Sally Mann Photographs Removed from Texas Museum Exhibition after Outcry

[Cholentpot]

The old adage, “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” isn’t always accurate…

And the sad fact is that accusation, whether justified or not, is too easily interpreted as conviction.

Erring on the side of caution, as annoying as that may be, makes sense…

Which I think the entire discussion boils down to.

We're risk adverse. Err on the side of caution.

I have a library of work that is never going to get shared publicly. Nothing to do with decency or clothes but the subject matter would be deemed too sensitive for current day. So it sits in an archive that some day when I'm long gone might be seen. Or not. I'm proud of my work even if I'm the only one who sees it.

 

[MTGseattle]

How many times has Sally Mann explained her motives for her "Immediate family" work? A lot.
Her Children who are the subject of those pictures have also explained their feelings regarding the continued "life" of those images, and If I am remembering correctly wouldn't mind a couple of them going away but are resigned to the status (infamy?) they (the images) have attained.

This to me, seems like just another in a long list of a group pushing its beliefs on the larger community. I'm sure a quick google session could give a potentially offended person the info needed to avoid the content they wish to not see. It's more book banning etc. The "...LGBTQ lifestyle" comment in the letter shows their hand as surely as the use of God so many times. A small group deciding what should and should not be seen based upon their belief structure. Sadly, Florida and Texas seem to be the recent leaders in this stuff.

In a way one could imply the inverse and say the organizers of the show in question are a small group deciding what we should all see, but I really doubt the exhibition was put together by a church group, and one can certainly not go to a given venue. I want to decide what I do not want to see/hear. It's that simple.

The open letter that started this new fervor is an example of why I choose to steer clear of organized religion.

 

[Arthurwg]

Sally Mann photographed her own children growing up, evolving into teengers as all children do. She had their permission at the time, and perhaps even more importantly she has the permission of them as near middle aged adults to publish and exhibit those photos. The subjects of the photos are now plenty old enough to be involved in those decisions themselves.

I'm not sure that a minor child's "permission" to be photographed in the nude has much standing, legally or otherwise. And I'm not at all sure that the impact of those experiences left the "celebrity" children unscathed. Let's remember that her eldest child, Emmitt, took his own life at age 36. An interesting interview with Jessie was published by Aperture in 2001.

 

[Cholentpot]

How many times has Sally Mann explained her motives for her "Immediate family" work? A lot.
Her Children who are the subject of those pictures have also explained their feelings regarding the continued "life" of those images, and If I am remembering correctly wouldn't mind a couple of them going away but are resigned to the status (infamy?) they (the images) have attained.

This to me, seems like just another in a long list of a group pushing its beliefs on the larger community. I'm sure a quick google session could give a potentially offended person the info needed to avoid the content they wish to not see. It's more book banning etc. The "...LGBTQ lifestyle" comment in the letter shows their hand as surely as the use of God so many times. A small group deciding what should and should not be seen based upon their belief structure. Sadly, Florida and Texas seem to be the recent leaders in this stuff.

In a way one could imply the inverse and say the organizers of the show in question are a small group deciding what we should all see, but I really doubt the exhibition was put together by a church group, and one can certainly not go to a given venue. I want to decide what I do not want to see/hear. It's that simple.

The open letter that started this new fervor is an example of why I choose to steer clear of organized religion.

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.

 

[retina_restoration]

I'm not sure that a minor child's "permission" to be photographed in the nude has much standing, legally or otherwise. And I'm not at all sure that the impact of those experiences left the "celebrity" children unscathed. Let's remember that her eldest child, Emmitt, took his own life at age 36. An interesting interview with Jessie was published by Aperture in 2001.

*sigh*
I wondered how long it would be before someone attempted to make a connection between Emmet's suicide and his "fame" as a Sally Mann model.

The man developed schizophrenia in adulthood, and I very much doubt you could hang "blame" on his childhood experiences. If anything, I expect his rural paradise environment, and loving "find out who you are and pursue it" parents may have prevented his illness from manifesting sooner and more severely. Suggesting that his upbringing in the hands of a driven, passionate photographer is responsible for his illness is lazy and unkind.

