Sally Mann Photographs Removed from Texas Museum Exhibition after Outcry

I won't label her work with any offensive labels, which just perpetuates the misunderstandings.

I won't call it porn, because it isn't. But it creeps me the hell out. I am uncomfortable looking at such work, regardless of who commissioned such photos, a factor which may affect an appropriateness factor.

That reflects on (parochial?) me. Call that one male opinion in a spectrum of opinions.

My wife and I owned an art gallery and my wife was creeped out by this work in particular also. Credentials or membership in an industry don't make one or two opinions any more valid.

Regardless of how conservative a community is, where controversy arises, calling something what it isn't, is one issue. Is controversy part of the success? I don't know.

It's no surprise exhibiting images that cause some people discomfort then leads to controversy. You can't call it something it isn't. If you don't like it, don't look at it. But not liking it doesn't mean you're ignorant, backward, too SOMEthing. Yelling about it and wanting it removed, maybe that crosses someone else's boundaries.

But embracing the controversial subject to support it being artistic or being freedom of expression is OK, as long as one wants the controversy that comes with it.

Artists who use pentagrams for their 'other' significance always have to defend, and resent the controversy, when people ask them about what they perceive as bad, that the artist says they do not embrace or MEAN.

It's like an 'if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen' cliche.

I personally do not shoot nudes, not my family, or anyone else's. I'm just not comfortable with it. Someone else is, and does so. That's fine. I am almost as uncomfortable with some other innocent genres.

If people show up with torches & pitchforks, what is the cost of winning a local battle? That is the part I do not understand, without calling someone or their work, inaccurate names. I still do not understand. That should be OK as well. I am not judging. Just creeped the hell out & trying to look the other way. Is that not also a valid response to artwork?

I almost forgot. In some art, people see the creation of discomfort as serving a valid purpose, to make people think, or whatever. I don't think that is at all the purpose of Sally Mann's work. I honestly think she sees it as beautiful, and so do her clients. It's not her fault certain venues are assailed by...whoever the offended people are.

Maybe it's another cliche, selling steaks to vegans. If you bring steaks to a vegan community, someone is going to be upset. Who's wrong? The observed or the observer?

Murrayatuptown said:

creeped the hell out & trying to look the other way. Is that not also a valid response to artwork?

Click to expand...

Yes. That's a completely appropriate response to artwork. Art is not limited to the beautiful. Nor is it limited to the acceptable. "Art" is more like "wood" than it's like "tree" or "table".

Alan Edward Klein said:

What you're describing could be considered by some a violation of Texas law

Click to expand...

Not in her photos. The direction would be "stand there, look up, hold still".

Alan Edward Klein said:

What you're describing could be considered by some a violation of Texas law.

. Also note that this offense does not require any physical contact with the child. This law criminalizes the employment, authorization, or inducement of a child to engage in a sexual performance, aiming to protect minors from sexual exploitation.

Click to expand...

In no way do any of Sally Mann’s photographs fit the description of “a sexual performance “!! The description you’ve quoted still doesn’t apply in this case. Let it go, Alan. There was no “sexual exploitation” in the making of those photo!

Murrayatuptown said:

It's no surprise exhibiting images that cause some people discomfort then leads to controversy. You can't call it something it isn't. If you don't like it, don't look at it. But not liking it doesn't mean you're ignorant, backward, too SOMEthing. Yelling about it and wanting it removed, maybe that crosses someone else's boundaries.

Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly support every individuals freedom to express their feelings and interpretations of any artwork they encounter. No one should feel compelled to justify their emotions or perspectives when viewing an image.

But the question we are grappling with in this instance is 1) does the work confiscated meet the legal requirements for “child pornography” and 2) was it reasonable (and legal) for a group of objectors to force the removal of those works from the museum?

Crossing personal boundaries isn’t what is being questioned here. If the work creeps you out, that’s fine - you’re entitled to respond that way, absolutely. But does that response also entitle a person to respond by prompting a raid by law enforcement to have the work removed from public view? My response is: absolutely not.

