The ironic thing about this is that once those babies cry, the picture is taken and their work day is over. I’d bet that they spend less time crying during a photo shoot than those Anne Geddes models. You know those Geddes babies spend hours in costume being poked and prodded, and babies always cry more when you want them to stop. Plus, imagine the humiliation of being dressed up like a sunflower or a bowl of fruit or some kind of a fucking Easter basket.
Well, by “stupid” I meant the whole idea that it’s all about her being “anti-Bush.” I think the idea of making kids cry on purpose for photos is pretty damned sickening.
But, the whole, “Oh my god, she’s doing this to protest Bush!” uproar-meh, who cares? Like you said, it’s disturbing even without the protest part.
Bricker, Is this the original source that lead you to do this pitting or did you hear about it somewhere else and then found this link to post?
I see no lies. I do see some faulty reading comprehension. (I hope it is just faulty comprehension and not a deliberate effort to take disparate statements out of context and dishonestly organize them to create a false accusation of lying.)
Let’s try the sequence again:
Artist shoots little girl’s brother, who happens to cry during the photo.
Artist identifies a “statement” in that photo while doing proofs and recognizes a potential series.
Artist then goes out and recruits numerous other toddlers, capturing some of them crying naturally, but inducing others to cry by taking back objects offered to them.
Artist then organizes all the photos, including the ones in which she induced the crying, into an anti-Bush photo spread.
Attributing falsehoods to John Mace when his statements are accurate does nothing to promote one’s own perception as honest.
Well, I do have to agree that **Bricker **pulled one of his famous strawman arguments in the OP-- heading the anti-Bush apologists off at the pass, so to speak. But I don’t think he was bashing her for being anti-Bush. He was bashing those hypothetical people who might give her a pass because she was making an anti-Bush political statement. But, as usual, none of those hypothetical people showed up in this thread. Usually what happens next is that he will claim that such people do exist IRL, so what’s the diff? I don’t find that argument very compelling.
tomndebb: Thanks for the reply to Elvis. I find it hard to even reply to him lately as he constantly distorts my posts, seemingly on purpose.
Still stalking me, Tom? It’s at your own peril, ya know. You might actually read what I’ve quoted before making slurs about my character and embarrassing yourself as much as **Bricker ** and **John ** have here… :rolleyes: Now go read the quotes from John, willya?
Yes, let’s review what’s actually been said, not your own cherry-picked spin:
**John ** repeated Bricker’s assertion, *not * supported by the article he linked to, that she made kids cry for the purpose of anti-Bush political propaganda (note: read the thread title as well as the OP, okay?). After claiming to have actually read the link, **John ** *changed * his tune to conform to the statement that the anti-Bush photo was made after the kid cried on his own. But he didn’t note that that what he had said earlier was incorrect. Later, though, he went back to the party line that she had made the kid cry for the purpose of anti-Bush propaganda.
Clear now? That’s what he said, right? It’s all right above your post.
Now, it may be possible that **John ** simply shares Bush’s lack of concern for the world of mere fact when it inconveniently disagrees with his desired opinion. It may well be that the Bush loyalists’ often-used Costanza Defense, that if Bush really meant it then it wasn’t a lie, also applies to **Bricker ** and John. But not with so many changes in the course of a few hours. That’s not “faulty reading comprehension”, it’s simply lying - and your own statements above are hanging right on that precipice themselves. Your claim that John’s statements are accurate is impossible when they are mutually inconsistent, and that assertion “does nothing to promote [your] own perception as honest”.
Now, set down your grudge, accept the possibility that you may be wrong once in a while, and get a damn grip. Shit, buddy, life is too short to engage in such juvenility.
*Distort * them? I simply *quoted * them. :rolleyes:
You sound like Charles Barkley and Terrell Owens, complaining about being misquoted in their own autobiographies.
My excuse for what?
It’s okay, everyone. The photographer attached signing statements to each photo declaring the kiddos weren’t really crying, and that no legislation passed by Congress could convince her otherwise.
Christ, I hate to do this…
THERE WAS MORE THAN ONE TODDLER, YOU IDIOT!!!
The first one cried all on its own. Susequent toddlers who didn’t cry on their own were made to do so by, for example, giving them candy and then taking it back. It’s in the goddam article, you lying sack of shit.
I guess you meant, my excuse for backing up John? Because it seems clear to me that she took a picture of a crying child, and it occurred to her that it would be a great political statement to make, if paired with a particular caption, so she took more pictures of more crying children, and paired them up with various similar captions. Taken together, they are a work of art that makes a political statement. If you do not believe this to be an accurate explaination of what she did, then please explain why.
Oh, and I left out an important point. The first child JUST HAPPENED TO BE CRYING WHEN SHE TOOK THE PICTURE. Subsequently, when taking the pictures of the other children, if they did not cry spontaneously, she did something to them to make them cry, in order to get the emotion of unhappiness captured on film.
Wait a tick, I get it now! This is all a clever sendup of people who are so mindlessly partisan that they think drivia as this actually has some sort of significance!
John-boy, you scamp! Really had be going that time!
I don’t think her primary interest was trashing President Bush; that was just an occasion.
That said, WHAT KIND OF SICK MONSTER INTENTIONALLY MAKES A CHILD CRY, OR ALLOWS SOMEONE TO MAKE HIS/HER CHILD CRY, JUST FOR A PHOTOGRAPH?
I really hope she asks me if she can make one of my nieces or nephew cry. That way I can beat the shit out of her husband.
Rhymers don’t hit women even when they deserve it. 'Cept in a spanking context. Or self-defense.
Either her perception of ‘great’ is skewed, or the titles are more accurately a reflection of the casual contempt which an increasing fraction of the population holds for the president. It’s hard to see these nearly surreal photos as a serious attempt at propaganda.
IOW, you see that you were wrong in your interpretation and instead of admitting that you just prefer to throw mud around. Typical. Since I’ve already said TWICE that I think the action being pitted is a minor offense, I don’t know what your point is.
In response, a conservative photographer should take photos of stem cells crying.
This is just semantics now. I never said it was a “serious” attempt at propaganda…she is trying to express her own political opinions through these pictures of crying babies.
Not really. In order to make your case at all, you had to go beyond the original link and bring in evidence that, yes, indeed, she had proceeded to caption a number of entirely innocuous photos with political entendres. The original link didn’t make that clear at all, and same was pointed out to you. The reason we didn’t see it: it wasn’t there.
Now, if you had made that link to begin with, you would have a case. Still only a teapots worth of tempest. And, as well, you leave us with the impression that if she had targeted the demon-bitch Pelosi, you might very well have shrugged your shoulders and gone on about your business, squandering your children’s inheritance on crackpot political bets.
None of this matters in the slightest, John. Go crack a brew and chill. There will be a real outrage soon enough, The Man Who Fell Up is a veritable cornucopia thereof.
Yay, misogyny. :rolleyes:
Anyway, on the topic, she didn’t make toddlers cry for the anti-Bush cause, so bad on the OP. She did make toddlers cry (excluding the first kid from whose “natural” crying she got the idea, and including those kids she later worked with who didn’t cry on their own), but it appears that was to represent the “worry about the future of the country”, not Bush. And, of course, she’s an ass for making kids cry when (by her own admission) some cried anyway.
So, uhm, everyone sucks! Yeah, why not.