So, there’s an excellent interview with Jesse Mann published in Aperture in 2001. Read it and form your own opinion about the impact Sally’s work had on Jesse and her siblings. No one emerges from childhood unscathed by their experiences. While most people in our village regarded my parents as exceptional parents, I’ve come to view my upbringing as one marked by a certain ineptitude and a lack of guidance from them. At the heart of it all was their insistence that a “good life” could be achieved by finding work that paid a decent living and “fitting in” with society. However, I found neither of these approaches useful, and I believe I would have turned out to be a vastly different person if my parents had recognized my true self and encouraged me to pursue my interests and abilities. Instead, they struggled to guide me towards career choices that would have been detrimental to my well-being.

So, as I say, none of us escapes childhood undamaged.

 

[MattKing]

So, as I say, none of us escapes childhood undamaged.

Just as few emerge from childhood without acquiring some benefit.
I need to read the Jesse Mann interview, but I'm guessing that there was much to appreciate as a result of growing up influenced by such an interesting and talented person as Sally Mann.

 

[Arthurwg]

The man developed schizophrenia in adulthood, and I very much doubt you could hang "blame" on his childhood experiences. If anything, I expect his rural paradise environment, and loving "find out who you are and pursue it" parents may have prevented his illness from manifesting sooner and more severely. Suggesting that his upbringing in the hands of a driven, passionate photographer is responsible for his illness is lazy and unkind.

So know you know how long it would take.
This is not an accusation but simply a thought. Yes, the man was said to have developed "schizophrenia" as an adult, but he
seemed to have struggled with his situation way before that. Jessie also seemed to struggle. And yes we have no way of knowing what the impact of childhood actually had on their later lives. I'm reminded of the well known poem by Phillip Larkin: "They fuck you up, your mum and dad." But perhaps most importantly, do you think minor children can actually give legal or otherwise informed. consent to be photographed in the nude, and for profit? She did sell those pictures for a handsome price.

 

[Don_ih]

On the face of it, from an uninformed viewer, the photos feature nude children. Children are generally not considered to be able to give consent. So, these photos get labelled as indecent and possibly illegal. They don't care what the photographer says. They don't care what the children say. They only care about what they see in the photo.

Anything the photographer says would be seen as defensive.
Anything the (now grown) children say -- the accusers would assume the children were "groomed" or currently stand to gain from the photos circulation.

My point here is that you can't use Sally Mann's intent or subsequent defence of the photos, nor can you use the notion that the children consented and freely participated, to level an argument against the accusers.

What you actually need to do is get the accusers to not see any indecency in the photos. And I wish everyone luck with that.

 

[BrianShaw]

...

My point here is that you can't use Sally Mann's intent or subsequent defence of the photos, nor can you use the notion that the children consented and freely participated, to level an argument against the accusers.

What you actually need to do is get the accusers to not see any indecency in the photos. And I wish everyone luck with that.

True, and very sad.... especially since there are folks who will argue the below quote of Jessie with assumptions of grooming and exploitation. Her adult words from the referenced interview are rather clear and believable:

... we enjoyed being photographed. It gave us a sense of beauty. When you’re around an artist all the time, you’re always reminded of what’s beautiful and what’s special, and you can’t forget it. Now, even though we are grown up—and Emmett and I are in college and living apart from her, and Ginna has begun boarding school—we still have that reminder. We got to travel, and meet a lot of great people, and had all this great exposure. So we have to factor those experiences into the moving-out on to our own things.

 

[Pieter12]

So know you know how long it would take.
This is not an accusation but simply a thought. Yes, the man was said to have developed "schizophrenia" as an adult, but he
seemed to have struggled with his situation way before that. Jessie also seemed to struggle. And yes we have no way of knowing what the impact of childhood actually had on their later lives. I'm reminded of the well known poem by Phillip Larkin: "They fuck you up, your mum and dad." But perhaps most importantly, do you think minor children can actually give legal or otherwise informed. consent to be photographed in the nude, and for profit? She did sell those pictures for a handsome price.

And you have it on authority that schizophrenia could be caused be the so-called trauma of being photographed nude as a child and any subsequent public display?

 

[Pieter12]

Children are generally not considered to be able to give consent.

At a certain age, many children refuse to be photographed, clothed or not. They make faces, run away, don't cooperate.

