I’m depressed that the photographer in question was apparently sincere in her stated intent, because her project otherwise has all the earmarks of a brilliantly satirical lampoon of the Administration and its supporters.
“Dear God! This so-called ‘artist’ took candy from babies, making them cry for seconds-- *or perhaps even minutes!-- * just to take a cheap shot at Bush! Who in their right mind would possibly defend such a person? What kind of monster intentionally condemns innocents to suffer, solely to promote a vacuous, transparently hamfisted political agenda-- hey, wait a minute…”
Alas, it appears that the artist didn’t take the opportunity to defend her work in a plausible manner. “I was certain that the children would be overwhelmed with gratitude at being liberated from their candy. No one could have predicted their reaction.”
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
I guess you meant, my excuse for backing up John?
[/quote]
No, for implying that it was for the *purpose * of “the protest angle”, as you called it. You did word that vaguely enough to allow the facts to wriggle through, though, granted.
Now what should we be outraged about? Wars of aggression, torture, concentration camps, arrogation of dictatorial powers (er, “the unitary Presidency”, right, Bricker?), the crumbling economy, acceleration of global climate change, the rest of the Bush agenda? Or taking pictures of crying kids, who apparently aren’t even getting hummers?
[QUOTE=Terrifel]
I’m depressed that the photographer in question was apparently sincere in her stated intent, because her project otherwise has all the earmarks of a brilliantly satirical lampoon of the Administration and its supporters.
[snip]
Taking candy from babies… Jesus.
[/QUOTE]
Hee-hee! Brilliant. Thanks for the giggle.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
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.
[/QUOTE]
I think “poisoning the well” might be the phrase you’re looking for. He’s very adept at it, especially lately.
[QUOTE=Bill Door]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly.
And, by the way, how do you think they get toddlers to cry in the movies? Do you really think they just sit around on the set al day and wait for spontaneous tears? Very similar—i.e., harmless but somewhat upsetting—tactics are used.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Or taking pictures of crying kids, who apparently aren’t even getting hummers?
[/QUOTE]
Well, now, that *would * be child abuse. :eek:
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
No, for implying that it was for the *purpose * of “the protest angle”, as you called it. You did word that vaguely enough to allow the facts to wriggle through, though, granted.
[/QUOTE]
This is the most bizarre conversation. She clearly is discussing an art project, which involves crying babies, paired with captions that protest President Bush. Doesn’t she say something along the lines of the first baby crying because he’s upset that Bush was reelected? I sincerely can’t imagine that this artist would deny that the political protest was the point of the project. And I have no personal problem with the point of the project. Political protests are great. I just think making babies cry is a really mean thing to do, and the fact that she thinks it is an OK thing to do for whatever reason, makes me think that she really is a very selfish person. So, pit her for that, pit her for whatever…I don’t care. I just don’t think it makes sense to pretend that it’s not a political statement she is making.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
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.
[/quote]
Oh, bullshit. It was clear as day in the article unless you were predisposed to think otherwise. The interviewer asked her how she got the idea for the series and she pointed out that the first photo made her think of Bush, and off she went to make more. You’re insinuation that I just got lucky in my interpretation is laughable.
What makes you think I don’t have one already cracked?
Of course there will be more outrageous stuff to be pitted in the future. Since I already told you that, you don’t need to tell me-- unless you’re just one of those guys who always has to have the last word.
And, by the way, how do you think they get toddlers to cry in the movies? Do you really think they just sit around on the set al day and wait for spontaneous tears? Very similar—i.e., harmless but somewhat upsetting—tactics are used.
[/QUOTE]
That is an excellent point, if true, and I have no reason to suspect it isn’t.
Apparently she does get a pass here. No harm done, eh?
In my view, what she’s done is cruel. It’s not monstrous, it’s not the epitome of evil, but it is cruel. I don’t see any value in comparing it to starting a war, holding prisoners in Gitmo, abusing them, or any of the other sins attributed to Bush. I am criticizing her conduct here. She wasn’t as cruel as Jeffrey Dahmer, either; I see no reason to give her a complete pass just because Dahmer did worse thibgs than she did.
Now, it may be that getting kids to cry on movie sets use similar tactics. I don’t know – if they do, I think that’s just as cruel.
Apparently she does get a pass here. No harm done, eh?
[/QUOTE]
I haven’t seen that anyone has said that her making babies cry in order to protest Bush was a good thing to do. Maybe I missed it in all of the debate as to whether or not she was making a political statement.
Could you be so kind as to point out who said that making babies cry to protest Bush was a good thing?
[QUOTE=Harborwolf]
I haven’t seen that anyone has said that her making babies cry in order to protest Bush was a good thing to do. Maybe I missed it in all of the debate as to whether or not she was making a political statement.
Could you be so kind as to point out who said that making babies cry to protest Bush was a good thing?
[/QUOTE]
By “a pass” I meant the numerous people who feel it was not a particularly bad thing; that it was no big deal.
Apparently she does get a pass here. No harm done, eh?
In my view, what she’s done is cruel. It’s not monstrous, it’s not the epitome of evil, but it is cruel. I don’t see any value in comparing it to starting a war, holding prisoners in Gitmo, abusing them, or any of the other sins attributed to Bush. I am criticizing her conduct here. She wasn’t as cruel as Jeffrey Dahmer, either; I see no reason to give her a complete pass just because Dahmer did worse thibgs than she did.
Now, it may be that getting kids to cry on movie sets use similar tactics. I don’t know – if they do, I think that’s just as cruel.
[/QUOTE]
I agree that making children cry just to get their photograph is cruel. I also think the exhibit she created was horrible, overdone, ugly and pretentious. She used the pictures she took to create her exhibit “End Times” with captions that not just mocked Bush, but also fundamentalist Christians and believers in the Rapture. Personally I think it’s stupid and mean.
I also think the OP overstated the Anti-Bush part of the problem, as well as containing the typical abused-conservative whining about this board.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
By “a pass” I meant the numerous people who feel it was not a particularly bad thing; that it was no big deal.
Still need the cites for that?
[/QUOTE]
Seeing as how I can only find one post the entire thread that suggests it’s “no big deal” (HowieReynolds’s), yes, you do need to provide cites.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
By “a pass” I meant the numerous people who feel it was not a particularly bad thing; that it was no big deal.
Still need the cites for that?
[/QUOTE]
Right. Understood that bit. Literate and all. I find it helps with the whole message board thing.
What I still haven’t seen are members of the Anti-bush crowd giving the artist a pass on the whole making babies cry thing because of her political statement. HowieReynolds didn’t seem bothered because babies cry all the time anyways and Mhendo didn’t seem to upset because it’s probably how they make babies cry for movies. Both seem like perfectly understandable reasons to me and neither reason seems political in nature.
If you have the time and the inclination, could you share with me whose points you think fit with your prediction in your OP? I am having a hard time finding them.
