Sally Mann Photographs Removed from Texas Museum Exhibition after Outcry

[Don_ih]

I assume the question is somewhat rhetorical.

It's not.

But I don't expect anyone here will answer it. (And "Yes" or "No" don't count as "answers" - they're dismissals.)

 

[cmacd123]

I do find it odd that in the States, even showing a female Brest is considered provocative, while here in Canada equality of the sexes is a consitutional right, so if a Male can expose a breast, a Female can also. of course in parts of Spain and France, there are communities where the wearing of any clothing is an option.

What this tells me is that anyone outside Texas, may not be in a position to understand the issues that are in play here.

 

[Cholentpot]

I do find it odd that in the States, even showing a female Brest is considered provocative, while here in Canada equality of the sexes is a consitutional right, so if a Male can expose a breast, a Female can also. of course in parts of Spain and France, there are communities where the wearing of any clothing is an option.

What this tells me is that anyone outside Texas, may not be in a position to understand the issues that are in play here.

It's legal in many state to go topless no matter how you identify.

 

[Pieter12]

After reviewing the pictures in "Immediate Family," which I haven't looked at for many years, I can say that several and perhaps many are highly provocative and probably do meet some of the criteria for child pornography. But more importantly, however, they are great pictures, full of poetry, artistry and a refined sensibility. They are in some sense masterpieces.

Although these photographs established her career, her later work is also just as wonderful, full of the same poetry and profound sensibility. In some ways it's unfortunate that she is most famous for her early pictures and not what came after. Safe to say they are also masterpieces.

I have a copy of "Mother Land," a large soft cover volume published by Edwynn Hook Gallery (ND), of her landscapes of Georgia and Virginia, mostly from the 1990s. They are spectacular, IMHO. It's unfortunate that these pictures were not included in the museum show.

Because they didn't fit the theme "Diaries of Home."

 

[Pieter12]

I do find it odd that in the States, even showing a female Brest is considered provocative

And in Texas, of all places, home of the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders.

 

[MattKing]

After reviewing the pictures in "Immediate Family," which I haven't looked at for many years, I can say that several and perhaps many are highly provocative and probably do meet some of the criteria for child pornography. But more importantly, however, they are great pictures, full of poetry, artistry and a refined sensibility. They are in some sense masterpieces.

So does that make it ok? Because it has artistic merit that cancels out the negativity of it?

The critical word in @Arthurwg 's post above is "some".
If they met all of the criteria for child pornography, then their artistic merit would be irrelevant when it comes to whether or not police should be involved.

 

[Cholentpot]

The critical word in @Arthurwg 's post above is "some".
If they met all of the criteria for child pornography, then their artistic merit would be irrelevant when it comes to whether or not police should be involved.

'I can say that several and perhaps many are highly provocative and probably do meet some of the criteria for child pornography'

If I had photos sitting on my hard drive that met 'SOME' criteria for CP and my house got raided I'd be doing time. They'd throw the book at me. This thread is convincing me more and more that Sally Mann is riding a shield of privilege.

'Oh no officer, these photos ya see guvnah' it's art it is. Yep, art with a cap-ital A innit? Children? Pah! They right on consented and whassit. All clear and clean Officer. Nothing to see here. Wouldn't want to be having any incriminating photographs on this here machine would we? They're just ya know, slightly pornographic. Suggestive? These innocent things? Naah, it's just a style of communication right? It's a phase of me artistic impressions it is it is.'

See how that sounds?

If Sally Mann were Sal Mann he'd be looking through bars and skipping showers.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

.......

How many of you think Sally Mann would choose to ignore the mental and physical well-being of her children in the pursuit of the work she's done? If you disregard the fierce nature of "maternal instinct" then you are omitting an important factor when considering Mann's motives.

Just to play devil's advocate, I'd say the evidence suggests that she used those images to make herself famous. She can say whatever she wants in her books to make people think she didn't, whatever justification she can find. Res Ipso Facto....

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is her book "At Twelve" that predates the publishing of her family pictures. The cover of that book is ridiculous.

