Sally Mann Photographs Removed from Texas Museum Exhibition after Outcry

[Don_ih]

Sally Mann's photograph "Night Blooming Cereus" (link provided)

I see that photo (and a lot of Sally Mann's photography) as a direct descendant of the fantasy photos taken by Julia Margaret Cameron. It's one of the more "obviously artsy" of Sally Mann's photos.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Meh, my gob is not smacked after seeing a five year old posing au naturel in nature. The artistic intent is clearly laid out in the essay by Bullock's daughter. I just dug The Family of Man out to take a peek - the image is 7" on the long side fwiw, and the offending butt cheek is a quarter inch.

The image is the first in the book after the title page, and is used to illustrate the opening essay by Carl Sandburg. If there is any remaining confusion about the image I imagine reading Sandburg's essay would fix that. Then again maybe not.


View attachment 388521

If that is the only photograph the problem is about, then those have much worse problems of their own.

 

[cowanw]

That is several allusions now to Alan and individuals expressing concern, having problems of their own or suggestions that one wonders what it is about that person's mind that takes them to that place, etc.
Enough weasel words; what are you all implying that requires phrasing things with deniability. Speak plainly or can the rhetorical smears.

 

[Agulliver]

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?

The difference is that nobody else is saying people should be sent to jail for innocent activities which aren't illegal but which go against one poster's moral values.

Meanwhile, in the real world, people don't go to jail for photographing family members naked. Certainly not in the West.

 

[BrianShaw]

That is several allusions now to Alan and individuals expressing concern, having problems of their own or suggestions that one wonders what it is about that person's mind that takes them to that place, etc.
Enough weasel words; what are you all implying that requires phrasing things with deniability. Speak plainly or can the rhetorical smears.

In general I support this kind of thought. Not sure what you are referring to as most of what I've read in this thread has been rather clear and plainspoken, although some having unsubstantiated assumptions like what the norm is...

 

[MattKing]

That is several allusions now to Alan and individuals expressing concern, having problems of their own or suggestions that one wonders what it is about that person's mind that takes them to that place, etc.
Enough weasel words; what are you all implying that requires phrasing things with deniability. Speak plainly or can the rhetorical smears.

I think it is fine for Alan and others to disapprove of the work.
And I understand that there are communities of people who disapprove of the work.
The work can be disquieting, and I understand why people might lump it in with photographs that are far more egregious.
There is an important difference between that though and taking a further step - applying legal tools to force withdrawal of the work from public view, and applying criminal penalties to the photographer or anyone who displays the work .
If I read Alan and others correctly, they think that the law mandates that further step. That seems to be a fair place to disagree.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I think it is fine for Alan and others to disapprove of the work.
And I understand that there are communities of people who disapprove of the work.
The work can be disquieting, and I understand why people might lump it in with photographs that are far more egregious.
There is an important difference between that though and taking a further step - applying legal tools to force withdrawal of the work from public view, and applying criminal penalties to the photographer or anyone who displays the work .
If I read Alan and others correctly, they think that the law mandates that further step. That seems to be a fair place to disagree.

My comment about the Mann picture in my post 510 said: "I think the DA should return photos after the Exhibition is over and move on. It's not clear Texas law was violated."

 

[cowanw]

Good one BrianShaw ( I would do a happy face but my settings here don't seem to allow for that) - although I said "within the norm" which since this discussion has been going on for decades, I think is still a fair statement; but yes, I don't know the norm where you are.
MattKing comments are eminently correct, but do not address the suggestion which questions "a mind that takes him to that place."
We are free to fill in what that place is, according to our own preconceptions. Rhetorically this is often intended to suggest the individual is actually secretly guilty in some way of the offense they decry or that their mind is not quite right.
At least that is how my poor mind thinks.

 

[Don_ih]

That is several allusions now to Alan and individuals expressing concern, having problems of their own or suggestions that one wonders what it is about that person's mind that takes them to that place

It's just the usual old ad hominem. Nothing to worry about.

 

[cowanw]

The difference is that nobody else is saying people should be sent to jail for innocent activities which aren't illegal but which go against one poster's moral values.

Meanwhile, in the real world, people don't go to jail for photographing family members naked. Certainly not in the West.

Maybe not in jail, but deported.

