Sally Mann Photographs Removed from Texas Museum Exhibition after Outcry

[Pieter12]

I've been trying to follow along with this thread..........and it's the assertion of obtaining "consent" from a child at the time of photographing them in the nude that is probably the most ridiculous part of this whole thing, imo. The photos themselves are plainly not pornographic but why make the decision to go public with the nudity of children, even with the now adult consent from those same children.....for the sake of "art"? No, my admittedly pessimistic view on it, is because it's for the sake of shock value, because.........it's Sally Mann. I'm not necessarily offended by them, it seems innocent enough, but I think it's a decision wrought with bad taste. If anyone in this thread tried to do a similar thing where you live (assuming some art gallery would let you), how long do you think it would be before you, and maybe the gallery, are in deep doo doo? Maybe the gallery is offended at your "art" and calls the law on you. Do you think the claim of "art" would come to the rescue? I doubt it but I could be dead wrong, just my .01 cent opinion, if that. .

You find the photos shocking?

 

[MattKing]

Somehow I doubt that the people in that portion of Texas would be comfortable with the relatively recent confirmation of the rules for swimming attire at Vancouver Park Board public swimming facilities.
Genitals must be covered.
"Topless" swimmers - male or female - are in compliance with the rules,.

To quote a portion
Attire for swimming that is considered unacceptable includes, but is not limited to:
- Items designed for sexual/intimate purposes -
- Clothing which absorbs water and becomes heavy such as jeans or sweatpants
- Attire with long/flowing fabric that may limit movement or cause a safety risk

 

[Cholentpot]

… and when they were originally photographed they “gave consent” by not putting up a fuss and having a temper tantrum. Anyone who has, or was, a child understands how that works.

You can't pose kids of your own. They don't wanna.

 

[Don_ih]

"Consent" is a legal matter and the children were not of an age where they could represent themselves in that matter. The parents were the people that consented to the photos. The children cooperated with their mother taking photos. They had no inkling of what "publication" meant. They couldn't fathom the notion that the photos could be of interest to strangers - it's not the way children that young think. It doesn't fall within their world view.

And it's also irrelevant to this conversation, anyway, since whatever the children thought is meaningless to people who find the photos indecent. They condemn the photos, the photographer, and whoever makes the photos public - all on the basis of what they see in the photos. The only matter of relevance is "Are the photos indecent?" Practically nothing will make those that condemn the photos change their minds.

 

[Chuck_P]

You find the photos shocking?

I essentially find them pointless because I believe she knew exactly the kind pot she was stirring up.

 

[pentaxuser]

That's the point I was making. Museums are a business in the end. So trying not to offend many potential visitors would be in your business interest.

OK,thanks. I understand now and I agree but to be honest I had never considered from what I read about the issue that the pictures has caused enough of an issue to enough of the people to cause the gallery to consider that its very future as a business, assuming it was a business, was in danger of survival

What is worrying is that this might be a case of a very organised "tail" with views that do not represent more than a small portion of the population( the dog) being able to wag the whole of the " dog"

pentaxuser

 

[koraks]

the issue that the pictures has caused enough of an issue to enough of the people to cause the gallery to consider that its very future as a business

In all similar instances, when "offensive" content has been put on display, it has attracted a crowd. The notion that ethical issues surrounding these images would somehow pose a threat to the museum in terms of visitor numbers is unrealistic. But, as said before, a museum is not a business. The major source of income for museums, especially in the US, is donations from private actors - often wealthy industrialists. What is conceivable is that one or several of those have objected to the Mann show and have put things in motion to intervene. A museum would be receptive to such an argument because that actually would threaten the financial stability of the organization. But even so, the problem with that argument would be that the museum did not withdraw the photos on its own account. There was an external intervention involving the police, suggesting that the whole reasoning behind museums being a business and trying to please visitors is just a random diversion into fantasy land and not related to the actual background to these developments. I think the old saying applies here that if someone only has a hammer, they'll attempt to make a nail out of everything.

As to dogs and tails - some dogs turn out to have rather voluminous tails. It's sometimes a little hard to figure out whether the center of gravity really is with the dog, per se. I think we have plenty of evidence from recent developments especially in the US, but also elsewhere, that the dog may have severely underestimated the size of its tail in recent years.

And it's also irrelevant to this conversation

While I agree that the issue surrounding the ethics in relation to consent and Mann's own children is different from the actual intervention the Texan museum, I don't think it's therefore also irrelevant. In exploring the background to this intervention, it's sensible to also explore motives for people objecting against the work. I think we've established quite firmly that some of these motives are strongly ideological and for the most part appear to relate to worldviews that are not very prominent among frequent posters on this forum. But the issue surrounding consent appears to be a little more nuanced and difficult to associate with a certain socio-political corner. I find it logical that it's being discussed - and indeed, I see no reason to discredit such a discussion. I think it's in fact one of the more relevant aspects of the debate.