I'll state again, I don't find her images offensive. I don't think they are pornographic. Exploitative? Probably.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

And in Texas, of all places, home of the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders.

Christo-fascists are always that way though. If they say it is ok, then it is. If you say it is ok, then it isn't. It has to be their idea, or you have to be one of them. So Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders shaking their stuff all over the place in front of children? That is ok. The hypocrisy is part of the delusion.

 

[MattKing]

f I had photos sitting on my hard drive that met 'SOME' criteria for CP and my house got raided I'd be doing time. They'd throw the book at me.

So you are saying you would be convicted without being guilty of all the necessary elements of the offence?
"Some" means you haven't done all the things necessary to be found guilty - if the law is followed.
"Some" may be enough to raise suspicion or to justify further investigation, but unless there is "all" of what is minimally necessary, you shouldn't be found guilty.
And it is a lot more than any presumption of innocence.

 

[Agulliver]

According to the laws posted upthread, even somewhere like Texas, those images are not classed as "child pornography" because no sexual acts are depicted.

If that's enough to get you prosecuted then lock up my parents for taking photos of me as a child naked. Indeed lock me up because the prints and negatives are now in my posession.

 

[Don_ih]

So you are saying you would be convicted without being guilty of all the necessary elements of the offence?

No, I think what he's saying is the character of the photos, in this instance, is somewhat determined by who took them and what they are purported to be. As in, the mother of the children took them, not some random man, and they're presented as works of art, not as eye candy for pedophiles.

As for how a pedophile would view those photos: you can't control what stimulates someones proclivities. Some people are aroused by pictures of bare feet - should that be made illegal? For some people, these images which involve no sex-acts whatsoever will be stimulating.

The people who condemn the photos, however, don't just want them kept away from pedophiles - they want no one to be able to see them. They believe the photos are not fit for viewing by the general public.

I do find it odd that in the States, even showing a female Brest is considered provocative, while here in Canada equality of the sexes is a consitutional right, so if a Male can expose a breast, a Female can also. of course in parts of Spain and France, there are communities where the wearing of any clothing is an option.

What this tells me is that anyone outside Texas, may not be in a position to understand the issues that are in play here.

Recognizing that Texans may have somewhat different attitudes and values from Canadians (which, for the majority of Canadians, is dubious) shows you can likely fully understand the issues at play. It's hardly an insurmountable cultural difference.

 

[loccdor]

Her images seem fine to me.

However, I understand how this situation can develop. Because there are other photographers getting much closer to, or crossing, a line.

So on a low resolution view, she gets lumped into this group.

With something like this, there will always be a gray area that people fall into, and others that are clearly in the black or white.

I had a contact who took many photos with excellent lighting, composition, photographic technique, but started posting photos of teens or preteens in lingerie or swimwear and sexually suggestive poses. Nothing that outright breaks the law. But it was too close for me and I no longer interact with them.

I don't think that it's productive to make this about various locations, and do the "my place enlightened, your place backwards" thing. I've seen close-minded thinking from every political stripe and geographic region. What I find is that a variety of close-minded and open-minded thinking will exist simultaneously in the same person. And there are also some topics on which being close-minded (or at least stubbornly decided) is warranted.

When laws around this are specifically codified, they can create a shield around which actual bad actors can hide behind - which is why I think it's reasonable that the Supreme Court's view of pornography is "you know it when you see it" rather than a long list of things the image can and cannot have in it.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Any EU and Quebec legal restrictions on photographing strangers on public streets apply equally to children and adults - and are essentially not criminal law restrictions.
They are related to what is essentially a property interest in one's privacy.
Entirely different laws.

So the laws there are more concerned about the privacy of clothed people on a public street than adults taking pictures of naked children in the privacy of their homes? American laws take the opposite view. That was my point. Photographers should know what laws are where before they get themselves in trouble with local customs.

 

[Arthurwg]

Funny how this case has reopened after all these years. It seems there is no "statute of limitations" for child pornography. Perhaps community standards have shifted.

 

[retina_restoration]

Just to play devil's advocate, I'd say the evidence suggests that she used those images to make herself famous. She can say whatever she wants in her books to make people think she didn't, whatever justification she can find.

