Sally Mann Photographs Removed from Texas Museum Exhibition after Outcry

[Alan Edward Klein]

Sorry, but that’s not what it’s about. That’s what you made it about by inserting, repeatedly, your values, ethics, and opinions, as well as throwing around some terms not in the law you cite. But carry on…

Everyone's giving their ethics, values, and opinions here. I'm surprised you of all people object to me giving mine. How do you have a one-side discussion?

 

[retina_restoration]

Stripping a young minor naked for a picture of this type is child abuse and probably

Eleanor Bullock believes otherwise.

Brian, This thread is about how photographs can hurt children when they're used improperly as models and how penal statutes are enforced. It has nothing to do with ethics per se, but common sense and doing the right thing.

No, but it became that because you have steered it in that direction. This has become a vehicle for you to voice your moral outrage. This was a discussion about a specific instance where specific photographs were seized by law enforcement when a church group acted as the morality police on behalf the community.

But if you want to make it about “how photographs can hurt children” then once again we have to refer you to the statements issued by Jesse and Virginia Mann, and Eleanor Bullock.

I am a father and I would never have made my daughter strip naked to take photographs of her for publication. If anyone here does that, would they admit it right now, here?

Not with you taking on the role of judge and jury, no.

I doubt anyone will. All this argument for art and other justifications are just bravado and argument for argument's sake.

No, it’s not. Some of us believe that Sally Mann’s art deserves more respect than it has been afforded in this conversation. I stand up for every artists right to make whatever art they want to, as long as no laws are clearly being violated. If an artist creates work that violates your sensibilities but doesn’t break any laws, they’re within their rights to do so. Art doesn’t have to stay within the boundaries of morality or good taste! That’s absurd. Whether you approve or not, the world includes artists like Andres Serrano who have a right to say what they want.

Also, we are talking about modern times with new rules, standards, understandings, and penal statutes. If someone applies the standards of the past today, they could wind up in jail for a long time. I've posted many parts of the Texas and Federal statutes many times to show the legal issues, not the ethical issues. These statutes were not around 60 years ago with Bullock.

Yes, we’ve heard it. But this endless “you can’t get away with that now!” is more about your opinion than it is about what is and isn’t legal, Alan. I’ll say it again: until a judgement has been passed that Sally Mann’s photographs have clearly violated Texas law, the condemnation and moral outrage is just opinion.

 

[MattKing]

In the world where I live, taking that type of photograph of a cooperating family at Wreck Beach would not mean a risk of jail. I'm sorry for those whose worlds are different.

 

[retina_restoration]

Everyone's giving their ethics, values, and opinions here. I'm surprised you of all people object to me giving mine. How do you have a one-side discussion?

By stating “Stripping a young minor naked for a picture of this type is child abuse”, you are no longer simply offering your opinion and values, you are claiming that this is a factual, undeniable truth, when in fact it is just your opinion. You’ve crossed a line.

 

[cmacd123]

If a photographer wants to do nudes, use adults only. No children. Why would you put yourself in a position to go to jail?

I do undertand that you have some discomfort with folks taking any Photo of anyone under the age or 18? 21? 35? when the subject is not fully clothed. the courts have had quite some time to deal with case law on that. in both the photographers who we have discussed here, the subjects were used to posing without clothing, and when the Photos have been around for such a long time - one would assume that if they were not acceptable, the courts would have said so.

some folks do not wear clothing all the time, some families like to be in the sunshine. that is not your lifestyle. it is neither right nor wrong for that family. in both the examples, the subjects were used to being Photographed without clothing. in the Mann Books, the author was perhaps promoting that families can chose to enjoy the sunshine.

 

[cmacd123]

By stating “Stripping a young minor naked for a picture of this type is child abuse”, you are no longer simply offering your opinion and values,

indeed, the phrasing implies the use of Phyical force to have the subject pose against their will. that is itself implying a extreme value judgement. in Mann's Photos the subjects were already not dressed, and in the other one the subject was happy to undress woring only ablit the pine needles. and the Wreck each photo seems to be a family just enjoying the sun.