 

[BrianShaw]

The museum lawyers probably made the recommendation to comply with the brouhaha demands as it wouldn’t be worth the time and money to fight it. Lawyers tend to be exceedingly risk averse. That coalition appears both by well staffed and well funded… capable of bringing their adversaries to their knees (in a manner of speaking).

No matter… it’s a police investigation and anything could happen, ranging from rationale to ridiculous. Remember Jock Stuges and his run-in with the FBI?

@pentaxuser … it really could be a situation of the tail wagging the dog. Not unusual for extremist organizations of any kind.

 

[retina_restoration]

I hope the Museum makes a public statement about this series of events and makes their position on the matter available to the public.

 

[Don_ih]

[consent is] in fact one of the more relevant aspects of the debate

The photos would be deemed obscene by those who think they are obscene regardless of consent. These photos are judge on their content - just like virtually all photos are. Consent does not change the content.

 

[BrianShaw]

The photos would be deemed obscene by those who think they are obscene regardless of consent. These photos are judged on their content - just like virtually all photos are. Consent does not change the content.

Absolutely correct.

Consent is an interesting discussion regarding minors, as is the intellectual abilities of minors. Clearly there is diversity of opinion on both and both seem peripheral to Mann’s current and past situations.

 

[retina_restoration]

The photos would be deemed obscene by those who think they are obscene regardless of consent. These photos are judge on their content - just like virtually all photos are. Consent does not change the content.

Sad that anyone could look at those photographs are think there was anything remotely obscene about them. I find that utterly absurd.
I find its equally absurd that some people think Mann produced this body of work with the intent to shock and upset viewers. I honestly don't believe that Mann saw anything in her photographs of the kids other than the innocence of childhood and the unfettered joy of self-discovery in a bucolic setting. She was likely naive in thinking the work wouldn't be met with some resistance, but I very much doubt she intended it to generate conflicts.

I'm not saying this isn't a complicated problem. No, I don't think that a 5 year old child can legally grant permission for a likeness of themselves to be displayed as public art. But I also think that the Mann children grew up in a remarkably enlightened household and to suggest that they didn't understand what they were participating in isn't giving them enough credit. They certainly encourage the public display of the work now that they are fully adult people, FWIW.

But I find it deeply disappointing that in 2025 there are still aggressive "tails" that can wag a 300 pound dog till it begs for release. How tedious. Some days it seems we are rushing backward towards a conservative extremism that devours anything that emits light, like some black hole of "virtue".

 

[pentaxuser]

@pentaxuser … it really could be a situation of the tail wagging the dog. Not unusual for extremist organizations of any kind.

Yes that could well be the case but in the analogy of the dog and its tail the latter is a small part of the much bigger dog so should not be able to wag the dog

If the tail in this case is small in numbers so is unrepresentative of the "general view" of the people as a whole then it suggests that a few with "connections" and/or large financial clout can and will try to control what the people can see or do even if the law is not on the side of the small but powerful number of individuals be they an organisation or financial benefactors as suggested by koraks. It may even be that their real power is less than the general populace perceive it to be

That and the appearance that the police has acted beyond what Texas law appears to state has to be a worrying factor for all of us or so I think

pentaxuser

 

[BrianShaw]

Parental rights and responsibility, in the US at least, are quite broad and terminate upon the child reaching the age of majority or emancipation. Interestingly, the age at which parental rights stop varies by state and sometimes by type of right. But in general, minors can’t legally consent ir contract. Statements to the contrary perplex me.

 

[BrianShaw]

Yes that could well be the case but in the analogy of the dog and its tail the latter is a small part of the much bigger dog so should not be able to wag the dog

If the tail in this case is small in numbers so is unrepresentative of the "general view" of the people as a whole then it suggests that a few with "connections" and/or large financial clout can and will try to control what the people can see or do even if the law is not on the side of the small but powerful number of individuals be they an organisation or financial benefactors as suggested by koraks. It may even be that their real power is less than the general populace perceive it to be

That and the appearance that the police has acted beyond what Texas law appears to state has to be a worrying factor for all of us or so I think

pentaxuser

The police actions are consistent with police behavior. While the have discretion to resolve issues “curbside” they often perform investigations out of due diligence and consult/refer to the local prosecutor, whose job it is to decide if there is a crime and/or enough evidence to pursue prosecution. It can be complicated, as I’m sure you are already aware.

The analogy is just an analogy. Not worth overthinking. Life isn’t always fair and most people think that their opinion/assessment is right no matter what other evidence may exist. Logic and data isn’t always considered. For the coalition levying the complaint, the rationale is based on their interpretation of the Bible, so whether that represents the majority opinion or not doesn’t matter. If the case proceeds to trial, that might be different criteria, or not.

