I read this article, about how an artist wants to explore the the genesis of evil and did so by dressing her baby girl up as various dictators, and felt distinctly uncomfortable.
What do you think? (And why, because I’m still trying to figure out why I’m so uncomfortable.)
by 
Wow. Yes. My immediate reaction was anger. You know, the WHAT! They’re making Babies the evil ones!? reaction. Then I actually read the article. And well, her point that people who do bad things could be anyone. It’s the choices we make. Still, the uncomfortable factor for me was the fact that babies don’t actually DO this stuff. But the point I guess, is some babies grow up and then DO this stuff. Scary. Sad.
I was glad to see them use Communists as examples of evil.
I wish they had included Castro and Chavez and other modern-day socialism/evil fellows
Artists are supposed to make you feel uncomfortable. Getting an emotional reaction is their job.
A form of child abuse masquerading as art, perhaps? Yes, some kids grow up bad and a theory already exists on how abortion reduces criminality.
Bottom line: Let’s get rid of those labour intensive, life style cramping, expensive, inconsiderate creatures, and enjoy life to the bitter end!
(Disclaimer: I did not read the article beyond the first few lines. Pictures sufficed.)
While the ‘genesis of evil’ is described best by the doctrine of original sin, these photos seem more or less just shock value. I’m not particularly uncomfortable with babies dressed as nazis (for a photo shoot length of time), as the propaganda geared towards children during the second world war was far more sinister. Seeing toddlers give nazi salutes, now THAT’S discomforting. Seeing six year old girls with lipstick and bikinis on saying they look fat and talking about sex, now THAT’S discomforting. The ‘evilness’ lies not with these individuals (who were not exactly just products of their choices, but also their social environments) but with the capacity for ‘evilness’ to masquerade as social norm. If that’s the artists point, that ‘evil’ comes in an innocent loveable package, then I can appreciate that (even if she is exploiting her baby). If it’s just ‘be shocked because I gave my baby a Hitler moustache’, then I’m not impressed.
I think my uncomfortableness around it is the idea that the pictures stay around forever (and public, forever). If she ever became famous, the pictures would be dragged out again and again. The last photo, the article said, showed her naked. So there’s a naked photo of her out. Do her junior high classmates all need to be able to see her naked baby pictures? Most naked baby pictures in books don’t have the child’s name attached to it.
Then there’s just the idea of this child being used. Her body as an art project. In a lot of ways it dismisses her personhood. She’s not a person, she’s a prop.