***

if a photographer wants to present poverty, s/he has got to get just the right amount of grit in the image to give the drama plausibly and with compassion; i feel you have done so here.. the child is dirty and hungry and believable because you've presented her in a true, but respectful way (with just the right grit) ;-} dp

looking as if on a break from Les Misérables the pretty young actress delivers her part as directed. Obvious planning and effort went into her make-up, accessories, and special effects to create the illusion, but alas the artifice is distasteful and the effort falls flat into a contrived piece of fiction, as if a caricature of poverty, a make believe picture in a playground where a made up little little girl gets to play poor.

i agree, my dear Carlos, that the child's pout is somewhat like acting; however, for me, the post-processing is quite effectively a portrayal of hygiene and hunger issues. it's art, not a real document of poverty, and i think it quite well presents a palatable definition of poverty for children to understand, without being too disturbing. I can imagine a bourgeois little girl understanding this less fortunate child's plight without becoming too frightened by her. "art is a lie that tells us the truth" (Picasso).

dear countess, wtf….. ;-)))… yes, the pout as the rest of the picture is an absolute act, no ifs or somewhats about it. The palatable definition of poverty you bring up and your desire to sweeten the horror of the condition, to make the ugly as it were, easy on all the sensitive viewers out there, seems odd and puzzling to consider as I know you know photographing legitimate poverty is never pretty, but hard and challenging in all sorts of ways, as we know from our own efforts, and the work of artists who walked the same beat before has shown us, the Dorothea Lange’s and many others who over time laid out strong aesthetic standards of documentary art --- real markers to help us blind see and feel what is there.

i wish for your imaginary little girl (and I think I know the child, even if children are not the main audience here) to be shielded from faux sentiment by educating her imagination far and away from smug bourgeois privilege, and hopefully raise her understanding of things when she looks at a picture, and learns, that a legitimate image of poverty makes her angry at the rot of the world, and I expect her to be disturbed by what she sees. I want her to understand an image of poverty can never cute, and that child poverty is particularly fucking obscene.  And last I wish for her to recognize the made-up pathos of the shot above for what it is; clownish, inauthentic, make believe.

i'm a very plain straightforward photographer, Carlos. my comment to Andrey was a way of expressing that this picture succeeded at drawing me into the girl's intolerable plight, and in the end, regardless of the artist's aesthetic, all that matters is that we be drawn in. perhaps the anger and terror that one feels when being confronted with a straightforward real living photo of this particular kind of child abuse overwhelms the tenderness that one might feel towards such a document. i tried to explain to Andrey that this photo moved my tender feelings for a child dirty and hungry. for me, the picture is strong in that it draws me tenderly into the her life without driving me mad, which i agree with you is also necessary for documenting and drawing us into the wrenching reality of a hungry child. "Palatable" is a controversial word in this scenario, and i do think it important that you responded the way you did to any hint of exploitation in the picture. I have always respected the uncompromising truth and sensitivity that you share with us through your essential body of work. Let's look at one of Dorothea Lange's real live documents; i hope you don't mind Andrey, because i believe in your picture. My dear Carlos i believe in you.