photographer pretending to be on my side. Grow up, Ms. Greenberg -- parenting and politics are adult activities.