How would you compare Mann's work to that of Robert Mapplethorpe? Are both equally protected by free speech and/or artistic license? Is one more reprehensible than the other, considering that only Mann's pictures involve children?

Murrayatuptown said:

It's no surprise exhibiting images that cause some people discomfort then leads to controversy. You can't call it something it isn't. If you don't like it, don't look at it. But not liking it doesn't mean you're ignorant, backward, too SOMEthing. Yelling about it and wanting it removed, maybe that crosses someone else's boundaries.

Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly support every individuals freedom to express their feelings and interpretations of any artwork they encounter. No one should feel compelled to justify their emotions or perspectives when viewing an image.

But the question we are grappling with in this instance is 1) does the work confiscated meet the legal requirements for “child pornography” and 2) was it reasonable (and legal) for a group of objectors to force the removal of those works from the museum?

Crossing personal boundaries isn’t what is being questioned here. If the work creeps you out, that’s fine - you’re entitled to respond that way, absolutely. But does that response also entitle a person to respond in outrage and prompt a raid by law enforcement to have the work removed from public view? My response is: absolutely not.

Arthurwg said:

How would you compare Mann's work to that of Robert Mapplethorpe? Are both equally protected by free speech and/or artistic license? Is one more reprehensible than the other, considering that only Mann's pictures involve children?

Click to expand...

Why compare the two? "Free speech" protects art up to the point where it clearly violates the law.

I don't find Mann's work - any of it - objectionable or offensive. But I am not a fan of most of Mapplethorpe's work - I find it vulgar, but not exactly offensive. But it doesn't matter what I think of it - it's a case of legality: There was a 1990 obscenity trial in Cincinnati to make that exact determination. The trial specifically focused on seven photographs from the exhibit, which critics claimed violated community obscenity standards. Ultimately, the Contemporary Arts Center and its director, Dennis Barrie, who hosted the exhibition, were acquitted of obscenity charges. The jury determined that the photographs had significant artistic value and were protected under the First Amendment, even though they were provocative. While none of Mapplethorpe’s works were found to violate the law in that trial, the case remains a landmark in discussions about art, censorship, and freedom of expression in the United States.

You also ask: "Is one more reprehensible than the other, considering that only Mann's pictures involve children?" Your choice of wording is interesting. Why choose the word "reprehensible"? (Deserving censure and condemnation)
Surely that is a judgement each individual gets to make for themselves? Are you asking the law for its judgement? It seems to me that what the law determines is the only matter of significance here. The rest just prompts a clash of personal opinions.

Sadly the law tends to make the same mistakes as some do in confusing nudity with porn. Nudity is something thats pure and tasteful it only becomes distasteful when it crosses into porns territory which simply put is and image or pseudo image that depicts or mimics a sexual act. As such Mann’s images fall outside porn’s remit. Mapplethorpes on the other hand seem to slip into erotica/porn quite easily and though I can appreciate the lighting and technique of his images,, the subject matter leaves me cold.

@BrianShaw "Control yourself, sir…." Made my morning

MagicTheAxe said:

... which simply put is and image or pseudo image that depicts or mimics a sexual act.

Click to expand...

(with apology for partial quote)

The definition of porn is more complicated than that. An image, or even text, can be pornographic without depicting a sexual act, if its intent is to excite the viewer/reader sexually. There is plenty of 'soft' porn that just shows uncovered breasts. Since we can't read each others' minds, we can't frame the rules about what the creator's intent was, so we end up with some responsible authority (the librarian, curator and sometimes the court) having to judge what a reasonable person would think. That can change with time, and what's going on here is campaigners trying to push that border.

MattKing said:

But that law still requires a sexual performance.
And nothing in those photos constitutes that.
Nudity does not equate to sexual.

Click to expand...

