Very nice. As long as she can trash Bush, really, making toddlers cry is not a high price to pay, right?
And frankly, although hopeful that this receives universal condemnation on this baord, I would not be completely shocked to discover that some of the more visceral anti-Bush crowd here are supportive of this woman’s tactics. Because, after all, maybe getting kids to cry isn’t the nicest thing to do, but she’s not causing anyone permanent psychological damage… right? :rolleyes:
Wow, that’s pretty pathetic. Is it that hard to find kids crying all by themselves? But it does farily accurately portray some of the rabidly anti-Bush folks around here. Whaaaaa! My side lost the election, so it must’ve been stolen. Whaaaaa!
Am I crazy or does this have absolutely nothing to do with Bush?
:rolleyes:
Read it again, her Bush comment had nothing to do with making the kid cry, only as a “find a caption (of dubious taste) to go with the picture later”.
Other than that, I still wonder why this has to be partisan in nature, Making kids cry only to get pictures is bad regardless of political leanings, and if she is causing it by underhanded methods.
Oh, I found it. She did end up calling one of the portraits “Four More Years.” I didn’t see it in the six the article provided and figured she dropped the idea.
More pathetic is that you did not read the article, I guess it is always easier to depended on a partisan to get your talking points.
Still, that is far, far, far away from saying she did make the kid cry with the intension of making a political point beforehand.
It’s just Bricker, hooting again. :rolleyes:
Pay his nonsense no mind.
Bricker, John, stop for a moment and think…are you really this desperate?
I read the article-- it’s you who didn’t understand it. She did one portrait which she called “Four More Years”, as in 4 more years of Bush, and then decided to do a series based on the same idea. Here:
Well, what else have they got left?
Wow Bricker, in an article on photography, you let a few sentences set you off enough to start a lame pitting. You even had pre-conceived notions included in your op basically insulting anyone who would dare to disagree with you.
Can’t you find something a little bit more controversial than this article to get upset about? You know I hear a few comedians have made some derogatory jokes about the administration, maybe you should try pitting them.
This appears to the part that upset you:
OMG, she took a dig at Bush, the Horror.
Weak man, very weak. You even seem to be misrepresenting the gist of the article.
Jim
The caption on the one in the article says “tribulations” unless you can point to other source, the idea of saying her series is just about Bush is silly. The context of the piece is about suffering in general.
In any case the OP looks worse on second thought:
She might as well be a conservative or an independent making a mockery of the Democrats for being crybabies.
I read and re-read the article, and nothing in it says she “did a series” about George Bush. It says that after shooting one of the pictures, she came up with the title “Four More Years,” and that after shooting the pictures, she thought they made a statement about “Anxiety” about the future of the country, not about George Bush in particular. Nowhere in the article does it suggest she set out to make kids cry to take pictures of them having decided beforehand to use it to “trash Bush,” as Bricker erroneously claims.
Frankly, I find the concept just plain weird irrespective of the rationale.
And is it just me, or does the picture in the link not look like a photograph? It looks like a computer-generated image.
Desperate for what? The women did a series of pictures in which she made toddlers cry in order to make an “artistic” political statement. **Bricker **pitted her. BFD-- he was right. Are you going to fall back on the old canard that if you can find something worse than this, then this doesn’t deserve a pitting? Sure there are lots of worse things than this-- many of them done by Bush himself. Doesn’t make what this woman did any better.
I don’t care how many other things it’s about, it’s also about Bush. In fact, that was what got her started on the porject. What part of “How did you come up with this project” do you not understand?
As pittings go, this one appears to be without merit or much thought. You and **Bricker ** both seemed to have read more into the article than what most of us did.
Jim
Come on. If she really had anti-Bush motives, she might have told the children how long they’d be paying for Bush’s war and how many children and adults were dead as a result. Instead she used the time-tested approach of taking candy from a baby.
And in all seriousness, the lighting effect is very dramatic. I like it.
Could this be a hoax?
No, you are indeed the one that did not understand the article.
No.
I said this pitting is deserved if she is making kids cry by underhanded methods, for all I see, there is doubts even on that regard. She might as well despair now for the un-effective work of the Democrats. Once again, the idea for the caption came after taking the picture was made.
:rolleyes:
Once again, her idea of making a picture a weak political statement (wait 7 years into the future and this piece could be applied to Republicans) came after the picture was taken.