Assumably the parents of these children are aware of the images being created and are required to sign some sort of waiver. But I have to wonder how much is photoshoped in at a later point and how much the children are exposed to at the time of the shoot. This also reminds me of instances such is often seen in the commercial world and popular television programmes such as the CSI series when children are used to portray 'victims' how do you teach a child that acting like your mummy died is not the same as it actually occuring?
more images posted on his blog HERE
Is this the inspiration for your family portraits??
ReplyDeleteEDIT: I just read more detail about some of Josh's work and have founf out that the majority of his photos are not shopped together, but all in real time. So each scene is created to the best of his ability as it is presented in the final image. So that teeny little baby really is being cuddled by the ugly dead lady.
ReplyDeleteMost of Joshua's 'models' are either his own children or friends children who are seemingly quite keen to contribute to this photo art.
Does nothing for me. Looks like being controversial for the sake of it. Is this what photographers need to do to stand out these days?
ReplyDeleteI agree.... this is just stretching boundies because you can and call it Fine Art. However if he is trying to show kids and maybe what goes on in there minds and there dreams there thoughts.... I could maybe except some of the images.
ReplyDeleteOr is he showing where we start and finish in life.
I think it is just CREEPY and not necessary.
I'm not exactly sure why but a few of the images seem to remind me of the movie Donnie Darko (3rd and last). But they do what their designed to do. Shock and horror. Even though I think in a few of his photos he's taken it a bit too far (ie. the bathroom scene).
ReplyDeleteYou have to admit though their composure is stunning. I really like the words no and daddy written with the blocks in the third pic (Did anyone else notice this? lol).
Lots of photographers use their own children, or friends children in controversial works. Check out Sally Mann's black and white photographs of her children. Her aim was to "portray the universal qualities of dignity, individuality and intimacy". However when the book of this collection of images was released in 1992 was met with accusations of child pornography in Mann's native America and abroad. Some of the images can be found here: http://www.kochgallery.com/artists/contemporary/Mann/index.html
ReplyDeleteplus Wiki has a good article about her: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Mann
Similarly, this shot by Melbourne photographer Polixeni Papapetrou of her daughter Olympia caused outrage when it was put on the cover of Art Monthly magazine: http://polixenipapapetrou.net/work.php?cat=Dreamchild_2003&img=4
Justified? or an over-reaction? What do you think?
A macabre Anne Geddes is long overdue!
ReplyDeleteIf no child was harmed in the making of these images — if they weren't bitten or mauled — and if they happily participated, then I can't see anything wrong with them at all. Though I don't think I'd hang them on my wall.
Its a question to me weather he is trying to make a point in his images or weather he is trying to attract attention.
ReplyDeleteIf he is making a point that this is what children think about at these ages, i think its a little over the top and making it look like saw 6 rather than monsters inc. (IMAGE 1) I dont think babys this old are able to imagine being hugged by a dead spider ridden mother.
But on the image side, i think there good photos. The warm feel adds a feel of excitment which i think he is trying to get with his ponit.
I agree Shaun, I'd like to see an artist's statement for this one. It's certainly good for what it is, but what's the point exactly?
ReplyDeleteHmmm... What's the difference between 'making a point' and 'attracting attention'? Is the former honest, the latter shallow and insincere?
ReplyDeleteAnd if that teeny eeny 'lil baby can't conceive that it's being 'cuddled' by a mockup of a dead woman riddled with spiders, does that somehow invalidate the image? Should all photographers be limited to composing their images only in ways that their subjects can conceive?
I get that the baby wouldnt be able to comprehend what is happening at that point.. but only a matter of years later, if they were to see the image again - i have no doubt it would cause considerable concern and horror to that now toddler.
ReplyDeleteOkay, so let's ban Halloween, The Wizard of Oz and that really scary guy called God.
ReplyDeleteOh and someone better talk to those Mexicans about their 'Night of the Dead', when entire families picnic at midnight around the graves of their deceased loved ones.
ReplyDeleteThough I agree these images are not quite suitable for toddlers to view. I think they would first need to be able to grasp that they are fantasy images — children's book illustrations probably do this better than photographs.
ReplyDeleteYes Casey, I agree, but he didnt use a toddler in his more horrific images. He used a baby. I think babys wouldnt be able to comprehend that sort of stuff at that age. If the photographer had of used a good aged toddler in his more horrific images, i would accept the point he is trying to make because i think a toddler would be able to imagine that sort of stuff.
ReplyDeleteIn his images, the older the child looks, the less scaryier it gets.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletejh
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete