Sally Mann Photographs Removed from Texas Museum Exhibition after Outcry

[retina_restoration]

The fact is that the pictures have entered the Zeitgeist. They have created a standard as to what's acceptable in society, and they have encouraged some form of "pleasure". They are with us, like it or not.

We're not talking about what is in the Zeitgeist - we're talking about one specific example where a religious group petitioned a museum to edit specific works from a show because this group found the work morally objectionable/obscene.

If you want to expand the discussion to include every instance of these Mann photographs in books, on the internet, etc., then it becomes a very different discussion. I cannot imagine how offended some people must be when browsing the internet. It's a ripe environment for those who go in search of outrage.

 

[Cholentpot]

"Appealing to authority" is what the group who penned the Open Letter did, in an effort to exert control over the Texas population. That isn't how things are done on this forum. We choose to discuss these challenging subjects, refraining from censorship as much as possible.

It's a bad idea to request that this discussion be "shut down". It's the very same force that is being questioned in this thread. Only when things go badly off the rails should we resort to ending a discussion. There's no rational reason to force this community into silence on this subject. If you are offended by what's being said here, nobody is making you read and participate in it. That's what the "Ignore Thread" button is for.

Ya see this is where anyone can see eye to eye. I'll bet we wouldn't agree much on many issues but that's fine. Live and let live. If a museum 'round the corner from me was showing something I found very objectionable at most I would send them a letter and if was really bad maybe I would picket. I would not be asking Big Brother to step in. Keep the authorities away from stuff. It never ends well.

I love photography, I love art. I enjoy taking photos. Someone out there is going to do something with a camera that I don't like. If enough people say they don't like it then that person will be sidelined. But we don't need government stepping in the draw the lines. This is why we have open debate.

 

[retina_restoration]

Ya see this is where anyone can see eye to eye. I'll bet we wouldn't agree much on many issues but that's fine. Live and let live. If a museum 'round the corner from me was showing something I found very objectionable at most I would send them a letter and if was really bad maybe I would picket. I would not be asking Big Brother to step in. Keep the authorities away from stuff. It never ends well.

I love photography, I love art. I enjoy taking photos. Someone out there is going to do something with a camera that I don't like. If enough people say they don't like it then that person will be sidelined. But we don't need government stepping in the draw the lines. This is why we have open debate.

Yours is a very sensible outlook. I appreciate you stating it.

 

[MTGseattle]

I hope I am not the poster that gets this shut down, but here goes;
(I do try and read articles from sources that lean to both sides of the aisle, but I recognize that I may harbor an unintended bias)
There seems to be a trend in the US based on a lack of God/religion in the home, school, legislature, etc. The term "traditional family values" gets thrown around a lot. The term "an erosion of traditional values" gets thrown around a lot.
These ideas seem to be coming from a common place which also seems to be where the letter to the museum in this post is also coming from. This is my issue. It wasn't a huge cross section of the Dallas/Fort Worth community that spoke up, it was one specific group. The Dallas/Ft Worth metro area population is nearing 7 million people fyi.

Whether Sally Mann's images at the crux of this debate deserve all of this is questionable. I certainly wouldn't hang them on my wall, but neither am I shocked or outraged by them. Artsists are an odd bunch. Think of Damien Hirsts bisected animals, or steering back to photography; Joel-Peter Witkin, Jan Saudek, Andres Serrano, Robert Maplethorpe, or go back in time to the outcry at some of William Mortenson's images. The stuff is out there. It can be viewed or avoided at will.

 

[Arthurwg]

We're not talking about what is in the Zeitgeist - we're talking about one specific example where a religious group petitioned a museum to edit specific works from a show because this group found the work morally objectionable/obscene.

Same difference, IMHO. I'm saying that the effect of the pictures go far beyond the museum walls, set community standards and encourage child pornography, even if Mann's pictures are not pornographic. But you can have it your way if you insist.

 

[retina_restoration]

Same difference, IMHO. I'm saying that the effect of the pictures go far beyond the museum walls, set community standards and encourage child pornography, even if Mann's pictures are not pornographic. But you can have it your way if you insist.

And I am not disagreeing with you. I'm not saying that there isn't the wider scope of community-in-general and the setting of standards to be considered. But this discussion is first and foremost about a specific incident involving a specific action taken against a specific museum, and the effect it is having.
If you want to expand the conversation to include what's "in the Zeitgeist" then that is a different discussion, IMO.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Not a fan of Sally's work on an art level and on the subject matter but I think this has been a robust and informative thread. Appealing to authority never ends well. My views of free speech are inline with let the debate happen. Let people shout and yell and insult and all sorts of matter. We're creatures of speech, when the speech stops then the real problems happen.

