Question: What’s that yellow stain between your ankles and your artwork? Answer: Why, it’s the sign of a full scale pissing match, of course. Today’s players: Thomas Hawk (aka), and Jill Greenberg’s hubby, Robert Green. Hold on there, cowperson; I hear you asking, “Who the heck is Jill Greenberg?” She’s a photographer. And this great face-off is brought to you by the good folks at the company, “I can’t explain what bad art is, but I know it when I see it.”
Bloggoholic Thomas Hawk made a post back in April, drawing attention to the ‘Bad’ photography of Ms. Greenberg, and how she does ‘Bad’ things to little kids to make her ‘Bad’ art, and therefore is a ‘Bad’ person. Then American Photo got into the picture – or should I say – fray. Soon, a full scale blow-up ensued with ‘bad’ words flying everywhere, especially on Jill’s hubby’s web site; he gets top points for most use of foul-mouthed language. (Rated R, kids.) And the words keep flying in both directions.
If you have an hour or so to kill, it’s good for those of us that like to see an occasional car-wreck in progress. But more to the point, this serves as a great example of how artwork can provoke and inflame passionate responses. Remember Mapplethorpe? I recall a great lesson in this back in college, when a good friend had to make a poster for a class called the “Art of Injustice”. He made an image of Christ holding a bible in one hand, and a gun in the other, and a bloodstained map of Central America. It wasn’t up for more than 45 minutes before someone ripped his poster to shreds, and comments started flying in the School Departments and Adminstration offices, and both the School and community papers.
Is your reaction to ‘bad’ art one of tolerance, or intolerance? I like to think that in the United States, where we pride ourselves on our freedoms, that I can be “free” enough to allow others to express themselves in ways (art / media) that I may personally find offensive, without tossing out labels like ‘bad’, evil, etc.. I don’t especially like Ms. Greenbergs photos. As a parent, I’m not thrilled about her methods for obtaining her pictures. But her images are compelling, and the emotions that come across are Raw, and so are the emotions they seem to provoke.
I’m surprised this is such a hot topic apparently. Not having been there when the babies were shot I don’t have much to say about any child abuse claims but if she was provoking the kids to do that then yeah I’d agree w/ Mr. Hawk. At that age, everything is traumatizing to kids. For example, my dad rented a rated R vampire movie when I was a young kid. I spent the next 10+ years obsessively having to close my closet doors at night out of fear of getting my blood sucked.
From a visual standpoint I think her art looks nice. Not my taste though as I’m not into manipulated photo op situations.
Hi Gary. It’s interesting to see how the gallery owner Paul Kopeikin feels about the situation. It’s pretty sick.
http://thomashawk.com/2006/07/thank-you-note-from-paul-kopeikin.html
Thomas:
Thanks for sharing your thoughts here. I notice also that Mr. Green has yanked several of his cuss laden posts from his blog. Interesting that the NYT picked up on the story.
Cheers,