What's the first thing that comes to mind when you see this picture? These form part of a collection of 27 pics - each depicting a child in various stages of emotional trauma. You can view the entire collection here.
Here's the deal. The photographer, who is clearly talented even though her figures all exhibit a kind of photoshop plasticity that should place them firmly in the realm of the Uncanny Valley, took these images as some sort of Democrat outcry against the war. Read 'politically charged photography' with both 'political' and 'personal' relevance using a subject la'taboo - children in pain.
Now, we join this story in the midst of a heated debate as to whether these photo's are unethical. Thomas Hawk brands her work abusive, sadistic and unethical. The reason? These poses were induced - in other words, the esteemed artist made the children cry to get a pic.
"Jill is the one who strips kids [all under the age of 3)] down and then works them up into a state of emotional distress and then shoots them distraught and in anguish, tears running down their little face, and calls it some kind of protest art against the Bush administration. "
"I manipulate my subjects to evoke an emotion to illustrate my personal beliefs…I had to learn the hard way that they had to be no older than three because beyond that they just don’t cry so easily"
"Kid models aren't very expensive -- not as expensive as monkeys, for example."
Hm. I'm not going to begin a tirade against the obvious display of moral bancruptcy involved here. If you want, you can start reading the entire thread here.
Jill defends her actions by saying that she simply followed the Hollywood style of giving the kid a lolly and then taking it away.
So those little American children in these pics got themselves into such a fit of rage and alienation because their lolly was taken away? This woman is either as insightful as a brick or the tantrum inducing 'gimmies' of the American attitude truly is part of their molecular profile.