Sally Mann Photographs Removed from Texas Museum Exhibition after Outcry

[Dustin McAmera]

The difference could be about ten years in jail. And who here would want to leave that up to a conservative Texas jury to decide that difference?

But there is no doubt about 'Night blooming cereus'; it shows a child, whose sex we can't be certain of. No sexual parts are shown, and the child's nipples are covered by the two large cactus flowers. And we can't know the child isn't wearing jeans, socks and shoes, and a top hat for good measure, outside the frame of the photo.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I've just looked up the Museum's website. The show is called Pretty Baby, and Mann's work is (was?) only a part of it. Here's the full quote:

"In the 1990s, the artist Sally Mann was met with a different type of criticism because the children in her images were her own. Mann began photographing her three children in 1984 for what would be published in 1992 as a monograph entitled Immediate Family. The first picture in the series, Damaged Child, shows a close-up view of the artist's young daughter Jessie, then two years old. In the image, the child's left eye is inflamed, suggesting a range of interpretations, from child abuse to what was strictly depicted: the child's temporarily "damaged" face, swollen from insect bites. Like Damaged Child, all of the formally beautiful pictures in Immediate Family present several possible readings. And undoubtedly, in showing her children naked, moody, and in suggestive situations, Mann evokes an edgy, dark side of childhood. At its debut, Immediate Family was met with a mix of praise and discussions of parental rights, exploitation, and childhood consent. Although Mann's work is not included in Pretty Baby, undoubtedly her images of children have been influential to the Western artists in the exhibition."

So it's the ambiguity and the misinterpretation it can lead to that they were talking about. It's worth reading the rest of their text, as the whole exhibition is designed to explore the controversy around child photography.

I hadn't known that was there. So the museum acknowledges the photos are sexual pictures of nude children the very definition of child pornography. Duh!

And the fact the exhibition is to explore the controversy around child pornography does not allow a museum to post child pornography. They should have at least blacked out the porn details.

 

[Dustin McAmera]

So the museum acknowledges the photos are sexual pictures of nude children

No it doesn't; you wildly misinterpret the text, that was accurately quoted in full in the post you replied to.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Earlier in the thread I alluded to that verse/rationalization but only pointed to it and suggested it be read. Since this might get deleted by mods, let’s also note that the sons who discreetly covered Noah was favored in the future over the one who was repulsed.

But wasn’t nudity an issue earlier, in the Garden of Eden?

The son wasn't repulsed. He laughed at his father for his nakedness and drunkenness. The other son covered and helped him. But your point is well taken. Kids can be both mean and loving like us adults.

 

[cowanw]

That's two times you're calling me a "secret pervert" and I demand the moderators remove your posts. Ad hominem attacks are not allowed here.

Alan, I guess I have expressed myself extremely poorly. My intention was to defend you and that people should stop ,via innuendo, questioning your motivations. My most sincere apologies for wording this so poorly as to cause you distress. To be clear, I think this business is entirely political and since we cannot discuss that, the discussion has descended to personal questions of artistic freedom. I felt retina_restoration's responses to you were indeed inappropriate rhetoric. Again I am sure this is quite upsetting for you. If you wish the posts removed, I am quite happy that that be done.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Alan, the following is a direct quote from you: "Stripping a young minor naked for a picture of this type is child abuse and probably pornography."

You've abandoned the territory of "legal caution" by stating "this is child abuse" and have delivered what you consider to be a fact. Are we misinterpreting this statement? If so, in what way?

Child abuse is a separate law from child pornography. I don't think the child service division in NY or NJ where I live and lived would accept parents taking clothes off their children to take pictures of them to publish publicly, even if they're not pornographic. It's a separate violation. Regarding pornography, I said "probably".

 

[Pieter12]

I don't think

There you go.

 

[Mike Lopez]

That's two times you're calling me a "secret pervert" and I demand the moderators remove your posts. Ad hominem attacks are not allowed here.

Alan. Look immediately above cowanw’s post that set you off. Look at #577, then at #578. Do you see it now?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

No it doesn't; you wildly misinterpret the text, that was accurately quoted in full in the post you replied to.

Two other posters said or implied the museum meant the pictures were sexual or immoral. So that makes three of us making that (mis)interpretation. How many would make that interpretation on a twelve-man Texas jury, I don't know.

Quote from museum plaque: "...And undoubtedly, in showing her children naked, moody, and in suggestive situations, Mann evokes an edgy, dark side of childhood..."