 

[Rudeofus]

Sad that anyone could look at those photographs are think there was anything remotely obscene about them. I find that utterly absurd.
I find its equally absurd that some people think Mann produced this body of work with the intent to shock and upset viewers.

Several years ago I had the displeasure to sit in a jury holding court over a dude who produced explicit child exploitation materials. Trust me, Sally Mann's pictures look absolutely nothing like the (fortunately very little, but still disgusting) material presented to us (the folks in court) as evidence. The difference goes far beyond artistic value.

I honestly don't believe that Mann saw anything in her photographs of the kids other than the innocence of childhood and the unfettered joy of self-discovery in a bucolic setting. She was likely naive in thinking the work wouldn't be met with some resistance, but I very much doubt she intended it to generate conflicts.

The predicate "so innocent" is one of the driving forces of child predators, so I'd tread very carefully with this line of argument. No, I do not accuse you of such tendencies. I personally would never dare to expose my kids (or any kid near my camera) to that kind of attention. Pics like these, while not exploitative by themselves, will trigger ideas in certain people.

 

[Arthurwg]

Somehow I doubt that the people in that portion of Texas would be comfortable with the relatively recent confirmation of the rules for swimming attire at Vancouver Park Board public swimming facilities.
Genitals must be covered.
"Topless" swimmers - male or female - are in compliance with the rules,.

Those who might want more "exposure" might go to Wreck Beach, if I remember correctly.

 

[koraks]

She was likely naive in thinking the work wouldn't be met with some resistance, but I very much doubt she intended it to generate conflicts.

No, I don't think Mann was specifically out to create a controversy. I've seen the suggestion pop up here and there, and hey, who knows...but personally, I don't believe that's what it was about for her.

But I also think that the Mann children grew up in a remarkably enlightened household and to suggest that they didn't understand what they were participating in isn't giving them enough credit.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect pre-teen kids to be sufficiently aware of the varied social response to this kind of imagery and the ethical pros & cons involved to be in a position to give informed consent. To put it very bluntly, I actually really really hope these kids weren't aware of the fact that somewhere, some perv is jacking off to their childhood idyll photographs. But their mother really should have been aware of that possibility and I sure hope she has considered it in her decision-making. If not, I think that's a morally objectionable oversight bordering on neglect. You know it'll happen once you put those pics out there, so it's a calculated risk. I think that's a dubious practice.

These photos are judge on their content - just like virtually all photos are. Consent does not change the content.

This is about the social response to the photos. The ethical considerations involved in making those photos are very central to the debate.

 

[BrianShaw]

There are probably wierd people who would mastuerbate to a picture of a yellow tropical fruit. Personally, I'd be a lot less judgemental of Mann even if caveating with weasel words. From what I've read, I think @retina_restoration has a full understanding based on what Mann and her children actually said/wrote and accurately reflects the situation. But I respect all opinions...

What really matters will be the prosecutor's response to the allegations, investigation, and evidence.

 

[Don_ih]

This is about the social response to the photos. The ethical considerations involved in making those photos are very central to the debate.

Social response is to publication of the photos, not to making them. And making them is not about consent but about what the photographer wants.

 

[halfaman]

I attended this past year to an exhibition of Richard Renaldi's Touching Stangers with the author himself presenting the work. In this series he asked two complete strangers passing by to pose like they were not, and the posing always involved some grade of contact. Richard explained us that this very interesting work was exhibited to the public years ago in some US city that I can't recall. When it was reviewed by a kind of "art board", they asked him to remove several photographs that they found problematic for display. He showed us which were the affected ones and it left me in shock. Here are a couple that I remember:

This one shoud be removed because it could imply "pederasty".

And also the following one that could imply "abuse".

The board didn't have that crazy interpretations of the photos, but they thought that some people or group of people in the city might and could create a bad publicity. Both were removed from the exhibition.

Seems that an entire city needed to suffer what certain persons project on art and probably other aspects of life, that are only problems present in their minds.

 

[Don_ih]

I don't think Mann was specifically out to create a controversy.

It's noteworthy that a photographer doesn't mount a show or publish a photo book without the involvement of a whole bunch of other people. However naive Sally Mann may have been, someone would've recognized the photos would be controversial.

 

[cowanw]

Society is changed. Elected officials want every vote they can get and cannot afford to be seen as "not tough on crime".

 

[BrianShaw]

Society is changed. Elected officials want every vote they can get and cannot afford to be seen as "not tough on crime".

Perhaps, but it’s important to note that diversity of opinion on nudity and shame has existed since Adam and Eve. No implication is being made as to whether this is a historical or metaphorical analogy.

 

[koraks]

Social response is to publication of the photos, not to making them. And making them is not about consent but about what the photographer wants.

The consent issue is also primarily about the publication, not so much the making of the photos. The societal response and its underlying motivations are multi-faceted. I don't agree with your statement that this particular perspective is somehow excluded.