It's not.
But I don't expect anyone here will answer it. (And "Yes" or "No" don't count as "answers" - they're dismissals.)
I assume the question is somewhat rhetorical.
I do find it odd that in the States, even showing a female Brest is considered provocative, while here in Canada equality of the sexes is a consitutional right, so if a Male can expose a breast, a Female can also. of course in parts of Spain and France, there are communities where the wearing of any clothing is an option.
What this tells me is that anyone outside Texas, may not be in a position to understand the issues that are in play here.
Because they didn't fit the theme "Diaries of Home."After reviewing the pictures in "Immediate Family," which I haven't looked at for many years, I can say that several and perhaps many are highly provocative and probably do meet some of the criteria for child pornography. But more importantly, however, they are great pictures, full of poetry, artistry and a refined sensibility. They are in some sense masterpieces.
Although these photographs established her career, her later work is also just as wonderful, full of the same poetry and profound sensibility. In some ways it's unfortunate that she is most famous for her early pictures and not what came after. Safe to say they are also masterpieces.
I have a copy of "Mother Land," a large soft cover volume published by Edwynn Hook Gallery (ND), of her landscapes of Georgia and Virginia, mostly from the 1990s. They are spectacular, IMHO. It's unfortunate that these pictures were not included in the museum show.
And in Texas, of all places, home of the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders.I do find it odd that in the States, even showing a female Brest is considered provocative
After reviewing the pictures in "Immediate Family," which I haven't looked at for many years, I can say that several and perhaps many are highly provocative and probably do meet some of the criteria for child pornography. But more importantly, however, they are great pictures, full of poetry, artistry and a refined sensibility. They are in some sense masterpieces.
So does that make it ok? Because it has artistic merit that cancels out the negativity of it?
The critical word in @Arthurwg 's post above is "some".
If they met all of the criteria for child pornography, then their artistic merit would be irrelevant when it comes to whether or not police should be involved.
.......
How many of you think Sally Mann would choose to ignore the mental and physical well-being of her children in the pursuit of the work she's done? If you disregard the fierce nature of "maternal instinct" then you are omitting an important factor when considering Mann's motives.
And in Texas, of all places, home of the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders.
f I had photos sitting on my hard drive that met 'SOME' criteria for CP and my house got raided I'd be doing time. They'd throw the book at me.
So you are saying you would be convicted without being guilty of all the necessary elements of the offence?
I do find it odd that in the States, even showing a female Brest is considered provocative, while here in Canada equality of the sexes is a consitutional right, so if a Male can expose a breast, a Female can also. of course in parts of Spain and France, there are communities where the wearing of any clothing is an option.
What this tells me is that anyone outside Texas, may not be in a position to understand the issues that are in play here.
Any EU and Quebec legal restrictions on photographing strangers on public streets apply equally to children and adults - and are essentially not criminal law restrictions.
They are related to what is essentially a property interest in one's privacy.
Entirely different laws.
Well, by the undeniable fact that Mann garnered fame as a result of the photographs in Immediate Family, then your assertion is true, yes. Any and all artists “use” their work to become famous (presuming they became famous, whatever “fame” means). I don’t see why making this point is relevant or important. I myself “use my photographs” to draw attention to what I do, though I’ll never receive the kind of audience Sally Mann has, of course.Just to play devil's advocate, I'd say the evidence suggests that she used those images to make herself famous. She can say whatever she wants in her books to make people think she didn't, whatever justification she can find.
Why do you think that??One thing that hasn't been mentioned is her book "At Twelve" that predates the publishing of her family pictures. The cover of that book is ridiculous.
Ok, so at this point I don’t think we are debating whether or not Mann’s photographs are exploitive - as long as you disregard any value judgements that tend to accompany the term “exploitive”. Obviously she exploited an opportunity to make work she saw as unique to her situation and facilitated her creative expression. By its raw definition - ignoring any negative connotations - that is exploitation.I'll state again, I don't find her images offensive. I don't think they are pornographic. Exploitative? Probably.
Funny how this case has reopened after all these years. It seems there is no "statute of limitations" for child pornography. Perhaps community standards have shifted.
America isn't trying hard enough to "find balance", IMO. Too many people with both power and an agenda, working to force their opinions on others.
So you are saying you would be convicted without being guilty of all the necessary elements of the offence?
"Some" means you haven't done all the things necessary to be found guilty - if the law is followed.
"Some" may be enough to raise suspicion or to justify further investigation, but unless there is "all" of what is minimally necessary, you shouldn't be found guilty.
And it is a lot more than any presumption of innocence.
The US Constitution, Bill of Rights Amendment #1 protects our rights as photographers to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, not the opinion of the majority. Democracy takes freedoms away as the majority imposes its beliefs. The Constitution protects the beliefs and rights of minority viewpoints, not public opinion, which is often in the majority and can be opposed to those freedoms. Majority opinion doesn't need the protection of the Constitution. They have the vote. However, child pornography is not a protected freedom. In the Mann issue, the problem is an interpretation of the law and if the photographs are a violation of it. Sometimes those lines are hard to determine.
Funny how this case has reopened after all these years. It seems there is no "statute of limitations" for child pornography. Perhaps community standards have shifted.
I do find it odd that in the States, even showing a female Brest is considered provocative, while here in Canada equality of the sexes is a consitutional right, so if a Male can expose a breast, a Female can also. of course in parts of Spain and France, there are communities where the wearing of any clothing is an option.
What this tells me is that anyone outside Texas, may not be in a position to understand the issues that are in play here.
Funny how this case has reopened after all these years. It seems there is no "statute of limitations" for child pornography. Perhaps community standards have shifted.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?