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Alan, I guess I have expressed myself extremely poorly. My intention was to defend you and that people should stop ,via innuendo, questioning your motivations. My most sincere apologies for wording this so poorly as to cause you distress. To be clear, I think this business is entirely political and since we cannot discuss that, the discussion has descended to personal questions of artistic freedom. I felt retina_restoration's responses to you were indeed inappropriate rhetoric. Again I am sure this is quite upsetting for you. If you wish the posts removed, I am quite happy that that be done.

I appreciate and accept your clearing up my misinterpretation of your post and your thoughtful comments. Thank you.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

No you don't have to remove the posts. I'm past that.

 

[warden]

Off topic, yesterday I went to Waterstone's after a morning shift, meaning to buy 'Hold Still' - I even checked they had it in stock before going. But once I was there I bought Robert Frank's 'The Americans' instead. I think it's because I went after work - why read long text when I can just look at some pictures?

It’s a fine book so keep it on the “to read” list. It’s rewarding when you find someone so talented in one artistic field and then learn they’re a great writer too. I hope she finds something more to write about soon.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Alan. Look immediately above cowanw’s post that set you off. Look at #577, then at #578. Do you see it now?

Mike, I'm really not interested in pursuing personal affronts, mine or others. Life's too short. Have a nice day.

 

[cliveh]

This thread has gone all over the place with opinions about the work of Sally Mann, so I would like to clarify my opinion when I said I could see no comparison with her work and that of Julia Margaret Cameron. Cameron was a portrait photographer interested in the theatrical image and girls were some of her subjects.

I think Sally Mann is a very good photographer and her images have nothing to do with paedophilia, child exploitation or pornography and I’m sure she loves her children and they make a great subject for her photography.

However, the fact that the images often portray semi naked, androgenous children and sometimes wearing makeup, means that they may be masturbatory to some people. I’m not saying they should not be exhibited, but that fact should be taken into consideration.

 

[Mike Lopez]

Mike, I'm really not interested in pursuing personal affronts, mine or others. Life's too short. Have a nice day.

I was trying to spare you some embarrassment after your righteous indignation was pointed at the wrong person. You were interested in pursuing that, so please stop with the disingenuous responses. Bye.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I don't. The war pictures of Lee Miller make me uncomfortable and enraged. As do those coming out of Ukraine. Why should happy, naked children make anyone uncomfortable?

Although it does not address child nudity per se, here's a quote from my opening essay in my book, Flesh & Bone. "Images of nude figures often evoke a wide array of emotions, influenced by cultural climate and the photographer’s perspective. The portrayal of the nude form can elicit feelings of admiration, desire or discomfort, depending on the context and the viewer."

I agree with you.

 

[BrianShaw]

Good grief…

 

[retina_restoration]

Good grief…

No kidding.

 

[Pieter12]

Two other posters said or implied the museum meant the pictures were sexual or immoral. So that makes three of us making that (mis)interpretation. How many would make that interpretation on a twelve-man Texas jury, I don't know.

Quote from museum plaque: "...And undoubtedly, in showing her children naked, moody, and in suggestive situations, Mann evokes an edgy, dark side of childhood..."

This is going to a jury???

 

[DWThomas]

There was an old saying:
"If [insert deity name here] wanted us to be seen naked we'd be born without clothes on -- um -- nevermind!"

 

[Pieter12]

Quote from museum plaque: "...And undoubtedly, in showing her children naked, moody, and in suggestive situations, Mann evokes an edgy, dark side of childhood..."

You have seen the exhibition Diaries of Home at the Museum of Modern At of Fort Worth and this "plaque"?

 

[Don_ih]

Have to disagree. That’s Philadelphia lawyer mumbo jumbo. Part of obscenity is that it may stimulate sexual arousal. That alone can be used to justify anything as non-art. The objections in this situation are much more basic than the law. It’s mostly about Texan Puritan prudeness .

Not sure what you're disagreeing with or what you even mean. "Part of obscenity is that it may stimulate sexual arousal" is about as meaningful as saying marshmallows may be white or some other colour.

the fact that the images often portray semi naked, androgenous children and sometimes wearing makeup, means that they may be masturbatory to some people.

Cameron's photos also feature semi-naked children who may or may not be wearing some kind of makeup. The only difference is those who want to have had a 100 years more to masturbate to them.

 

[BrianShaw]

How long will the mental masturbation in this thread continue? Enquiring minds would like to know.

 

[Don_ih]

Well, that was one more stroke, wasn't it?

 

[MattKing]

This camel just had the last straw piled upon it.
Closed by this moderator.