Sally Mann Photographs Removed from Texas Museum Exhibition after Outcry

[logan2z]

'Several photographs by Sally Mann have been removed from a group show at the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth in Texas, Glasstire reports. Earlier this week, locals and politicians railed against the content of images, which they characterized as “child porn.”

Sally Mann Photographs Removed from Texas Museum Exhibition after Outcry

Five photographs by Sally Mann featuring children were removed from a Modern Art Museum Fort Worth exhibition following controversy.

www.artnews.com

 

[Milpool]

Uh oh. This isn’t going to go well.

 

[Chuck_P]

 

[BrianShaw]

It’s their loss…

 

[Robert Ley]

Why does this not surprise me one bit after all this is Texas. The Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth isn't really about modern art.

 

[Pieter12]

Why does this not surprise me one bit after all this is Texas. The Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth isn't really about modern art.

Not just Texas. I recently bought a used copy of Sally Mann's Hold Still: A Memoir with Photographs. It had two stamps on it. One on the bottom edge that read "Chicago Public Library." The other on the top edge read "Discard." A bit strange for a good book that was just published in 2015 and was a finalist for the National Book Award. Stinks of censorship to me.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Not just Texas. I recently bought a used copy of Sally Mann's Hold Still: A Memoir with Photographs. It had two stamps on it. One on the bottom edge that read "Chicago Public Library." The other on the top edge read "Discard." A bit strange for a good book that was just published in 2015 and was a finalist for the National Book Award. Stinks of censorship to me.

Unfortunately it is not limited to Texas.

 

[MattKing]

Not just Texas. I recently bought a used copy of Sally Mann's Hold Still: A Memoir with Photographs. It had two stamps on it. One on the bottom edge that read "Chicago Public Library." The other on the top edge read "Discard." A bit strange for a good book that was just published in 2015 and was a finalist for the National Book Award. Stinks of censorship to me.

The Discard stamp doesn't mean a lot.
Our public library system acquires books, puts them into circulation, tracks how much interest there are in them, and then regularly makes decisions to retire older books that have little uptake or signs of extraordinary wear. When that decision is made, they usually stamp them "Discard", offer them for sale for a $1 or $2, and use the space freed up for newer acquisitions.
Our public library system is more oriented toward putting lots of books into lots of hands than it is toward creating a collection or a reference source.

I've got a fair number of books and CDs that way. After enjoying them, I keep some, and donate others.

If you have little kids in your extended family, it is a great way of getting them lots of children's books, at a very reasonable cost.

On the subject of the thread, and with my Moderator hat on, I would caution that Photrio is at best an awkward place to discuss the religious, social and political arguments that surround the subject of depiction of child nudity.

 

[Pieter12]

It just seems odd that a well-received book in quite good condition would be discarded. Add to that the fact the Ms. Mann's photos of her family have upset quite a few closed-minded folks, one draws conclusions. I recently read a line that I appreciated, something like "the pilgrims came to the New World in order to be more prudish than where they came from."

 

[MattKing]

It just seems odd that a well-received book in quite good condition would be discarded.

Not really, if the storage space available is finite, and the library is actively working to ensure that newer books are constantly being added to the distribution network.
As I indicated, the metric is usually based on how much the book is in demand.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

In 2015, she wrote a beautiful essay about her work and the controversy around it for The New York Times Magazine (sorry, paywall).

Sally Mann’s Exposure (Published 2015)

What an artist captures, what a mother knows and what the public sees can be dangerously different things.

www.nytimes.com

 

[pentaxuser]

For any outsider i.e. a non U.S. resident to judge what was removed and why it would help if such a person such as I knew what the pictures showed and what were the specific reasons why they were removed

In saying this I am assuming the thread was begun to start such a reasoned discussion and not just started as a piece of news/announcement

pentaxuser

 

[retina_restoration]

For any outsider i.e. a non U.S. resident to judge what was removed and why it would help if such a person such as I knew what the pictures showed and what were the specific reasons why they were removed

In saying this I am assuming the thread was begun to start such a reasoned discussion and not just started as a piece of news/announcement

pentaxuser

Five photographs were removed - they were listed in the piece linked to in the original post. You can look up the works by name if you're interested: Popsicle Drips, The Perfect Tomato, The Wet Bed, Another Cracker, and Cereus

And I think it's worth your while to read the "Open Letter" from the community (well, the "christians" who found the work offensive) that prompted the removal of the photographs:

https://glasstire.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Danbury-Institute-Letter.jpg?x88956

Also, the magazine Glasstire has written a very thoughtful article about the debacle, and I quote one particular passage:

In 2015, Ms. Mann penned her own article in the paper’s magazine about the body of work and the subsequent book in which the images were published. She explained, “…the kids were visually sophisticated, involved in setting the scene, in producing the desired effects for the images and in editing them. When I was putting together Immediate Family, I gave each child the pictures of themselves and asked them to remove those they didn’t want published… Maintaining the dignity of my subjects has grown to be, over the years, an imperative in my work, both in the taking of the pictures and in their presentation.”

In that same article, another artist - Diane Durant wisely points out “All too often, nudity, even that of children, is mistaken for sexuality, and images are mistaken for actions.” I believe that people who see work such as this and immediately rush to outrage suffer from the inability to make this distinction.

 

[lecarp]

More from Artnet.

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/modern-art-museum-fort-worth-sally-mann-2594527

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/sally-mann-photos-seized-fort-worth-museum-2595888

 

[Hassasin]

In other words in the name of "artistic freedom" nobody has the right to see and interpret things with their own eyes, instead accept what they feel offends them as non-offensive.

Where exactly have I failed to see total lack of actual freedom in this concept?

 

[Hassasin]

I've just refreshed my memory and looked up some of Mann's images.