It gets dicey. ...lewd exhibition of genitals or the female breast... is considered sexual performance according to Texas law. Of course, you get into the question of what is lewd. I think the point is Sally may be able to get away with these pictures because she;s the mom. But any photographer or anyone else should never keep nude pictures of children who arent their own unless they want to risk convincing a jury they're not a pervert.
=================
The term “sexual performance by a child” in Texas refers to any live or recorded performance or exhibition in which a child under the age of 18 engages in sexual conduct. According to Texas Penal Code Section 43.25, sexual conduct includes activities such as sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse, masturbation, and lewd exhibition of genitals or the female breast. This would include asking a child for an explcity “selfie” to a video and can be charged alongside offenses like online solicitation of a minor. It’s important to point out that for Sexual Performance of a Child, a “child” is anyone under the age of 18, unlike many other criminal offenses where a child is defined as a person under the age of 17. Also note that this offense does not require any physical contact with the child. This law criminalizes the employment, authorization, or inducement of a child to engage in a sexual performance, aiming to protect minors from sexual exploitation.

retina_restoration said:

In no way do any of Sally Mann’s photographs fit the description of “a sexual performance “!! The description you’ve quoted still doesn’t apply in this case. Let it go, Alan. There was no “sexual exploitation” in the making of those photo!



I wholeheartedly support every individuals freedom to express their feelings and interpretations of any artwork they encounter. No one should feel compelled to justify their emotions or perspectives when viewing an image.

But the question we are grappling with in this instance is 1) does the work confiscated meet the legal requirements for “child pornography” and 2) was it reasonable (and legal) for a group of objectors to force the removal of those works from the museum?

Crossing personal boundaries isn’t what is being questioned here. If the work creeps you out, that’s fine - you’re entitled to respond that way, absolutely. But does that response also entitle a person to respond by prompting a raid by law enforcement to have the work removed from public view? My response is: absolutely not.

Click to expand...

I never said there was sexual exploitation. What I was addressing was Texas law and how they codify these things. I'm playing devil's advocate. Even some others here, all photographers who believe in freedom of expression, have said they see sexual innuendos and are disturbed by the pictures. Imagine what a conservative Texas jury would think. That could be a problem in Texas law because children are involved. If the DA takes this to a grand jury and they indict, some museum officials could be in legal jeopardy. Anyone taking this situation lightly is foolhardy.

Alan Edward Klein said:

It gets dicey. ...lewd exhibition of genitals or the female breast... is considered sexual performance according to Texas law. Of course, you get into the question of what is lewd. I think the point is Sally may be able to get away with these pictures because she;s the mom. But any photographer or anyone else should never keep nude pictures of children who arent their own unless they want to risk convincing a jury they're not a pervert.

Click to expand...

You keep venturing into the realm of speculation and "what if". I understand that you want to view this case as a kind of cautionary tale, but until a judgement has been made in the Texas case, I don't think speculation and alternate scenarios have much merit.
I don't think you are just playing devil's advocate, Alan. That you have taken a moral position on the matter is quite clear. That's perfectly fine, but I will also say that you are not going to convince me that Sally Mann has done anything immoral or inappropriate in the making of her photographs. Until you can prove definitively that someone has been harmed in the making of those photographs, all you have is your own opinion. (As do I)

Alan Edward Klein said:

I never said there was sexual exploitation. What I was addressing was Texas law and how they codify these things. I'm playing devil's advocate. Even some others here, all photographers who believe in freedom of expression, have said they see sexual innuendos and are disturbed by the pictures. Imagine what a conservative Texas jury would think. That could be a problem in Texas law because children are involved. If the DA takes this to a grand jury and they indict, some museum officials could be in legal jeopardy. Anyone taking this situation lightly is foolhardy.

Click to expand...

I don't think there's a whole lot more to say until such time that Texas comes to a legal opinion on the matter. Nobody is "taking this situation lightly'. If we were, I doubt t there would be 15 pages of discussion. That fact, for me, is a litmus test indicating that this community is being intensely thoughtful about the problem and considering its implications.

retina_restoration said:

You keep venturing into the realm of speculation and "what if". I understand that you want to view this case as a kind of cautionary tale, but until a judgement has been made in the Texas case, I don't think speculation and alternate scenarios have much merit.
I don't think you are just playing devil's advocate, Alan. That you have taken a moral position on the matter is quite clear. That's perfectly fine, but I will also say that you are not going to convince me that Sally Mann has done anything immoral or inappropriate in the making of her photographs. Until you can prove definitively that someone has been harmed in the making of those photographs, all you have is your own opinion. (As do I)


I don't think there's a whole lot more to say until such time that Texas comes to a legal opinion on the matter. Nobody is "taking this situation lightly'. If we were, I doubt t there would be 15 pages of discussion. That fact, for me, is a litmus test indicating that this community is being intensely thoughtful about the problem and considering its implications.

