Sadly, every Sally Mann thread goes down this well trodden path and ends up locked.
No no, dont get it locked, but instead explain why the pictures of her naked underaged children is good photographies, what is it in those that are great? I believe that anyone look at them is just because they are provocative.
Lets look from another perspective, would you be happy to have your kid photographed like this?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3265/2883219316_060c2fc58d.jpg
What is it in this photo that are great? Composition, tonal range? Not really. I believe that she got famous only because these kids are under aged, naked and peeing in fron of the camera, nothing else. If you see something else in these images please explain that.
In the video she compares her really poor results with collodion to Ansel Adams work. In the same sentence she says its just pure luck that she reaches the same level as him. Well, never meet Mr Adams, but from the videos and books I would not say that he left anything to luck, and I doubt that he would even had considered those images with art. Please make an argument why she should be considered a master photographer as Ansel Adams or anyone else at that level.
At Elysee I saw some large format pictures from the serier Motherland, where she used lenses that did not cover the film area and she also completely overused the movements of the camera.
http://www.mexicanpictures.com/headingeast/images/sally-mann-deepsouth.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_023w4hdG0iI/ReTmOscKa4I/AAAAAAAABA4/vI0Fiqworys/s400/Mann_DeepSouth-1.jpg
http://artblart.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/sally-mann-virginia-from-the-mother-land-series-1992.jpg
again, I just cant see what is great with these images, what in these images makes her a great photographer?
cheers