Well, by the undeniable fact that Mann garnered fame as a result of the photographs in Immediate Family, then your assertion is true, yes. Any and all artists “use” their work to become famous (presuming they became famous, whatever “fame” means). I don’t see why making this point is relevant or important. I myself “use my photographs” to draw attention to what I do, though I’ll never receive the kind of audience Sally Mann has, of course.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is her book "At Twelve" that predates the publishing of her family pictures. The cover of that book is ridiculous.

Why do you think that??

I'll state again, I don't find her images offensive. I don't think they are pornographic. Exploitative? Probably.

Ok, so at this point I don’t think we are debating whether or not Mann’s photographs are exploitive - as long as you disregard any value judgements that tend to accompany the term “exploitive”. Obviously she exploited an opportunity to make work she saw as unique to her situation and facilitated her creative expression. By its raw definition - ignoring any negative connotations - that is exploitation.

I get the impression that some people think that all exploitation is bad - that using others to make a photograph is inherently damaging to the subject, or is somehow taking something from them they do not wish to give. Street photography demonstrates this kind of exploitation every day, in billions of photographs. But in context of Sally Mann’s family photographs, some people assign very different values to “exploitation”, presenting it as sinister or abusive. Why target Sally Mann rather than Diane Arbus, Vivian Maier or any number of other portraitists? (Rhetorical: we each have our own answer to such a question, and we’ve had plenty of opinions offered here)
Were her children “abused” or “damaged” in the making of those photographs? Sally’s adult children have been asked this and similar questions and they have stated that they do not think so. The girls have stated that being the daughters of “a famous photographer” has introduced certain challenges in their lives - just ask the children of any celebrity how their status affected their lives - but when those people deny any abuse or damaging exploitation, it’s not fair for any of us to imply that there was.

The question has been asked: would someone like Sally Mann succeed in publishing a body of work like Immediate Family in 2025? Maybe. Maybe not. It’s possible that Sally has “poked the bear” and the bear has been wide awake and watching since 1992. Laws and social norms change over time. We have a different understanding of things like pedophilia and we are drawing lines in different places to protect our people, and rightfully so (as long as the laws aren’t abused by people with power, to exercise a personal agenda, resulting in gross overreach. The Texas case falls into that category, I believe). Some changes cannot be undone, some lines become difficult to redraw.

Does it make a difference that it was their mother making the photographs? What if it had been their father instead? In asking that question we reveal a bias most (all?) of us have. We feel that it makes a difference, and having the mother make the photographs feels different than if the father made them. I don’t deny that fact. But the more essential question is: does such a thing matter in the eyes of the law? Should that make a difference? I don’t know.

 

[Cholentpot]

Funny how this case has reopened after all these years. It seems there is no "statute of limitations" for child pornography. Perhaps community standards have shifted.

Community standards have most definitely shifted.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

America isn't trying hard enough to "find balance", IMO. Too many people with both power and an agenda, working to force their opinions on others.

The US Constitution, Bill of Rights Amendment #1 protects our rights as photographers to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, not the opinion of the majority. Democracy takes freedoms away as the majority imposes its beliefs. The Constitution protects the beliefs and rights of minority viewpoints, not public opinion, which is often in the majority and can be opposed to those freedoms. Majority opinion doesn't need the protection of the Constitution. They have the vote. However, child pornography is not a protected freedom. In the Mann issue, the problem is an interpretation of the law and if the photographs are a violation of it. Sometimes those lines are hard to determine.

 

[retina_restoration]

So you are saying you would be convicted without being guilty of all the necessary elements of the offence?
"Some" means you haven't done all the things necessary to be found guilty - if the law is followed.
"Some" may be enough to raise suspicion or to justify further investigation, but unless there is "all" of what is minimally necessary, you shouldn't be found guilty.
And it is a lot more than any presumption of innocence.

