Born to Be Bad
Jonathan Wu | Mar 19, 2010 | Comments 15
Words that come to mind when one thinks about babies are usually pure, innocent, and gentle. But Danish-Norwegian artist, Nina Maria Kleivan, chose to challenge such associations by creating a photo essay in which contains portraits of her child up dressed up as historical evil doers such as Hitler.
Ms. Kleivan’s exhibit, Potency, which has been shown in Denmark, Sweden, Germany and Italy, includes photos of her child dressed up as Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Mai Zedong, Idi Amin, Agusto Pinochet, and Slobodan Milosevic. The final photo of the series, Faustina, who was depicted as a male figure throughout, was naked, revealing her gender and according to Ms. Kleivan, her innate innocence.
According to the artist, “We are all born as a blank slate, who knows who we will become… I wanted people to think about where tremendous evil comes from.”
“Even though comical, you’re not supposed to only laugh at these pictures; you need to contemplate them, ponder where this evil comes from.”
I initially found the images of Ms. Kleivan’s photo series bizarre rather than comical. Though I do see her good intentions of raising interesting questions through this project, the idea of using a child to explore the ideas of evil bothers me a bit.
What are your thoughts on this art series? Do you think Ms. Kleivan was able to successfully convey her statement? What are your feelings towards Ms. Kleivan’s use of her child?
You can check out Ms. Kleivan’s photo series here.
Filed Under: 1 Person
About the Author:
This is troublesome. I am all for art and would not dare raise the censorship flag…but, I will raise the judgment flag on this on. The “artist” claims an innocent muse for this project (boredom). But based on the facts provided, it is more likely ppd played a role as well as anger at her child for the four-month wheelchair stay. How else can you explain a mother dressing her four-month old infant up as some of the most reviled characters in history? She blames the child and this was punishment for the child. I feel very very sorry for this baby and hope that mere outfits and a final nude portrait exposing the genetalia of the infant is enough for the “mother” to get over her anger and be kind to her daughter henceforth.
I completely agree with Thomas. You make a convincing argument my friend and I do no dispute it.
I think you meant you “do not” dispute it. Haha. At any rate, Thomas is right. This “artist” loathes her baby for the four-month wheelchair stay. Case closed.
I think this work it is provocative and disturbing which is what good art sometimes does. It reminds me of Jill Greenberg’s photographs.
http://blogs.nyu.edu/blogs/em25/theportrait/2009/04/cry_babies.html
She received a lot of the same “what about the children” criticism. So did Sally Mann.
Children are a powerful symbol often used in art to ponder the future both good and bad. It’s nothing new really.
We all start out as babies. Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of cuteness?
Helga,
I do concede that the “art” is provocative. I also agree that children can be a powerful symbol in art. I know it may sound silly but understand my criticism is about the use of her own daughter. I would be far less judgmental if the artist had dressed up a variety of children (unrelated to her) in this way. Likely, some parents would have been outaged at the mere request but she could have found willing parties. This would have separated her from the potential of this “art” being seen as vindictive against her own daughter for the injuries sustained in child birth. The link is just to obvious to deny it and that is why I cannot support the “art” as art. I will not celebrate a parent exploiting their child. Again, it would be different if this were a variety of kids – showing a more comprehensive picture of the evil in all of us.
Sorry Helgu, once again, I agree with Thomas.
There is nothing provactive about hating your own baby.
I don’t get the logic here. If you think the imagery is exploitative then it’s exploitative regardless of whose baby is depicted. Also, we don’t know this woman’s medical history. Your leap that she is blaming the baby for an illness that may or may not have existed before the baby is a big one.
Sally Mann also photographed her own children and many people called it child porn because the kids were nude. And some of her art was about their sexuality. Ultimately, her kids (now adults) are proud of her and the work (one of them is also a photographer) and she is in many major collections including the Met. As for the child’s genitalia being exposed. Puhleez. I have seen parents post similar images on Flicker.
Hulga, where are you coming from? It is totally exploitative of the baby. And I don’t think I am along in agreeing that she took her pain from childbirth out on this innocent baby. And as far as Mann is concerned, really? That is your argument. It wasn’t okay when Mann did it and it certainly is not okay when this freak show does it.
It would not be as exploitative if it was a larger cross section of babies and actually more compelling as a picture of the evil in ALL of us. It is problematic that it is her child because of the facts involved in that specific child’s birth.
If you think that Sally Mann is exploiting her children than you don’t know that much about art. Sally Mann is in the Whitney Museum, The Corcoron, The Met, among many many others. She is considered one of the artists at the pinnacle of American art by critics, curators and historians.
I still don’t understand how this is exploitative for the child. How is it different than a Halloween costume? I had a friend who dressed her kid up as Chucky for Halloween. Everyone thought it was funny. It’s not like people hate the child because it’s dressed like Hilter.
Besides, the whole idea of a dictator is an archaic idea. To younger generations the dictator aspect doesn’t carry the same punch it did 30 years ago. The only real dictators left in the modern world are a couple of old, eccentric clowns.
Its good news for art is that it obviously doesn’t take that much to get people riled up. Y’all need to lighten up.
I don`t see any difference of the photos between her and Anne Geddes.
In other words: brilliant artwork.
Hulga, I think you bring up a good point about Halloween costumes. Along those lines, I was watching Chelsea Lately the other night and they were discussing this story. One of her panelists said, it’s not as if Hitler dressed like that when he was a baby. And he has a point. What we’re seeing here is an artistic representation of the “nature vs. nurture” conflict. Are villains “born bad?”
Cynthia, Rob, and Hulga all miss the boat on this one…completely. You guys have missed the point of the objection. The objection is not about the photos artistic merit. Instead, the rebuke (from almost everyone on this comment section) is a judgment against the “artist” as a mother. Are we entitled to make this judgment? Well, yes, because she published the “art” thereby putting her activities as a mother in the public view. Sure, it’s art. Fine. But she did a bad thing here as a mother. There is nothing left to say.
Hey, there are plenty of moms who have a place in line before this woman – Octomom, anyone?