As someone who spends a large amount of time attempting to appease her child's cries, I can't imagine provoking children to cry, even for the sake of art (and I use that term loosely here).
I saw something on TV today about this photographer and when I googled her, these pictures came up from the Paul Kopeikin Gallery.
The photographer gave the children lollipops, then took them away...provoking the anquished expressions on the subject's faces. No, I don't think the kids are scarred for life by having a lollipop taken away for two seconds and then given back, (no matter how exploitative it is), but why would you do it? Who wants to see this? The only people I can think of who would want to look at these photos are pedophiles, and not just your everyday pedophile(I know there is no such thing) who is indifferent to the suffering they inflict, but the even more twisted, S & M,type pedophiles who actually get off on a child's pain.
I repeat...what the ____?
* Okay...so I've had a little time to process...and if one of art's purposes is to provoke emotion...well....this photographer has achieved that much. If the pictures depicted a child in a war zone, I'd be moved. This is certianly provocative....but still...why would you do it? What the ____?