American photographer Jill Greenberg hit headlines in 2006 when she exhibited her 'End Times' show.
The show contained a series of manipulated photographs of young children angry and crying. Some were utterly shocked at this work, deeming it pornographic and abusive, even going so far as to suggest she be arrested.

From the public reviews I have read on the show, there is a general feeling of disgust towards the artworks, and the artist. In my opinion, these photographs are far more gentle than many artworks. 'The Rape of The Sabine Women' by Nicolas Poussin for example, depicts the abduction of Sabine women by the Romans. Although this painting was done in 1634, one could argue that because it depicts such a violent scene, (violence towards women at that), Nicolas Poussin should be condemned as an artist and all his works destroyed! Botticellis 'Primavera' should be considered pornographic also as it contains an image of a naked child (Cupid).

This is certainly not the first time in history where artworks have been deemed unsuitable for public viewing, but in my opinion people are only angry about this work because they feel if they are not, they are encouraging abusive behaviour. With everyone so worried about being politically correct, they seem to have missed the point. These photographs are of children doing what everyone does, crying! While some suggest her methods of getting the children upset are questionable(taking lollipops away from them), does it really mean she is abusing them? If so, then every single parent in the world is abusive if they take something away from their child. I feel as though people try to find hidden meanings in everything, and when they cant, they just conjure something up. There is a difference between nude art and pornography, but many people do not know which is which.