I'm hesitant to jump into this debate because it's gotten a little out of hand and it's too hot this week for a flame war. Nonetheless, I think it's an interesting question. First a little background. FlickrNation author Thomas Hawk has gotten into a shouting match with photographer Jill Greenberg over her recent "End Times" collection, which features portraits of crying children, supposedly as a protest against George Bush. I don't get it, but that's not really the point. Hawk has called Greenberg's methodology "abusive." Greenberg and her husband have publicly called Hawk insane. Greenberg has called Hawk's boss to try to get him fired. Now it looks like they've got the lawyers warming up in the bullpen.

Personally, I think "abuse" is a term not to be thrown around lightly, and I don't think Greenberg's photographs qualify. But I do see Hawk's point that deliberately making children cry just to take pictures of them is a little...suspect. We should be clear here that Greenberg doesn't physically harm the children; she does things like give them a lollipop or a toy and then suddenly take it away. Still, though, is inflicting emotional distress a valid method for creating art? And I use the term "art" unabashedly here; Greenberg's portraits are undeniably beautiful. "Breathtaking" and "haunting" are the two words that come most readily to mind. Complicating the issue, if it is complicated, is the fact that Greenberg's technique is pretty standard in advertising and cinematography. Toddlers don't cry on cue in the movies without a little provocation; I'm not quite sure what makes this different, but somehow it seems like it is.

So this is my question: do you ever encounter moral issues in your photography? If so, when? How and where do you draw the line: what wouldn't you do for a shot?