Freely speaking means all parties need to listen politely, not interrupting, and keeping an open mind to ideas one does not agree with.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Michelangelo's David had better watch out. *scans the museum goers for hammers and chisels*

When I visited the Vatican Museum, this sweet young lady asked to attendants where the church had found large enough fig leaves.

 

[Pieter12]

Same difference, IMHO. I'm saying that the effect of the pictures go far beyond the museum walls, set community standards and encourage child pornography, even if Mann's pictures are not pornographic. But you can have it your way if you insist.

Encourage child pronography, really? The average person does not go to museums, has no clue who any photographer is, much less Sally Mann. If anyone is encouraging child pornography or affecting community standards, it is the newspaper and the fringe groups who have made the photos in the exhibit such a scandal.

 

[Cholentpot]

I hope I am not the poster that gets this shut down, but here goes;
(I do try and read articles from sources that lean to both sides of the aisle, but I recognize that I may harbor an unintended bias)
There seems to be a trend in the US based on a lack of God/religion in the home, school, legislature, etc. The term "traditional family values" gets thrown around a lot. The term "an erosion of traditional values" gets thrown around a lot.
These ideas seem to be coming from a common place which also seems to be where the letter to the museum in this post is also coming from. This is my issue. It wasn't a huge cross section of the Dallas/Fort Worth community that spoke up, it was one specific group. The Dallas/Ft Worth metro area population is nearing 7 million people fyi.

Whether Sally Mann's images at the crux of this debate deserve all of this is questionable. I certainly wouldn't hang them on my wall, but neither am I shocked or outraged by them. Artsists are an odd bunch. Think of Damien Hirsts bisected animals, or steering back to photography; Joel-Peter Witkin, Jan Saudek, Andres Serrano, Robert Maplethorpe, or go back in time to the outcry at some of William Mortenson's images. The stuff is out there. It can be viewed or avoided at will.

Careful where you sling the accusations. What if a well known artist decides to go on a rightward bend and puts out art that violates the more progressives sacred cows. Do you think it would even get into a gallery in the first place to even get complained about? What comes around goes around and neither side of the current debates seems to understand that fully.

Freely speaking means all parties need to listen politely, not interrupting, and keeping an open mind to ideas one does not agree with.

I disagree. Politeness is earned. Free speech doesn't mean politeness. It's ugly and loud and frightening. I've been at the receiving end of the harsh side of free speech for a good while now. No one likes it when they're the target but it's the necessity of the natural right.

 

[MattKing]

I wonder if 1970s National Geographic magazines are kept behind the counter in Texas libraries?
I expect that there are many photographs for which even the most ardent free speech supporters would be willing to curtail access to. The issue though turns on whether they depict and therefore support abuse of the vulnerable, including abuse of children. While abusive behaviour can include nudity, nudity doesn’t equate to abuse.
The photographs in question include nothing that is inherently abusive - they merely include nudity.
There is separate issue around consent. I agree that sharing nude images of children is problematic due to their inability to provide informed consent, but I choose the word problematic carefully. Very close attention needs to be paid to the current and future wishes and potential wishes of those children and anyone responsible for their care.
I totally support the ability of those children to either not permit them to be shown, or to later require them not to be shown - not out of abuse concerns, but in the interests of people being able to take reasonable care of their own privacy issues.

 

[BradS]

... What if a well known artist decides to go on a rightward bend and puts out art that violates the more progressives sacred cows. Do you think it would even get into a gallery in the first place to even get complained about?

Oh, so that's why we never see that Brancusi depicting a black man being lynched. It's probably stored in the same anonymous warehouse with the Wyeth painting of a young woman being sold into slavery by her father and his other painting glorifying corruption.

 

[AERO]

I live in SW Florida where Ron DeSantis and minions lead the nation in the number of books banned/removed from libraries. Because this is a photographers’ forum, I think that these acts of political theater impact all of us—even if our work isn’t “problematic.” I work in an environment where I am confronted weekly by people who have a problem because I am using a camera in a public space. And while I don’t expect the next four years to be any easier, I will continue (or double-down on) my work …

When books are banned (or burned) it is time to really worry...

 

[Cholentpot]

Oh, so that's why we never see that Brancusi depicting a black man being lynched. It's probably stored in the same anonymous warehouse with the Wyeth painting of a young woman being sold into slavery by her father.

My lack of education shows. I didn't even know this stuff exists.

