Does not sound any more difficult in any way than most. Probably better. I do believe he was professionally diagnosed as schizophrenic, so it's not jargon. He had three brain injuries, one as a child and two later in adulthood.
Does not sound any more difficult in any way than most. Probably better. I do believe he was professionally diagnosed as schizophrenic, so it's not jargon. He had three brain injuries, one as a child and two later in adulthood.Of course I do not, and I don't have it on authority that he really was schizophrenic. That's simply jargon. My only conjecture is that these children may have had a difficult childhood.
Here's the beginning of the Texas law. It requires a sexual conduct of some kind with a minor, not just a photo of a nude child. It also covers AI-generated pictures. (see the link below)
Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 43.26. Possession or Promotion of Child Pornography
(a) A person commits an offense if:
(1) the person knowingly or intentionally possesses, or knowingly or intentionally accesses with intent to view, visual material that visually depicts a child younger than 18 years of age at the time the image of the child was made who is engaging in sexual conduct, including a child who engages in sexual conduct as a victim of an offense under Section 20A.02(a)(5), (6), (7), or (8); and
(2) the person knows that the material depicts the child as described by Subdivision (1)...
...
The rest of the code can be found here.
and she stopped photographing them before puberty speaks highly of her.
The issue has been around for many years.
The Water Rats, 1886
Frank Meadow Sutcliffe's famous image is one of the earliest examples of using depth of field creatively in the composition of a photographwww.theguardian.com
I have a couple of Meadows re prints on my wall they were purchased whilst in Whitby some years ago.
… or, perhaps, it’s a publicity stunt. Could be useful from a business perspective. After all, look at the international attention it garnered on Photrio!
If that is what the laws says in Texas then I am surprised the gallery not resist the removal of the pictures or allowing for the fact that it is difficult to actually resist police as they remove picture, did not launch a case against the police's action? That assumes the police did actually seize the pictures and did not simply advise( wrongly it appears) the gallery that it was breaking the law and the gallery removed the pictures
What it sounds as if may well have happened is that the gallery weighed the effect on it to have resisted against its standing in Fort Worth and decided "discretion" was called for
Whether this is sensible in an economic sense for the gallery to bow to pressure or whether galleries need to make a stand against groups being able to force such action on it for the greater artistic freedom within the law is a much bigger issue
pentaxuser
How does that matter? Apart from the question whether the kids would have still been OK with it at that point.
Also, I don't quite agree with that it "speaks highly" of someone to photograph their naked kids, or to stop doing so.
Photo Eye Books has just announced the issue of a facsimile edition of Sally Mann's At Twelve. The Texas brouhaha might boost sales.
This might get me slapped again but I gotta say what I gotta say.
I've gotten slapped down from the so-called left in the past few years as much as the so-called right. My views and way of life has been under attack in as much as any marginalized group. My own work remains under wraps because of who and what I believe and it is directly attributed to left wing views.
I know that the photographic and arts community generally has a leftist bend. I'm cool with that regardless of my personal views. However to frame this as a Liberal Vs. Conservative censorship game and not be aware of your own sides failings is dishonest.
What good is a museum if no one visits?
What good is a museum if no one visits?
I could well be that some at the museum did not intend to ruffle any feathers and would like to maintain a certain image and relationship within the community, so they complied. On the other hand, the controversy has brought them to the forefront and maybe more people will want to visit, now and in the future.The answer is none at all but I am not sure why my post appears to you to have any relevance to your question I was simply speculating and then providing possible answers as to why the gallery did not take action to stop the removal of the the pictures or launch legal action
As I said: If the gallery's owner(s) feel that its future would be seriously affected by reputation or lack of future attendance if it had not removed the pictures then that may be the reason
pentaxuser
The answer is none at all but I am not sure why my post appears to you to have any relevance to your question I was simply speculating and then providing possible answers as to why the gallery did not take action to stop the removal of the the pictures or launch legal action
As I said: If the gallery's owner(s) feel that its future would be seriously affected by reputation or lack of future attendance if it had not removed the pictures then that may be the reason
pentaxuser
Archival historical preservation. There are plenty of museums and collections that aren't open to the public. That doesn't demean them or devalue them. Although... it's very frustrating to know an artifact exists in a museum and access to interested researchers is extremely difficult or impossible. Been there; done that.
Some are, most aren't. Unless you consider every organization a business. Which is what you tend to do, but it's not an accurate view.Museums are a business in the end.
The museum in question is not one of those. It relies on the public to visit. The Mann display was not for archival historical preservation.
Yes, Alan, that seems quite correct. I was just answering a seemingly generic question you asked in reply to @pentaxuser. It’s not apparent to me that most museums really rely on admissions versus for their major funding; it’s most likely grants and endowments that are their lifeblood. Now the Mann display may become an archival historical collection that is not public ally displayed.
The Mann children consented to the exhibition and publication of the photos long after they were taken. They rejected some, in at least one instance because the child thought he looked dorky. None was concerned about the nudity, it was pretty much normal form them to go around without clothes at home and on their private farm.I have a bunch of little ones so that makes me an expert on kids right now.
They can't consent to anything honestly. One of the kids identifies as a firetruck, the other is in love with a 1972 library reference edition of the Rand McNally world maps, and I have another trying to recreate snow in the freezer. Having them consent to anything is preposterous. Now, say I took some photos and wanted to publish but maybe I thought that it might put them in a bad light. I would wait until they understand the repercussions and then ask if they're ok with it. Having a 6 or 7 year old agree to something in the adult realm is bonkers.
As a side note, elementary school tries to get kids to sign waivers I've learned. I told my kids anything that you're asked to sign must been seen by your parents first. If you miss out on an activity or get threatened with a grade strike or any punishment of any kind no matter how petty, put my phone number in the signature spot. And my kids, bless 'em have made their Pop's proud. They've refused to sign anything and had their entire class revolt with them. Creating little revolutionaries I am...
Now if they'd only hold still for one darn tootin' photo...
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?