Attending two prestigious art schools so as to take daily, ongoing, nude photos of her children in a documentary style? It wants to be "avant-garde" and "earthy" but to me it comes across as pretentious hype. In the current social climate of the USA, I find it hard to believe that she was so naive as to think her images would not evoke the very kinds of reactions we see here in the comments section.

Secondly, considering that there are 6 billion people on the planet, there are no shortage of adults who have seen/wiped/washed enough naked bairn bottoms and genitalia to last a lifetime. The appeal is limited; each parent has the changes in their children's bodies etched upon their minds, from the moment that a boy's voice first changes to the moment when a girl's breasts first begin to develop. An ongoing record of such, in simplistic black and white compositions, is more on par with an anatomical study than a body of breakthrough art.

I honestly CAN see the value in this to a parent (providing, of course, that the interest is not prurient) as a record of their child's growth and development. But when she insists on publicly displaying her work, despite the considerations I've outlined, this suggests to me that she's counting on the fact that it will rouse controversy. Being seen as a "controversial artist," in fact, is seen as a gold star to paste in one's portfolio - even if the controversy is more sensational and less cerebral in nature.

This all calls to mind the role of Fisher Stevens in the 80s flick "The Boss' Wife," playing the part of a lusty Latino artist-photographer, Carlos Delgado. This wiry, slightly unctuous man's art is to get up in people's faces with vile insults, pissing them off and taking snaps of their enraged expressions before breaking and running, lest he suffer injury in his pursuit of "artistic truth."

I think that's what's going on here. I'll even presume to give it a name: "In Your Face Art." The crying children project mentioned in the article is of the same sort; having the appearance of being "natural," or "real," or "earthy," but really being just contrived and pretentious, with the controversial reaction of the "unwashed masses" being a calculated (or at least hoped-for) element on the part of the artist.

I heard about this from another group of parents who were very upset. They were right. This is child porn for all the Pedifiles out there. Thanks for giving them ideas so that they can prey on everyone elses children. She is completely wrong, but the Liberal world lets "stuff" like this get by because of our stupid "political correctness". I am very dissappointed when this can be published so willingly but good morale issues are not allowed. That is my opinion. Thanks for taking time to read it.

Okay the tub thing is creepy and i would call that one to question. The baby ones I don't see an issue with. The rest i just dont know how its art they look like amateur snapshots so i can go get a crap camera snap off pictures and call it art. I dont see the artistic value realy in any of the slide show images except maybe the jaw breaker that was kinda cool but it almost is like looking at someones vacation photos. eh... I think if it wasn't for the controversy this lady wouldn't have anything.

I am a photographer and although I believe in photography as art and the way things are seen I do believe taking pictures of children in the nude is child porn. You give all photographers a bad name with your ideas and work....

All the furore over this is just a bunch of moralistic nonsense. Nude images of children have been in art for thousands of years and it's only since the big paedophile witch-hunt started recently that anyone's kicked up a fuss over it.

If only all the people who spend their days campaigning against harmless pictures like this could spend that time trying to correct real problems; maybe we'd have solved world hunger by now.