Click to expand...

Only you are allowed to speculate? Only your beliefs are the truth?

Here’s an update, dated today. TLDR: no significant update.

Keranews.org has a lengthy article as of this morning regarding the Sally Mann photographs

MagicTheAxe said:

Sadly the law tends to make the same mistakes as some do in confusing nudity with porn. Nudity is something thats pure and tasteful it only becomes distasteful when it crosses into porns territory which simply put is and image or pseudo image that depicts or mimics a sexual act. As such Mann’s images fall outside porn’s remit. Mapplethorpes on the other hand seem to slip into erotica/porn quite easily and though I can appreciate the lighting and technique of his images,, the subject matter leaves me cold.

Click to expand...

The US Constitution protects adult pornography as freedom of expression and speech but not child pornography. Lewd pictures of nude children are considered child porn and illegal in the state of Texas, and probably many other states. There are also Federal laws that cover interstate child pornography. I'll cover those in my next post. What are the laws in your country, the UK?

The US federal government has statutes as well. Some highlights we should be aware of that are different to a certain or major extent than Texas law. Mainly it's concerned with interstate traffic of porn. So that would include mailing pictures, or especially using the internet. Foreigners in other countries are violating the law if they send child pornogrpahy to the US. The pictures can be computer generated photos, not even of real children. Even undeveloped film is illegal.
========
Extracts from a legal review:
"....Notably, the legal definition of sexually explicit conduct does not require that an image depict a child engaging in sexual activity. A picture of a naked child may constitute illegal child pornography if it is sufficiently sexually suggestive...
...Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor. Undeveloped film, undeveloped videotape, and electronically stored data that can be converted into a visual image of child pornography are also deemed illegal visual depictions under federal law....
... Federal jurisdiction is implicated if the child pornography offense occurred in interstate or foreign commerce. This includes, for example, using the U.S. Mails or common carriers to transport child pornography across state or international borders. Additionally, federal jurisdiction almost always applies when the Internet is used to commit a child pornography violation. Even if the child pornography image itself did not travel across state or international borders, federal law may be implicated if the materials, such as the computer used to download the image or the CD-ROM used to store the image, originated or previously traveled in interstate or foreign commerce....
... Lastly, Section 2260 of Title 18, United States Code, prohibits any persons outside of the United States to knowingly produce, receive, transport, ship, or distribute child pornography with intent to import or transmit the visual depiction into the United States....

The details are important. The Miller ruling was rather specific a the definition of “obscenity “. The code provided by Alan is even more specific. The summaries are not. It’s worth reading the details…

What is considered obscene certainly changes over time. Michelangelo created a scandal for depicting nudity in his Sistine Chapel painting but he was such a powerful figure nothing was done right them. However, after he died, the fig leaves and loin clothes were added to make them less scandalous.

As an artist myself I wonder about the thought police angle of some of this. While not my main technique, I can draw hyper-realistically. In fact, it was my fascination with how grain structure in a photography renders an image that got me back into drawing in the early ‘70s. I suppose I can imagine imagery that would be considered obscene in a some places and as long as I don’t commit it to paper or otherwise describe it, I am free to do so, but at what point will the thought police have the ability to detect such things?

There will always be "Karens" who need to speak to the Manager.

AnselMortensen said:

There will always be "Karens" who need to speak to the Manager.

Click to expand...

True, even before Karen. Remember the Sears Roebuck catalogue fiascos?

I think there are normative violations in this case but where? One way is to start with the definition of societal norms as being the method to maintain societal order or harmful power dynamics.

Social order:
The artist wasn't creating this work to maintain social order. The art didn't disrupt social order, although it was controversial, riots and war didn't follow the publication.
The gallery isn't displaying this work to maintain social order. Displaying the work didn't disrupt social order.
Since social order wasn't a problem, bringing in the cops wasn't done to maintain social order.
Calling law enforcement seems to be outside the norms in this regard.