Agreed. Lots of work meets some of the requirements, but unless all of the requirements are met, then it falls short of the legal definition. Sure, work that lives in a gray space between definitions can creep people out or make them react negatively, but how a person feels when viewing a certain image isn’t enough to assign a legal definition that classifies it.
Lots of Jock Stuges’ work disturbs me - my impression is that at the core of it, he’s a “dirty old man” taking lascivious photos of young girls for the purpose of titillating the viewer. He can label the work any way he wants to, but I still get creeped out by a lot of it.
That said, there’s no way I would deny him the ability to make the work and display it in public, regardless of how creepy I find it. Until such time that the legal system deems his work “illegal”, I wouldn’t dare suggest such a thing as prompting a police raid to remove the photographs from public view. That would be gross overreach, imo.

 

[retina_restoration]

The US Constitution, Bill of Rights Amendment #1 protects our rights as photographers to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, not the opinion of the majority. Democracy takes freedoms away as the majority imposes its beliefs. The Constitution protects the beliefs and rights of minority viewpoints, not public opinion, which is often in the majority and can be opposed to those freedoms. Majority opinion doesn't need the protection of the Constitution. They have the vote. However, child pornography is not a protected freedom. In the Mann issue, the problem is an interpretation of the law and if the photographs are a violation of it. Sometimes those lines are hard to determine.

The decision that Texas makes in this case is a very important one. It could shape and redefine how artists make work, and what they can and cannot use as subject matter. Personally, I hope the result doesn’t pose new limitations on artists (who ever said art couldn’t challenge or upset??) as this would (in my opinion) be a tragic step backwards.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

All of this Mann stuff reminds me of the joke about the interpretation of images.

So this guy goes to a psychiatrist who shows him those Rorschach inkblot images to determine what his problem is.

"So what do you see in this inkblot?" asks the doctor.

"Well, I see two people having sex." responds the patient.

"And what do you see in this second inkblot?"

"Well, that one also has two people having sex."

"And what about this third blot?"

"Well, it too has two people having sex."

So the psychiatrist concludes, "Well that's your problem. You have a dirty mind.

And the patient complains, "But wait. You're the one showing me all these dirty pictures."

 

[loccdor]

Funny how this case has reopened after all these years. It seems there is no "statute of limitations" for child pornography. Perhaps community standards have shifted.

Technical point - if you possess something illegal (let's say a drug) that was made 40 years ago, and it is discovered by police - the date of the crime of possession is today, not 40 years ago when it was made. (I am not saying Sally Mann produces anything illegal)

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I do find it odd that in the States, even showing a female Brest is considered provocative, while here in Canada equality of the sexes is a consitutional right, so if a Male can expose a breast, a Female can also. of course in parts of Spain and France, there are communities where the wearing of any clothing is an option.

What this tells me is that anyone outside Texas, may not be in a position to understand the issues that are in play here.

Most states if not all have laws against child pornography. There is also a federal law against it affecting the whole country and beyond. You would have to hide under a rock to get away with child pornography in America. Of course, each law is slightly different than the others. So a photographer has to be very careful what and where he does things. I'd stay away from it entirely. If you want to shoot genitalia, go to the zoo.

 

[BrianShaw]

Funny how this case has reopened after all these years. It seems there is no "statute of limitations" for child pornography. Perhaps community standards have shifted.

It’s the same self-righteous as in earlier times. Not much has shifted.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Just to clear up some mistakes about the law many are making here. Texas law does not allow for adult or child approval. Children in the pictures, now adults, cannot approve of the pictures. Of course, children cannot approve the pictures initially. The pictures stand on their own as a violation. Artistic value is also not considered in protecting a violation. One of the reasons for these laws is to diminish the encouragement of pedophiles to carry out actual physical sexual abuse of children just by the very nature of the pictures. Of course, this also stops sexual abuse of children in the taking of these type of pictures.

Photos don't even have to be pictures of real children. AI-produced computer images would also be a violation. The images don't even have to be viewable. Just having a data file on your computer or a disk is a violation. It's a violation of Federal pornography laws for foreigners to transmit over the US national border through mail, email, or the Internet as well as interstate transmission by anyone. A sex act doesn't have to be performed. "Lewd" pictures of nude children are enough to be considered child pornography.