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?
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!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.
No it doesn't; you wildly misinterpret the text, that was accurately quoted in full in the post you replied to.So the museum acknowledges the photos are sexual pictures of nude children
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?
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, 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?
There you go.I don't think
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.
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.No it doesn't; you wildly misinterpret the text, that was accurately quoted in full in the post you replied to.
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.
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?
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.
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."
Good grief…
This is going to a jury???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..."
You have seen the exhibition Diaries of Home at the Museum of Modern At of Fort Worth and this "plaque"?Quote from museum plaque: "...And undoubtedly, in showing her children naked, moody, and in suggestive situations, Mann evokes an edgy, dark side of childhood..."
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 .
the fact that the images often portray semi naked, androgenous children and sometimes wearing makeup, means that they may be masturbatory to some people.
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?