 

[MattKing]

and the Wreck Beach photo seems to be a family just enjoying the sun

In case it isn't obvious, Wreck Beach was a clothing optional beach back then. It remains a clothing optional beach to this day.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Good luck, guys. If I were you and wanted to publish nude pictures of children, I'd keep the phone number of a criminal attorney handy.

 

[warden]

Good luck, guys. If I were you and wanted to publish nude pictures of children, I'd keep the phone number of a criminal attorney handy.

Has anyone in this thread expressed an interest in publishing nude pictures of children, Alan? We’re having a discussion, not making a business plan.

 

[Agulliver]

I'll briefly chime in again. Indeed, in many households people aren't clothed 100% of the time out of bed. Personally speaking I have not worn pyjamas since I was 8 years old. Many a time as a kid I'd be up earlier than my parents on weekends, playing in the garden if it was sunny. And yes there are photos of this. Also a delightfully funny photo of me taking a pee by the side of the road one summer. Did I have a choice at the time? Not especially, as I was very young. Though I do not recall at any point between then and now having any objections. It's simply a record of me growing up. A reminder of carefree times. And I have chosen to share a few of those photos in more recent times.

There also exist households were nobody would even exit the bedroom to use the bathroom at night without clothing. And that's fine too.

It strikes me, however, that it's always the more prudish folk who try to push their values on the others.

In my opinion and experience, there is nothing intrinsically pornographic about a naked human body - whatever the age. And if, when looking at Sally Mann's photos of her children growing up, someone's reaction is sexual thoughts....the problem is with the viewer, not the images. There are people who become aroused looking at door knobs, coffee tables and all kinds of inanimate objects too. Nobody blames the coffee table.

 

[VinceInMT]

….The problem is too many people don't find the opinions of others very interesting. They don't get curious as to why someone would think differently than they do and what those different opinions actually mean…

Thank you. That is exactly why I enjoy discussions like this as I am continually curious about what people believe and why they believe it.

 

[retina_restoration]

Good luck, guys. If I were you and wanted to publish nude pictures of children, I'd keep the phone number of a criminal attorney handy.

You're making a mistake if you think that any of us are planning to replicate the Mann portfolio, or anything similar. Standing up for the rights of artists is what I am expressing, and I don't think I'm alone in that. If we don't, then we are paving the way for minorities with a "morality agenda" to dictate what can and cannot be represented in art, and I doubt that anyone wants to pursue such a thing. (except of course those minorities)

Secondly, by making that statement, you are implying that you believe that the depiction of an unclothed child in a work of art is a "criminal" activity, which would have to be proven without a doubt. And I'll remind you, not once have any of Sally Mann's photos been determined to have violated any laws. Just because work like Mann and Bullock offends you doesn't make its "criminal".

You are absolutely free to express your opinion in these discussions, but when someone chooses to cross the line between expressing opinion, and attempting to render opinion as fact, don't be surprised if you encounter pushback.

It strikes me, however, that it's always the more prudish folk who try to push their values on the others.

That is my experience as well.

In my opinion and experience, there is nothing intrinsically pornographic about a naked human body - whatever the age. And if, when looking at Sally Mann's photos of her children growing up, someone's reaction is sexual thoughts....the problem is with the viewer, not the images.

Absolutely. When someone chooses to "go all Pat Robertson" when viewing art that includes an unclothed human form, I tend to wonder what it is about that person's mind that takes them to that place. All too often, it's those minds that rush to outrage and then act on it, as did the Danbury group in this instance.

There are people who become aroused looking at door knobs, coffee tables and all kinds of inanimate objects too. Nobody blames the coffee table.

Oh, I think the coffee table (and the door knob) have a great deal to answer for! ;-)

 

[cowanw]

Accusations of other people's minds is quite inappropriate here, not least because the opinion that Alan expresses is widespread enough to be within the norm.
Here is an interesting article from 1996

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03064229608536092

 

[VinceInMT]

Accusations of other people's minds is quite inappropriate here, not least because the opinion that Alan expresses is widespread enough to be within the norm.
Here is an interesting article from 1996

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03064229608536092

Thank you for that link. I like how it addresses the issue of photography being more prone to scrutiny than other art forms partially due to it not being considered art by some and by its ability to closely reflect reality.