Caution: Nude Baby Photos Can Result in Arrest, Law Prof Warns

The ABA Journal is read by half of the nation's 1 million lawyers every month. It covers the trends, people and finances of the legal profession from Wall Street to Main Street to Pennsylvania Avenue.

www.abajournal.com

 

[MattKing]

My comment about the Mann picture in my post 510 said: "I think the DA should return photos after the Exhibition is over and move on. It's not clear Texas law was violated."

Perhaps we are conflating your comments about the Texas show and your comments about photographs that include nudity and children.

 

[BrianShaw]

I'm more focused on why the TX authorities should wait until the show is over. They should decide the fate of the allegation(s) much sooner than Feb 2. Either they are going forward with prosecution or not...

 

[MattKing]

Maybe not in jail, but deported.

Caution: Nude Baby Photos Can Result in Arrest, Law Prof Warns

The ABA Journal is read by half of the nation's 1 million lawyers every month. It covers the trends, people and finances of the legal profession from Wall Street to Main Street to Pennsylvania Avenue.

www.abajournal.com

Or perhaps more accurately, if you don't wish to come to the attention of the authorities, don't take photos of naked family members if others might see them.

 

[Don_ih]

I'm more focused on why the TX authorities should wait until the show is over. They should decide the fate of the allegation(s) much sooner than Feb 2. Either they are going forward with prosecution or not...

It could be pragmatic on their part. Keep the "offending" photos until the show is over to appease those who are complaining.

 

[cliveh]

I see that photo (and a lot of Sally Mann's photography) as a direct descendant of the fantasy photos taken by Julia Margaret Cameron. It's one of the more "obviously artsy" of Sally Mann's photos.

I fail to see how this picture has any connection with those taken by Julia Margaret Cameron.

 

[Don_ih]

I fail to see how this picture has any connection with those taken by Julia Margaret Cameron.

Stylistically, Clive. The general appearance of the photo. The use of a flower as an accessory. Let your imagination run wild.

 

[BrianShaw]

Stylistically, Clive. The general appearance of the photo. The use of a flower as an accessory. Let your imagination run wild.

That might be the problem, some imaginations have run wild…

 

[cliveh]

Stylistically, Clive. The general appearance of the photo. The use of a flower as an accessory. Let your imagination run wild.

But Julia Margaret Cameron did not take overtly sexualised images of children. She was primarily a portrait photographer who stylistically specialised in theatrical imagery.

 

[BrianShaw]

But Julia Margaret Cameron did not take overtly sexualised images of children. She was primarily a portrait photographer who stylistically specialised in theatrical imagery.

Neither did Mann, some would say.

 

[Pieter12]

Or perhaps more accurately, if you don't wish to come to the attention of the authorities, don't take photos of naked family members if others might see them.

In today's climate, many people do not want their pictures taken, period.

 

[retina_restoration]

My comment about the Mann picture in my post 510 said: "I think the DA should return photos after the Exhibition is over and move on. It's not clear Texas law was violated."

That's the right thing to do, I agree. And yet you proceed to say soon thereafter "Stripping a young minor naked for a picture of this type is child abuse and probably pornography."

You do not say "is akin to" or even "may be seen as" child abuse - you jump straight to "is child abuse". You've made it abundantly clear that you believe artists who include their unclothed children in a work of art are perpetrating child abuse. So don't be surprised, Alan, when you encounter pushback. Some of us agree with you, some of us do not.

Your boundaries are not my boundaries. I look at Sally Mann's work and I don't see "pornography" or "child abuse" or any such thing. I choose to view that work in context of who created it, what was intended by the work, its artistic value and whether or not it maintains artistic integrity. But you're free to protest as much as you like. As they say, it's a free country. But don't expect everyone to fall in line with your vision of what is moral and correct. That is territory where all too many self-proclaimed moral institutes venture in an attempt to force others to align themselves with a specific worldview.

 

[retina_restoration]

But Julia Margaret Cameron did not take overtly sexualised images of children. She was primarily a portrait photographer who stylistically specialised in theatrical imagery.

Do you believe that Sally Mann and Wynn Bullock created "overtly sexualized" images of their children?

 

[cliveh]

Do you believe that Sally Mann and Wynn Bullock created "overtly sexualized" images of their children?

I never mentioned Wynn Bullock, but Sally Mann yes.

 

[Pieter12]

Is it possible that some members of this forum might have been abused during childhood and are transferring that to Ms Mann's photos? Something repressed, maybe?

 

[cliveh]

Is it possible that some members of this forum might have been abused during childhood and are transferring that to Ms Mann's photos? Something repressed, maybe?

Well as a child I was not abused and had a happy childhood.