Quote Originally Posted by thebanana
The latest edition of American Photo has a story about Jill Greenberg, a photographer in L.A. who specilaizes in taking portraits of crying children under the age of 3. The upshot is that she actually creates the conditions that force them to cry, in order to take the shots. She does this by removing their clothes, giving them a candy and then taking it away. placing them in uncomfortable positions etc. Her critics contend that what she is doing amounts to chiuld abuse. Her own comments tend to support that view in my mind. I think this is the most disgusting story I've ever read about a photographer.
Nah - my two year old will just cry if you even look at him the wrong way - crying at least 60% of the time is their natural state of being for many of them. Photos of them NOT crying would be unnatural. Hey - I can even make him cry on demand. It's supper time - he says "cookie" daddy says "no": Waaaaaaaaaaaaa. No, if I too had found a way to make money from that I'd be retired in the Caymans by now....

BTW - how do you think they get those kids to cry for all those TV diaper ads etc you probably don't even notice you watch all the time?

and did someone else say it here (or elsewhere?)

"Alternatively: we happily apply sanctions that lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children over a period of a decade ("that is a price we are prepared to pay", remember that?), but taking the lollipops of a few first world kids who'll get them back as soon as the shoot is over and never even remember the event ten minutes later is a bad thing?"

get a sense of perspective.... man some folks are uptight!