Sally Mann Photographs Removed from Texas Museum Exhibition after Outcry

Status
Not open for further replies.

retina_restoration

Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2023
Messages
946
Location
Wilammette Valley, Oregon
Format
35mm RF
Don_ih said:
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.
Click to expand...

And hopefully - having recognized there might be issues with certain groups or certain venues - they decided the work was too beautiful and important to edit out.

The image "Night Blooming Cereus" especially comes to mind (see for yourself). What an extraordinary photograph it is. The human figure in the photograph could conceivably be either male or female, and there is no part of the child's anatomy on display in the image that shouldn't be. This is about as benign as a photograph gets, and yet it is one of the photographs removed from the show as "obscene".

I don't expect everyone to agree with me, not at all. But that particular photograph - in my view - is about as innocent as it gets. To cull it from an art exhibition is outrageous to me. I think Juan Carlos (above) pretty much nailed it when he suggested that the art-viewing public ends up forced to endure a culling because a few people with power rushed to consider worst case scenarios and acted on those concerns.

I guess art is still "dangerous". If there were no artists who created controversial work, then we would not grow as a culture. I believe art - at least some of it - should play that role. Sometimes, art needs to be fearless. If there are consequences as a result, then we deal with them.
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
20,618
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
retina_restoration said:
I guess art is still "dangerous". If there were no artists who created controversial work, then we would not grow as a culture.
Click to expand...

So maybe it's good that it's still dangerous. If it ceases to be, it apparently ceases to have a meaningful impact. I agree with you that art functions as a means to recalibrate or further develop the moral compass of society (assuming you mean something along those lines with 'to grow as a culture').
 

retina_restoration

Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2023
Messages
946
Location
Wilammette Valley, Oregon
Format
35mm RF

I do, yes.

Well, that's part of it, anyway. To "grow as a culture" includes many things. We've grown as a culture when it comes to movies and TV, for example: no longer do we find the simplistic entertainment of the 1960s sufficiently engaging, preferring more sophisticated storytelling. We've come a long way since "Leave it to Beaver", and that's a good thing.
 

GregY

Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
2,924
Location
Alberta
Format
Large Format
" However naive Sally Mann may have been,..." (Don_ih)

I don't believe Sally Mann is/was naive...& she's walked her own path as an artist pretty fearlessly IMO.
 

Alan Edward Klein

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,249
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format

Consent has no bearing on the Texas statute against child pornography I linked above. In fact, it can be AI computer-generated pictures and not actual children or adults in the photo. It's illegal to have photos showing children doing sexual acts. Period. (I'm not saying Mann's photos show this). Now, there are other statutes where it's illegal to have children engage in sexual acts themselves. I'm not familiar with Texas laws but they would include child abuse and other sexual crimes. Again, consent would not be included as a defense. Consent only applies when an adult is giving it which leaves out minors. Additionally, adults cannot consent for minors when it comes to sexual acts.
 

warden

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
2,939
Location
Philadelphia
Format
Medium Format

Thanks for sharing that article, Brian. A good summary.

“A checklist for the exhibition indicates that these images are not part of the museum’s collection and are courtesy of Gagosian”

I was wondering about this. I thought it was unlikely that Mann would lend personal prints to the museum, favoring instead her other work that doesn’t fan these tired flames, especially in Texas. I imagine Gagosian would need her approval for images supplied though, but I don’t know.

I’ve been a part of several Fringe Festival performances now and I’m so delighted to hear that the governor of Florida, or any state for that matter, disapproves.
 

Don_ih

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
7,336
Location
Ontario
Format
35mm RF

You're free to disagree with me and also to be incorrect. The issue of consent is a red herring. The people who condemn the images just don't care about consent - neither should the law.
And consent has nothing to do with publication in this instance. The person who could grant consent was the same person who sought publication.

GregY said:
I don't believe Sally Mann is/was naive
Click to expand...

Neither do I.

retina_restoration said:
it is one of the photographs removed from the show as "obscene".
Click to expand...

From any objective standpoint, if anyone actually wanted to preserve a useful idea of obscenity, that photo would never be considered obscene.
 

Chuck_P

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
2,369
Location
Kentucky
Format
4x5 Format
Don_ih said:
..............However naive Sally Mann may have been, someone would've recognized the photos would be controversial.
Click to expand...

Exactly...............and I don't believe for a nanosecond that Mann just did not recognize it herself.
 

BrianShaw

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
16,336
Location
La-la-land
Format
Multi Format
It’s astonishing that a picture of a little boy’s penis is either offensive or considered pornography. All little boys have one. We all know that and most of us has seen them before.
 

Cholentpot

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
6,655
Format
35mm
As for things not being what they were.

Go watch the first few seasons of Sesame Street and see how the main actors worked with the kids. There would be no such thing these days. It was completely innocent, zero harm. But having Bob pick up and a little girl and prop her up on his arm would never ever fly in this day and age.

And would this be a discussion if the kids were objectively 'ugly'? Yes, no kids are ugly but some kids are more photogenic that others. Would people be up in arms if it was a picture of Jimmy 'Skinny' Tubbs digging into a gallon of ice cream in his shorts? All in artistic B&W with shallow depth of field of course.
 

Cholentpot

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
6,655
Format
35mm
BrianShaw said:
It’s astonishing that a picture of a little boy’s penis is either offensive or considered pornography. All little boys have one. We all know that and most of us has seen them before.
Click to expand...

