Oh My God

I believe in art.

When JP was alive, the two of us saw our lives as art, a classic example of what NOT to do. We were two creative people, both with subversive streaks. He loved my poetry--the angrier and more confrontational, the better; I loved his music, especially the defiant, transgressive feedback and noise. The writers and artists we admired most were the ones who crossed the lines: Nan Goldin, William Burroughs, Robert Mapplethorpe, and their ilk.

So I am not an uptight, anti-free-expression sort of person. There is very little I will not tolerate for the sake of art, very little in the way of artistic expression that I cannot accept. I was okay with the guy who painted Harold Washington in negligee, okay with the guy who had people walking on the flag, okay with the crucifix-in-urine exhibit. None of them were really great, I thought, but I supported the artists' right to create those things, even if I thought they were controversy for the sake of controversy, and as such, kinda stupid. I didn't like them, but I didn't find them objectionable either.

But I have finally found something that crosses my line.

Background: I came across this because I was trying to fix someone's Windows Media Player here at work. When he played a clip, it came out in pink and green and all sorts of weird colors. So I went back to my desk and typed "windows media distorted image" into my handy-dandy Googlebar.

A few items down the list was a link to a blog. I clicked to read the article because from the little blurb in the Google listing, it seemed to me like some Puritannical right-winger was getting his undies in a bundle about somebody else's artistic expressions again, and I was curious to see what he was foaming at the mouth about.

I followed the link on Mr. Owen's blog, which took me to another blog and another article which told me more about what Mr. Owen was talking about. By this time I'd concluded that neither Mr. Owen nor Mr. Hawk are Puritannical or foaming at the mouth; I can't speak for their politics because frankly, politics don't matter in this situation, though I'm sure there are those who will say they matter a great deal. And from Mr. Hawk's blog post, I found a link to the topic of all this controversy.

Click this link, if you wish. It is "safe for work" in the traditional sense, but the subject matter may disturb you and those around you. The link connects to the work of Jill Greenberg, a photographer; this exhibit, called "End Times", is being featured at a New York gallery.

"End Times" consists of head-and-shoulders photos of children--maybe three or four years old at the most--expressing extreme sadness, anger, distress, and frustration. Each photo is titled with a phrase evoking images of the Bush administration ("Four More Years") or fundamentalist theology ("Tribulation", "Intelligent Design"). To create these photos, Ms. Greenberg provoked the children into by giving each child a lollipop, then taking it away and photographing the resulting outburst.

Both Mr. Hawk and Mr. Owen make much more well-reasoned points about the photos than I could make; my reaction is purely emotional, and so I make no claim to being unbiased in regards to the theory, the artistic value, or the means of obtaining these photos.

My reaction comes straight from the gut: These photos sicken me. These are little children, and they are obviously in pain--no matter how fleeting, no matter how minor. For an adult to intentionally inflict any emotional trauma on a small child, for any reason other than to ensure their continued safety, is cruel and unnecessary. When I see these pictures I want to comfort those children, because their pain has been inflicted upon them in the service of something they don't understand. These babies--for that's what they are--don't understand "art". They don't understand "protest". They don't know or care who George Bush is or what he's done; they only know that someone took something away from them and they want it back. And yes, it's a minor pain, and yes, they will forget it; that's not the point. The point is that someone who should know better used these children--one of whom was her own daughter, according to Mr. Hawk's post--to make a point. No matter how insignificant the pain, no matter how quickly the memory fades, that's still exploitation. These are babies, and they're hurting, and Jill Greenberg made them hurt on purpose as a way to express her own opinion, and to me that's wrong.

Those of you who have read me for a while know: I am a rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth left-wing liberal pinko. I make no apologies for this. But I am sickened that an opinion which I happen to share has been expressed this way. Far from speaking for me and strengthening my dislike of the current administration, these pictures just make me ashamed to share an opinion--ANY opinion--with the "artist". If I was just making up my mind about Bush, I'd seriously have to consider whether I wanted to hold an opinion that would be shared by people who would express themselves this way; in fact, seeing these pictures would be more likely to drive me to the OTHER side. Just as I'm ashamed of animal-rights advocates who destroy scientific equipment to express their views; just as I'm sure the majority of pro-lifers are ashamed of clinic bombers; when I see something like this I'm almost ashamed to loathe Bush as much as I do. Fortunately, he's so loathe-able that even this travesty against art can't shake my antipathy for him.

But I'm sure these pictures will serve as further fuel for the neocon's summary dismissal of any opinions from the left--"Look at this big-city lib'rul nutcase feminazi, torturing babies for pictures! but yet they'll tell us WE'RE wrong for taking those pictures at Abu Ghraib!" These pictures will serve as convenient shorthand for everything that average people fear about artists.

And they'll also feature prominently in my nightmares, I expect, for at least a day or two.