Power dynamics: Is the gallery displaying the work in order to maintain a harmful power dynamic?
A harmful power dynamic would be as a means to promote the exploitation of children in this case. Certainly was not their stated purpose for the show.
Is promoting the exploitation of children a consequence of the action by the gallery of displaying the images?
There is a legitimate power dynamic between parents and children and adult non-parents and children. For example if I see a child about to run into the street with imminent risk of vehicular collision it is legitimate for me to prevent that child from doing so. Parents have a more broad scope of legitimate power over their children. Does the action of publishing the images fall within legitimate power of a parent? I think the making of the images are legitimate but at the time the images were published it was a breach of legitimate parental power because, it wasn't done to promote their well being or prevent their harm (unless the publication was to make money to avoid starving or being homeless or prevent some lesser harm), the consent and permission asked of the children was truly a 'cover my ass' action because in no way is it reasonable to ask permission of a child for an adult action (world publication) nor is it necessary for a parent to do so anyway unless there is a question of legitimacy. Since, as adults, the children have no objections, the argument of illegitimated power is tempered, but initially the publication was outside norms. An easier argument could be made if the photographs were made by a non-parent.

Are the police being used to maintain a harmful power dynamic? What are examples of harmful power dynamics: a boss constantly belittling employees, a romantic partner controlling their significant other's finances, a parent making all decisions for an adult child, a teacher using their authority to manipulate students, deliberately withholding crucial information to maintain power imbalance, using verbal abuse, threats of consequences, or physical presence to control someone's actions, etc. I would argue that calling the cops was an effort to use threats of consequences to control the actions of the gallery, which would be considered a harmful power dynamic. Interesting that this really isn't about the artist then, unless controlling the gallery is considered the first step in controlling the actions of artists.

So from the perspective of norms, the parents fail, the viewers who called the cops fail, only the gallery seems to be within norms in this case and apparently being made the scapegoat for the failures of the other parties.

VinceInMT said:

What is considered obscene certainly changes over time. Michelangelo created a scandal for depicting nudity in his Sistine Chapel painting but he was such a powerful figure nothing was done right them. However, after he died, the fig leaves and loin clothes were added to make them less scandalous.

As an artist myself I wonder about the thought police angle of some of this. While not my main technique, I can draw hyper-realistically. In fact, it was my fascination with how grain structure in a photography renders an image that got me back into drawing in the early ‘70s. I suppose I can imagine imagery that would be considered obscene in a some places and as long as I don’t commit it to paper or otherwise describe it, I am free to do so, but at what point will the thought police have the ability to detect such things?

Click to expand...

When I was a kid, my dad used a strap to make me wiser when I misbehaved. Today he'd probably be charged with child abuse. Things do change. Fortunately, we still can't go to jail for our thoughts.

Saganich said:

I think there are normative violations in this case but where? One way is to start with the definition of societal norms as being the method to maintain societal order or harmful power dynamics.

Social order:
The artist wasn't creating this work to maintain social order. The art didn't disrupt social order, although it was controversial, riots and war didn't follow the publication.
The gallery isn't displaying this work to maintain social order. Displaying the work didn't disrupt social order.
Since social order wasn't a problem, bringing in the cops wasn't done to maintain social order.
Calling law enforcement seems to be outside the norms in this regard.

Power dynamics: Is the gallery displaying the work in order to maintain a harmful power dynamic?
A harmful power dynamic would be as a means to promote the exploitation of children in this case. Certainly was not their stated purpose for the show.
Is promoting the exploitation of children a consequence of the action by the gallery of displaying the images?
There is a legitimate power dynamic between parents and children and adult non-parents and children. For example if I see a child about to run into the street with imminent risk of vehicular collision it is legitimate for me to prevent that child from doing so. Parents have a more broad scope of legitimate power over their children. Does the action of publishing the images fall within legitimate power of a parent? I think the making of the images are legitimate but at the time the images were published it was a breach of legitimate parental power because, it wasn't done to promote their well being or prevent their harm (unless the publication was to make money to avoid starving or being homeless or prevent some lesser harm), the consent and permission asked of the children was truly a 'cover my ass' action because in no way is it reasonable to ask permission of a child for an adult action (world publication) nor is it necessary for a parent to do so anyway unless there is a question of legitimacy. Since, as adults, the children have no objections, the argument of illegitimated power is tempered, but initially the publication was outside norms. An easier argument could be made if the photographs were made by a non-parent.