 

[snusmumriken]

I wondered when Lewis Carroll would be introduced (post #148)! That’s a case that’s almost impossible to understand or resolve since we don’t know Dodgson as a person, nor fully comprehend the norms of the time. In the same era, Frank Meadow Sutcliffe was winning prizes for a photo of naked boys mucking about in the sea. He may even have paid them. But I don’t think there are any doubts about Sutcliffe’s character.

A problem in the present case is that we know some unusual people can get aroused by looking at photos of even pre-pubertal children that to most of us look innocent. The vigilantes fear that by making such images available, a fire is being stoked, and the end result will be paedophilic offending. You could of course say the same about knives or guns or, really, anything that can be both fetishised and misused.

I’m personally inclined to be liberal over nudity, and hostile to Puritanism. Nevertheless, I can also understand why some people fear the worst.

 

[Don_ih]

At a certain age, many children refuse to be photographed, clothed or not. They make faces, run away, don't cooperate.

Depends on the child and how often a camera appears, I think. My youngest shirked photos from the age of 2. I wasn't going to ask her to consent to anything at that age.

we know some unusual people can get aroused by looking at photos of even pre-pubertal children that to most of us look innocent. The vigilantes fear that by making such images available, a fire is being stoked

I don't think so. I think the people who protest the showing of the photos simply don't approve. They don't think "right-minded" individuals should be able to look at them and "perverts" prevented - - they think no one should be able to see those photos.

 

[BrianShaw]

It's that and more than that, Don. They have Biblical rationalization for their platform. But if one actually reads the Bible verses that they cite, it seems a bit contextually confused and extreme intererpretaions. There's no way to resolve that with logic, law, or anything else.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

No, I don't think it's a cautionary tale. Not a "draw within the lines" or else.....
It's a sign of a particular mindset. These photos were taken decades ago, and have stood the test of time in other geographic locations and views & reviews of artistic work.
I'm going to say this anyway regardless if it gets struck. Sally Mann's work doesn't come close to obscenity....dead children in Gaza and the Ukraine on the other hand.....

I was referring to laws within the US. You live in Canada.

 

[Pieter12]

I was referring to laws within the US. You live in Canada.

Soon the 51st state.

 

[Cholentpot]

Soon the 51st state.

No tariffs on maple syrup!!!

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Consent has no bearing on violating child pornography laws in Texas. Neither children nor their parents can give consent, The statute clearly states that just having photos, even AI produced pictures, where minors under 18 years are engaging in sexual acts, is illegal and considered child pornography. Now I'm not saying that Mann's photos show sexual acts. In fact they don't and they are just nude photos of children. So it seems that the whole argument about approval is moot in the Mann case at least as far as Texas law is concerned. Approval discussion are more about public perception of approval to community standards unrelated to penal codes.

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.

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-43-26/s

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

No tariffs on maple syrup!!!

I buy mine from Vermont.

 

[Pieter12]

No tariffs on maple syrup!!!

Or Beaver Tails!

 

[David Brown]

Then again, Texas. About all you need to say.

No, I think you need to say more. What a silly over-generalization. I am a bit offended. (But then, this has nothing to do with Sally Mann. Who, BTW has exhibited and lectured at this same museum before.)

 

[GregY]

Soon the 51st state.

Not a chance!

 

[GregY]

I was referring to laws within the US. You live in Canada.

Alan, This has nothing to do with where i live. There are lots of places in the USA where these photographs have been/or could be displayed without reactionary incident.

 

[Arthurwg]

And you have it on authority that schizophrenia could be caused be the so-called trauma of being photographed nude as a child and any subsequent public display?

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.

 

[retina_restoration]

So know you know how long it would take.
This is not an accusation but simply a thought. Yes, the man was said to have developed "schizophrenia" as an adult, but he
seemed to have struggled with his situation way before that. Jessie also seemed to struggle. And yes we have no way of knowing what the impact of childhood actually had on their later lives. I'm reminded of the well known poem by Phillip Larkin: "They fuck you up, your mum and dad." But perhaps most importantly, do you think minor children can actually give legal or otherwise informed. consent to be photographed in the nude, and for profit? She did sell those pictures for a handsome price.

You’re asking an impossible question.

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.

Introduce me to any child who did not find aspects of their childhood “difficult” and who did not struggle with their circumstances and developing sense of self. And if you did thirty seconds of research into the life of Emmett Mann, you’d know that he was diagnosed schizophrenic.