One mum imagines...

Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2011 03:40 am
This little girl’s mother is a computer specialist from Helsinki, Finland. While her daughter is soundly asleep, she creates a completely different world … from whatever she can find around her! That’s how both of them became really famous. What a truly fabulous imagination!










Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2011 03:44 am











0 Replies
Old Goat
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2011 03:50 am
What a fantastic idea!

My friend had a similar thing done to him on his stag night.
He awoke from his deep, inebriated slumber to find that someone had created an entire Victorian graveyard around him. Not only that, they had gone to the trouble of replicating an entire neighbouring village to surround the graveyard. Amazing!
0 Replies
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2011 04:46 am
Very nice Smile
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2011 05:11 am
The kid will, no doubt, be engaged in therapy for 5 days a week for much of her adult life.

Did her mom do this with Photoshop or just the clediments of her life?
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2011 07:35 am
Those are absolutely lovely!
0 Replies
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2011 02:50 pm
Love this, have to pass it along. Thanks.
0 Replies
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2011 09:17 pm
why are you saying that?

Plus I may sound dumb, but I dont know what "clediment" means.
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2011 10:20 pm
No offense Vinsan - but it doesn't appeal to me at all. It's like the mother is using her daughter as a prop and imposing her own dreams during the baby's dreamtime.
The fact that the baby is not consciously involved or consenting or even awake when she is having all this stuff done around her, makes it something that just bothers me. It seems a little disrespectful of the baby's privacy - and like she's using the kid as a tool for her art.
How would you feel if you woke up and discovered that you'd been used as a prop in someone else's fantasy - complete with costumes?

It's just a matter of personal taste - but I don't like it.
At least when people dress dogs up in silly little costumes - the dogs gets to be awake and at least somewhat consciously participating.

I don't know what farmerman specifically meant, but for me, yeah - this mother is sort of imposing a lot of implied expectation on this little girl.
Why can't she just enjoy watching her child sleep as and who she is?
(I used to love to sit and watch my kids sleep - I always wondered what THEY were dreaming).

I would have no problem at all with it if the baby was awake. That way she'd seem like more of a participant than an unwitting and unconscious prop.
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2011 10:32 pm
For anyone who doesn't know, farmer, a very bright guy, has one mangled hand and rarely bothers, for good reason, to correct his own typing efforts. Once in a while he does.
Anyone who taunts him on his typing, line up!
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2011 10:39 pm
Re the photos, they make me uncomfortable in the extreme.
Green Witch
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2011 10:44 pm
It's Photoshop, maybe the main outfit is real, but I don't think that matters. It's a form of artistic expression, but I don't think it's high art. What I find more incredible is how lives are being documented in the last 20 years through technology. I think my parents took about 50 pictures of me throughout my childhood. I have maybe a dozen images of their youth, and just a couple of each grandparent, but my nieces have an almost daily log of their lives in the form of video, digital images, blogs, facebook. email etc. This is the first generation that will leave such a detailed history of daily life for future generations to learn from, and I'm sure this little girl will get a kick out of being such a focus of her mother's attention as she looks back on these as an adult.
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2011 10:51 pm
@Green Witch,
I was a well photographed kid - I'm sure you all don't want to know -
Stuff devolved.
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2011 11:15 pm
(This is in response to Greenwitch's post)
Usually photographs of children tell you more about the child than the photographer.
These are all about the mother as an artist - and yes, her dreams and imagination- not the little girl's smile or beautiful eyes or personality.
The little girl's personality doesn't come through at all.
That's not the point of these photographs.

I don't like them in terms of the child at all. I like some of the ideas - the snow fairy and the balloons, etc...but it's almost like the little girl is a lifeless prop.
I wouldn't want to look at myself or my child in that way.
I have no desire to look at any other child in this way.

As art - no - not my cup of tea.
As photography of a child - no - not my cup of tea.
This mom has too much time on her hands.
It sort of reminds me of the moms who dress their kids up for beauty pageants to express their own little lost princess.
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2011 12:23 am
Ok... I am trying to understand your point but I think of it the other way...

The child is sleeping. So obviously she is comfortable with the setup around her, otherwise she would have woke up and cried. Do you really think the baby would be offended as a person by these pcitures when she gets mature?

These pictures, for me, represents the answer to the very question that every mother has when she watches her baby dreaming. What's my gal dreaming of?

Is she wandering alone in a forest? Is she fishing ? or may be riding a horse.
What a beautiful thought! and represented in the such elegant artistic manner.

With such creativity, the decorations around the baby are props rather than the baby herself. Its same as a rabbit dress or a santa constume. Shouldn't they too offend babies? I am human damn it! not a rabbit!! Does a baby really think like that?

Plus how would it matter if this was done in photoshop or for real.. the ultimate picture would have conveyed the same idea ... a sleeping baby framed in the her own dreamy hypothetical decors.

I totally believe the mother must have done this for her own artistic creativity and out of her pure motherly affection by portraying her baby as a central character in every film she shot. I am sure she must have had lots of other pictures of the baby was she was awake and willingly smiling at the camera but this is just another expression of her same adoration she has for her baby.

Its just that, this being different, caught people's attention and appreciation.
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2011 12:33 am
0 Replies
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2011 01:00 am
Vinsan - I don't find it offensive. I just don't find it appealing.
I don't enjoy looking at that child looking lifeless and as a form to hang props on.

I would enjoy the photographs much more if the child was awake, engaged, smiling and pulling me in.

Not to be offensive to anyone else who does enjoy it, and I'm sure it's not the mother's intention, but my immediate reaction to it is that the child looks uninvolved and unengaged to the point of lifelessness.

Babies who are sleeping and dreaming are beautiful. But for me, seeing this sleeping baby in situations that usually call for movement, engagement and life- call up the opposite reaction.

It's obviously not everyone's reaction to it - but that's mine.
I just don't like it.
I'm not making any judgment on people who do like it.
Because apparently enough people do enjoy it that it has made this mother and baby famous.
More power to them.
I'm just saying I wouldn't want her to take any pictures of my baby sleeping like this.
It wouldn't appeal to me.
0 Replies
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2011 01:12 am
Did I say already I agree with Aidan on this? But I do find it offensive.

I can barely work up the words. Well, here, a few photos, child utilization for art.
Posing for dollars, the poor little thing.

I admit I have some similar angst (not as much) re a guy who worked weimaraners.
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2011 08:47 am
While I understand many objections to William Wegman's images (and best-selling books), I can't say I totally agree. I don't know that his dogs didn't love every minute of the sessions. I do know for a fact that those dogs weren't drugged or harmed in any way.

William Wegman's best-selling humorous dog images:

In the case of this baby, I don't even know if that this baby was real or not. But let's hypothesize the baby was real, if the baby was sleeping the entire time, perhaps it's not as bad as it seems. Though, I must admit that when a flash goes off a half-dozen or so times for each pose, that would wake most babies.

However, it's very easy for me as a photographer and graphics person to seamlessly add the babies head using a Adobe Photoshop (or any graphics program) to a baby doll's body.

Forgive me if i missed this as I didn't read the whole thread: what is missing is feedback from the artist mentioned by the OP. I wonder what Adele Enersen (artist) says about how these images were made?

Bottom line for me is that I support Aidan's opinion. It would be far more engaging if the baby was awake and participating. But we all know better than that, right?

Perhaps the money made from these images will help pay for the child's college education and - oh - maybe a few years of therapy.
Green Witch
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2011 09:07 am
You all might want to look at the artist's blog for more perspective:

0 Replies

Related Topics

  1. Forums
  2. » One mum imagines...
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/20/2024 at 03:13:14