I suppose, given what's already been stated in this short thread by several posters, I have no right or am an artistic idiot, if I find many of Mann's photographs not only offensive, but down right disgusting. How my feelings are derogatory to all those who disagree with me?

Taking this a bit further, exhibit went on display, some saw the content and called some images out as inadmissible for public view (I assume there was no age limit to see them, or was there ?)

I still don't know which exactly they were (link to article does NOT show any images in question), but given Mann's "style" I can imagine what they look like.

Since when living in a harmonious society means only side has the right to be offended, or outraged ?

 

[Pieter12]

You have every right to be offended. But I also have the right to appreciate the photos for what the photographer’s intention was. You and others should not have the right to judge what I can see. Plus you are ranting about something you haven’t actually seen. Try that first. Usually those that find perversity in an image are looking for it in the first place.

 

[Milpool]

I've just refreshed my memory and looked up some of Mann's images.

I suppose, given what's already been stated in this short thread by several posters, I have no right or am an artistic idiot, if I find many of Mann's photographs not only offensive, but down right disgusting. How my feelings are derogatory to all those who disagree with me?

Taking this a bit further, exhibit went on display, some saw the content and called some images out as inadmissible for public view (I assume there was no age limit to see them, or was there ?)

I still don't know which exactly they were (link to article does NOT show any images in question), but given Mann's "style" I can imagine what they look like.

Since when living in a harmonious society means only side has the right to be offended, or outraged ?

Unless there is some sort of population unanimity shouldn’t it be more of a legal question? If it doesn’t meet the definition of child pornography, then I’m not sure it should matter who is outraged or not outraged on whatever side. If it offends you on some personal level it’s pretty easy to avoid seeing it.

 

[Don_ih]

I have no right or am an artistic idiot

I actually have no clue what you're saying.

Sally Mann's photos are contentious because they show a high level of child nudity in conjunction with a certain level of "precociousness". Some people will have a problem with those things. That's something that needs to be accepted. Is there merit to the images when the nudity is not considered? Does there need to be? Can't the nudity be accepted as part of the merit without being seen as pornographic?

There's nothing pornographic about any of her photos.

If anyone thinks there is, that person has a distorted view of what pornography is.

 

[Hassasin]

I actually have no clue what you're saying.

Sally Mann's photos are contentious because they show a high level of child nudity in conjunction with a certain level of "precociousness". Some people will have a problem with those things. That's something that needs to be accepted. Is there merit to the images when the nudity is not considered? Does there need to be? Can't the nudity be accepted as part of the merit without being seen as pornographic?

There's nothing pornographic about any of her photos.

If anyone thinks there is, that person has a distorted view of what pornography is.

Many of her images show nudes, including children, in poses that are clearly provocative. Simplifying porn to pornhub is not a level discussion.

All I said: people have the right to see things their own way and should not be blasted just because somebody else disagrees with their view.

.The grand concept .. artistic freedom must be preserved at all costs to the society at large. Same as saying, I can force my view of life as I see it and it is up to each individual to avoid seeing it. Of course for one to avoid the unexpected, one has to see it first, and some of it cannot be unseen. Some of Mann's imagery leaves a deep long lasting crater of disgust. Again, it appears I have no right to say it.

 

[Hassasin]

You have every right to be offended. But I also have the right to appreciate the photos for what the photographer’s intention was. You and others should not have the right to judge what I can see. Plus you are ranting about something you haven’t actually seen. Try that first. Usually those that find perversity in an image are looking for it in the first place.

I have seen enough of Mann's work, reason why I don't look it up anymore (yet still did for the sake of this thread to avoid speaking form memory). I do not take your right to see it at all.

Yet, pubic display is a public display. If this were about a private close circle exhibit, we would not be having this discussion.

 

[Milpool]

Many of her images show nudes, including children, in poses that are clearly provocative. Simplifying porn to pornhub is not a level discussion.

All I said: people have the right to see things their own way and should not be blasted just because somebody else disagrees with their view.

.The grand concept .. artistic freedom must be preserved at all costs to the society at large. Same as saying, I can force my view of life as I see it and it is up to each individual to avoid seeing it. Of course for one to avoid the unexpected, one has to see it first, and some of it cannot be unseen. Some of Mann's imagery leaves a deep long lasting crater of disgust. Again, it appears I have no right to say it.

You have every right to say it.

 

[Taylor K Nankervis]

Not an "artist" that I find particularly enthralling.
That oeuvre of photography — in a society that is too easily triggered by incursions on sensitivity, is distasteful and troubling to look over. It brings back memories of similar trigger works by Bill Henson. The problem is objectification of children who do not have a legal say in what is happening — particularly portrayed as naked (is there a reason so many men on another forum and making salicious and suggestive commentary?), Mann's or those of somebody else, is unnecessary in whatever guise of 'art'.

 

[Don_ih]

Some of Mann's imagery leaves a deep long lasting crater of disgust. Again, it appears I have no right to say it.

You have a right to say it. But it's irrelevant. Society cannot proceed on the feelings and opinions of disparate individuals. Society needs coherent descriptions of what is and is not acceptable - including, in this instance, what counts as child pornography. So Sally Mann's photos don't fall under that description. That's all there is to say about that.

You, however, are entitled to feel disgusted by them. You are entitled to express that disgust. You can try to convince everyone else on earth that those photos should be burnt. But don't accept widespread agreement. Child nudity is not automatically equivalent to child pornography, even if it is exploitation (and I would freely state that she exploited her children - no one would know her name if those photos contained only clothed children).

 

[MurrayMinchin]

If you substituted the children for garden gnomes or teddy bears, I doubt the Art World would ever have noticed...therefore...I find it exploitive and leaning heavily on shock value.

Self portraits would have taken real guts.