For those who want to define nudity in children as pornography and criminal and child abuse, I wonder if this only applies to photography? When I visited the Uffuzi museum in Florence, Italy two years ago, I saw MANY paintings, quite realistic in their renderings, that depicted unclothed children. Should those be removed? What if they came to a museum exhibition in Texas? It’s a very slippery slope.

 

[retina_restoration]

Accusations of other people's minds is quite inappropriate here, not least because the opinion that Alan expresses is widespread enough to be within the norm.
Here is an interesting article from 1996

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03064229608536092

Alan has not limited himself to expressing his opinion - he has as much as accused some of us of plotting to violate child pornography laws. That's a different matter. Alan's opinions are welcome here, but Alan has crossed boundaries in this discussion, resulting in negative feedback. Whether or not his attitude is "widespread enough to be within the norm" is not the issue.

 

[warden]

Google the Miller Test (obscenity) and Dost Test (child pornography) for some interesting reading about how courts (US courts anyway) have analyzed images for obscenity and child pornography. Dost test is a similar vintage to Mann's images of her kids, and is just six questions. I'm sure there are newer versions.

I don't think open minded people could find Bullock's image of his daughter in this thread obscene or pornographic if they honestly apply these standards, but Mann's images require more analysis and I can see how thoughtful people would differ.

A challenge to this sort of analysis is summed up in a quote from lawyer Kathleen Sullivan: The first two prongs of the Miller test – that material appeal to the prurient interest and be patently offensive – have been said to require the impossible: "They require the audience to be turned on and grossed out at the same time".

Many see Mann's images without being turned on or grossed out. Others rush for pitchforks and torches. So it goes.

 

[GregY]

Accusations of other people's minds is quite inappropriate here, not least because the opinion that Alan expresses is widespread enough to be within the norm.
Here is an interesting article from 1996

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03064229608536092

Thank you. Amy Adler's piece was very well written.

 

[Arthurwg]

For those who want to define nudity in children as pornography and criminal and child abuse, I wonder if this only applies to photography? When I visited the Uffuzi museum in Florence, Italy two years ago, I saw MANY paintings, quite realistic in their renderings, that depicted unclothed children. Should those be removed? What if they came to a museum exhibition in Texas? It’s a very slippery slope.

Interesting. I had the exact same thought.

 

[Arthurwg]

I guess she will always be defined by those early pictures. That's sad, because her subsequent is so superb.

 

[GregY]

I guess she will always be defined by those early pictures. That's sad, because her subsequent is so superb.

My guess, is only by a certain audience.

 

[Don_ih]

I guess she will always be defined by those early pictures.

Most well-known photographers are almost completely unknown to anyone outside of photography. She's somewhat well-known to a quite large general population and it is, yes, due to the controversial photographs. Ultimately, within photography, she will be known for whatever noteworthy work she produces. But without the controversy, she may not have been much more noteworthy (within photography) than any random professional photographer.

 

[retina_restoration]

My guess, is only by a certain audience.

I believe this will be the case, yes. The work in question has been exhibited widely for nearly 35 years now, and only occasionally, and in certain places do these photographs inflame hypersensitive individuals.

A while back I asked the forum membership to explain to me what it is about Sally Mann's photograph "Night Blooming Cereus" (link provided) that warranted inclusion in the work seized by the Fort Worth police, and I don't believe anybody provided an answer. So, I'll ask again: please explain why this image is considered by some as offensive and (potentially) pornography?

 

[GregY]

I believe this will be the case, yes. The work in question has been exhibited widely for nearly 35 years now, and only occasionally, and in certain places do these photographs inflame hypersensitive individuals.

A while back I asked the forum membership to explain to me what it is about Sally Mann's photograph "Night Blooming Cereus" (link provided) that warranted inclusion in the work seized by the Fort Worth police, and I don't believe anybody provided an answer. So, I'll ask again: please explain why this image is considered by some as offensive and (potentially) pornography?

Certainly beats me why that photo would be seized.

 

[Don_ih]

So, I'll ask again: please explain why this image is considered by some as offensive and (potentially) pornography?

No clue. Maybe they also don't like flowers?

 

[warden]

Certainly beats me why that photo would be seized.

I'm surprised the gallery (Mann's gallery that loaned the work) hasn't filed suit for the return of this property yet, if it is true that the authorities have them.