I ain't posting that stuff. As we say 'you first'
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
19,609
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm

Yes I understand everything you have said above but my points were:
1 The police have to understand what the law states before they act as does the local prosecutor if it were he/she whose judgement they subsequently acted on. Otherwise the police at whatever level happens to be involved in the judgement effectively becomes the law inside the real law without accountability. In this case if the law is as clear as was stated then unless the police/ local prosecutor is held to account it can do what it likes
2. The coalition's rationale about what constitutes obscenity is irrelevant in terms of being able to bring about an execution of its wishes to impose its definition of obscenity on the rest of society

Society can shrug its shoulders if it likes or feel powerless on the basis that there is nothing it can do against powerful minority groups be that "moneyed" individuals or a uniformed group called the police who decídes what it does is the law because it says so in the face of actual law

What that can eventually led to is a state of affairs that most of us who do not control the levers of power would not wish to be part of

A more extreme form of this kind of "L'etat, c'est moi" action than that of removing 5 pictures from the Fort Worth Museum led to very serious consequences for the one who lived by that philosophy

pentaxuser
 

BrianShaw

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
16,336
Location
La-la-land
Format
Multi Format
I understood your points the first time. Thank you for reiterating, though. If we aren’t seeing eye-to-eye then we might be talking past each other… needlessly.
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
19,609
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
Yes Interesting article, Brian. Based on what I read I suspect that it indícates the "New Wave" is gathering strength and coming shortly In the words of Ronnie, late of Hollywood and the White House "you ain't seen nothing yet "

pentaxuser
 

Alex Benjamin

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 8, 2018
Messages
2,241
Location
Montreal
Format
Multi Format
BrianShaw said:
It’s astonishing that a picture of a little boy’s penis is either offensive or considered pornography. All little boys have one. We all know that and most of us has seen them before.
Click to expand...

 
OP
OP

logan2z

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 11, 2019
Messages
3,601
Location
SF Bay Area, USA
Format
Multi Format
Last edited:

Hassasin

Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2023
Messages
1,307
Location
Hassasstan
Format
Multi Format
It looks clear to me the "art" world will continue to remain offended by disapproval of ANY piece it produces. Stubbornness has always been its prime virtue. Listening, more importantly hearing, hardly an option. Any opposing view can only come from illiterate and uneducated who cannot connect growth of society at large with uncontrolled display of associated production.

The simple diagnosis from this is: you're with us, or against us, no in-betweens. When we tell you this is art and outside of any scrutiny, you better not try pushing back. When we want to show it, nobody has any right to challenge that. And if anyone does, that is censorship.

So, being the artistic moron I am, let me just try to point out, this kind of discussion cannot be successful (meaningful) without talking politics (with all associated branches of thought). Since the latter is disallowed (even if some have tried to inject it in however sublime form), I just leave it here. If politics were allowed, it would have swiftly brought the whole discussion to a tragic crash.

Many of Mann's photographs are offensive to many, and in several cases one really needs to turn a blind eye not to see why. One may see a message that aligns with own beliefs, or try really hard and just see a play on lights and shadows that may look interesting. Is content relevant ? Depends on one's agenda.

Getting pissed at not getting 100% unequivocal approval is not a sign of strength. If you were asked to take your "art" to a private/closed exhibit, you would surely be offended.

No, I don't believe setting anyone to roam free uncontrollably has helped fix societal problems, let alone help it grow. In fact it's done the opposite. There is this thing called common sense, which used to bring people and keep societies together. Hopefully what-goes-around-comes-around still holds true.
 

Maris

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Messages
1,547
Location
Noosa, Australia
Format
Multi Format
While this thread survives here's a note from ARTnews:

The National Coalition Against Censorship issued a statement on Friday condemning the police seizure.

“The allegation that these works are child sexual abuse material is not just disingenuous, it is deeply dangerous to the freedom of the millions of Americans who wish to document the growth of their own children without the threat of government prosecution,” the organization said. “Furthermore, it assumes the perspective of the pedophile, and degrades the seriousness of real incidents of child abuse.”

The statement continued, “Such a seizure and investigation can only contribute to the perverse and troubling perception that all images of naked children are inherently sexual, thereby reinforcing the very sexualization of children that critics purport to oppose.”

I guess, in a general sense , it's all a consequence of legislators enacting their personal dirty minded moral fantasies into criminal law in order to prosecute those who do not care to participate in those same fantasies.
 

Alex Benjamin

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 8, 2018
Messages
2,241
Location
Montreal
Format
Multi Format

Pretty sure in this case controversy, at least for Cobain, was the point.

From the wiki entry on the album:

Fisher sent a photographer, Kirk Weddle, to a pool for babies to take pictures. Five shots resulted and the band settled on the image of four-month-old Spencer Elden, the son of a friend of Weddle. Geffen was concerned that the infant's penis, visible in the photo, would cause offense, and prepared an alternate cover without it; they relented when Cobain said the only compromise he would accept would be a sticker covering the penis reading: "If you're offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile."
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
51,926
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
To quote/paraphrase a law professor or two:
"Everything comes down to remedies".
Is it appropriate to prevent everyone and anyone from seeing this work on a public wall?
Is it appropriate to prevent everyone and anyone from creating them in the first place?
If one person, or a relatively small group of persons, object to them, should everyone be prohibited from creating or viewing them?
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,119
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
All the explanations, discussion, and logic that has been put forth in this thread means nothing to people with the agenda of the Texans sited in post #1 was, is and will be ignored by such people because they have their agenda and they do not care about anything put forth by anyone other than themselves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…