 

[MattKing]

I disagree. Politeness is earned. Free speech doesn't mean politeness. It's ugly and loud and frightening. I've been at the receiving end of the harsh side of free speech for a good while now. No one likes it when they're the target but it's the necessity of the natural right

By the way.
While free speech may be a right in some contexts, on Photrio civility/politeness is a requirement.
And yes, my moderator's hat is on.

 

[retina_restoration]

By the way.
While free speech may be a right in some contexts, on Photrio civility/politeness is a requirement.
And yes, my moderator's hat is on.

For the most part, I think this has remained a remarkably civil, respectful conversation. There have been some strong opinions issued, but a strong opinion isn't necessarily disrespectful or impolite.

 

[Pieter12]

What if a well known artist decides to go on a rightward bend and puts out art that violates the more progressives sacred cows.

Most artist tend to be free-thinkers and those that are conservative and prudish are too uptight to make such work. You will more likely find artists on the other end of the spectrum addressing such progressive sacred cows for shock value or to bring attention to such issues, whatever they may be.

 

[BrianShaw]

“I wonder if 1970s National Geographic magazines are kept behind the counter in Texas libraries?”

More likely… behind the counter in barbershops with the other men’s magazines.

 

[Cholentpot]

Most artist tend to be free-thinkers and those that are conservative and prudish are too uptight to make such work. You will more likely find artists on the other end of the spectrum addressing such progressive sacred cows for shock value or to bring attention to such issues, whatever they may be.

A bit of a generalization but that's fine. Generalize away.

By the way.
While free speech may be a right in some contexts, on Photrio civility/politeness is a requirement.
And yes, my moderator's hat is on.

Because this website isn't America. Duh.

 

[Milpool]

Freely speaking means all parties need to listen politely, not interrupting, and keeping an open mind to ideas one does not agree with.

Surely you’re not being sirius.

 

[MattKing]

A bit of a generalization but that's fine. Generalize away.



Because this website isn't America. Duh.

Or Canada, or the UK, or a whole bunch of the world where rights to speak freely have their own particularly evolved nature.
Much of the world has also dealt with such issues, and the various evolutions reflect local circumstances, and in many ways much more modern approaches.
Do not assume that the USA has a monopoly on these things, just because 250 years ago there were some relatively early steps taken.

 

[Cholentpot]

Or Canada, or the UK, or a whole bunch of the world where rights to speak freely have their own particularly evolved nature.
Much of the world has also dealt with such issues, and the various evolutions reflect local circumstances, and in many ways much more modern approaches.
Do not assume that the USA has a monopoly on these things, just because 250 years ago there were some relatively early steps taken.

I meant this is a website, there are no rights on a privately owned website.

As per the argument of freedom of speech. The USA stands alone in regard to that. The government at its core cannot make rules about what can and can't be said. The courts have been pretty clear that as long as there is no immediate threat then there is nothing the government can do. There is no legal hate speech or such. One cannot be tried to crimes of speech. Yes, other countries have their own path but the USA is alone in their absolute protection of the freedom of the individual from the tyranny of government.

Are we perfect? No. We're human even if we're Americans.

So I won't be having the FBI knocking on my door any time soon for anything vile and offensive I post online. It gets fuzzy when you start targeting individuals directly. So, just like, don't do that unless you have a good lawyer and deep pockets. Or even less, they might just decide to target you with their own vile rhetoric. Insults are legal.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

By the way.
While free speech may be a right in some contexts, on Photrio civility/politeness is a requirement.
And yes, my moderator's hat is on.

Just as Photrio sets rules as a private business, a private museum can set rules as well one way or the other as to what it considers acceptable for display as long as it's not a violation of law which these pictures seem not to be. It's not much different than what is done here.

In this case, there's the added fact that the police may have removed pictures that do not seem meet the Texas penal standard for child pornography. So it's up to the museum to object and demand they get back the pictures for display or else accept the community objections and leave it alone. It appears they are leaning toward the latter approach.

 

[BrianShaw]

Question: does anyone have clarity on whether the exhibit was removed from display by the museum or if it was actually confiscated by police as part of their investigation. My current understanding is the former.

 

[BradS]

Question: does anyone have clarity on whether the exhibit was removed from display by the museum or if it was actually confiscated by police as part of their investigation. ....

Yes, this is the key question. We do know that the police were somehow involved however.

If the police caused the artworks to be removed then it appears to be a clear violation of the first amendment (both the establishment clause and free speech). If the museum removed the pieces voluntarily, then it seems only a shameful act on the part of the museum.