Candy Cigarette

Would you say some of her work would be *out of bounds* if this photographer was male.

Dead Link Removed

no, why would it be ?

Funny, but I always thought that was a real heater, about to be lit.

no. nice stuff either way.

jnanian said:

no, why would it be ?

Click to expand...

Well, to quote someone I read recently, "Some people these days get offended if a leaf blows past them the wrong way".

I can certainly see those pics of (I presume her) kids offending some, but there's nothing wrong with them to me.

I just watched the documentary about her life & work- very enjoyable. See Amazon and rent it for $3.99

I can understand the uproar in the past about some folks not liking the "exploitation" and "child porn" comparisons.

However.. she really presented this topic is a very great light. Even the "body farm" shots were powerful and thought provoking.

I found this PBS video on her (never heard of her till now). Interesting how she just slaps the wet print on the wall and it sticks up there, then she stands back and cks it out, more like a painter would do. The 1st link below is the video.

The 2nd & 3rd links below have edgy work w/ kids, so careful if you're web surfing at work or something. I only glanced at the video on Sally, so who knows on that one. I'm not offended by any of Sally's work at all, at least from the small sampling here, but kiddie sexual photography is not my cup of tea. Maybe because I'm a man and my cultural baggage is getting in the way. Just a guess there. I don't care for Lewis Carroll's child photography either. Feels a little creepy. And yet I love Balthus, who was a great, great painter. Not meaning to hijack your thread w/ the Balthus referencing, just augment it. His work doesn't bother me, possibly because there's a fundamental difference in the way we view paintings vs a photograph. Balthus may have been working up the imagery in the studio a lot sans models, while Sally, since we know they're photographs, got the images from children in real time. They're recordings of actual events. The painting by Balthus of the cat man on the link below will stick in your head for a good long time. Just get the slide show feature going, and the work will knock you on your ear.

Thanks for the post. Always good to see someone doing good work that rattles a few cages out there.

http://www.pbs.org/art21/artists/sally-mann

http://www.houkgallery.com/artists/sally-mann/

http://www.wikiart.org/en/balthus

Sally Mann Nope Jock Sturges sometimes yes but just barely. Sally Mann's pictures are Portraits of her Children sometimes children run around naked. Sally Mann stated that clothing wasn't that important in her family and when she was a child she would often run around naked. Many parents used to make photographs of their children running around naked in the garden or such now some people see it as child pornography which it isn't and never was it was merely documenting childhood.

Unfortunately some real pervs do own Mann's immediate family which in some way makes her a child pornographer in some people's opinion.

digital&film said:

I just watched the documentary about her life & work- very enjoyable. See Amazon and rent it for $3.99

I can understand the uproar in the past about some folks not liking the "exploitation" and "child porn" comparisons.

However.. she really presented this topic is a very great light. Even the "body farm" shots were powerful and thought provoking.

View attachment 96956

Click to expand...

yeah
there are people who are crazy ...
locally they performed a play that is based
on sallyman's work, and working with her kids
( and maybe her husband's struggle with MD ) ...

people read into images whatever they want.
i have photographs of trees in the woods people
have told me are pornographic ... whatever.

her kids "andy capp'ing" a candy cigarette ? that's something
most kids did who grew up in the 1960s/1970s ... nothing like
a bubblegum L&M, so satisfying after a meal !

controversy sells i suppose ...

Dr Croubie said:

Well, to quote someone I read recently, "Some people these days get offended if a leaf blows past them the wrong way".

Click to expand...

+1

I would like to add that some people just like to be offended. It makes them feel important.

I'm on the fence regarding some of Sally Mann's work. There's a current similar thread regarding "exploitation" of subjects and the overall consensus in that thread is what's important is the "intent" of the photographer. Others believe what's important is how certain viewers react to the content. I see it both ways. I would never take nudes of any young children, mine or not, and I sure as heck wouldn't publish them. There are just too many oddballs out there eager to use them for their person "gratification". So... I'm fairly sure Ms. Mann's intent was pure... but the exploitation is there anyway.

RE the two images in the OP: I see nothing out-of-bounds with those other than perhaps the young lady appearing/acting a bit more mature than she should be.

No, and she's one of my favorite artists.

Interestingly - and worryingly - however, some of her photographs might fall foul of South Africa's laws relating to child pornography, since the National Prosecuting Authority recently warned that posting any naked photograph of a child or baby (however innocent the intention) could result in prosecution. It is not clear whether such prosecution would be successful and whether it would withstand constitutional scrutiny.

If you are interested in the legal details, see http://criminallaw101andbeyond.file...on-and-distribution-of-child-pornography3.pdf by James Grant, Associate Professor of Law at Wits University.