3 Comments

1. 

   Jeremy on August 15, 2006 3:25 pm

   What can I say. Anyone who intentionally causes emotional distress to a child simply for the purpose of capturing that distress on film should be shot on sight. (and I’m being dead serious) I could care less about the political statement she is making. The parents who agreed to the shoot should also be shot on sight. It’s disgusting to a degree I never would have thought possible in public art.
2. 

   jeremy on August 15, 2006 3:27 pm

   OK, I overreacted. Maybe not shot on sight just forbidden by the courts from ever coming into contact with a child again. And the parents need a good stern talking to.
3. 

   walljm on August 15, 2006 3:38 pm

   wow, thats still pretty harsh.

   Personally, i’m not sure what i think about it.