Are the police being used to maintain a harmful power dynamic? What are examples of harmful power dynamics: a boss constantly belittling employees, a romantic partner controlling their significant other's finances, a parent making all decisions for an adult child, a teacher using their authority to manipulate students, deliberately withholding crucial information to maintain power imbalance, using verbal abuse, threats of consequences, or physical presence to control someone's actions, etc. I would argue that calling the cops was an effort to use threats of consequences to control the actions of the gallery, which would be considered a harmful power dynamic. Interesting that this really isn't about the artist then, unless controlling the gallery is considered the first step in controlling the actions of artists.

So from the perspective of norms, the parents fail, the viewers who called the cops fail, only the gallery seems to be within norms in this case and apparently being made the scapegoat for the failures of the other parties.

Click to expand...

A gallery is also guilty of violating the statute if it accepts and displays child pornography, even if produced by others. All your other interpretations of who believes what and which societal "norms" apply have nothing to do with the statute and cannot be used as a defense.

Alan Edward Klein said:

I never said there was sexual exploitation. What I was addressing was Texas law and how they codify these things. I'm playing devil's advocate. Even some others here, all photographers who believe in freedom of expression, have said they see sexual innuendos and are disturbed by the pictures. Imagine what a conservative Texas jury would think. That could be a problem in Texas law because children are involved. If the DA takes this to a grand jury and they indict, some museum officials could be in legal jeopardy. Anyone taking this situation lightly is foolhardy.

Click to expand...

I don't think there's a whole lot more to say until such time that Texas comes to a legal opinion on the matter. Nobody is "taking this situation lightly'. If we were, I doubt t there would be 15 pages of discussion.

AnselMortensen said:

There will always be "Karens" who need to speak to the Manager.

Click to expand...

Yup. A "Karen" is not describing a person as much as a person's actions: it is an acting out of one's entitlement and outrage. It is my impression that many "Karens" go out into the world to look for targets for that outrage. It seems to me that this church group has been a "Karen" by prompting a police raid on the museum.

Sadly this is going to have a chilling effect on the whole of the Fort Worth arts community - both the display venues and the artists themselves.

The National Coalition Against Censorship has issued an opinion on the matter, and I think they have presented some well-reasoned responses.

"Mann’s work, just like that of many artists, may raise questions for some viewers, but any discussion of those questions has now been preempted by disingenuous claims of child sexual abuse and the spectacle of a sensationalized criminal investigation. Such a seizure and investigation can only contribute to the perverse and troubling perception that all images of naked children are inherently sexual, thereby reinforcing the very sexualization of children that critics purport to oppose. In the process, they demean the severity of real child sexual abuse."

You can read the letter here.

retina_restoration said:

It's obvious that you have decided that Sally Mann's work is child pornography. I don't think you'd be pushing back this hard if you had not already come to that conclusion.

Click to expand...

You're wrong. My initial impression was these were just nude photographs of children and not porn. I recommended the museum object to the police's actions and demand the photos back or leave it alone. Read my post #298 copied below. It was only after I read reviews of the actual statutes that I realized one could argue that the pictures did violate Texas ( and federal) laws. I'm now not sure. It's iffy. Now it's up to the DA to charge someone or not.

(My #298 post):
"Just as Photrio sets rules as a private business, a private museum can set rules as well one way or the other as to what it considers acceptable for display as long as it's not a violation of law which these pictures seem not to be. It's not much different than what is done here.

In this case, there's the added fact that the police may have removed pictures that do not seem meet the Texas penal standard for child pornography. So it's up to the museum to object and demand they get back the pictures for display or else accept the community objections and leave it alone. It appears they are leaning toward the latter approach."