Sally Mann Photographs Removed from Texas Museum Exhibition after Outcry

Alan Edward Klein · Jan 13, 2025

I reverse what I said previously. I just did some checking and pictures of children showing "...lewd exhibition of genitals..." are considered sexual conduct in Texas and would fall under child pornography. Of course, whether Mann's pictures depict this is up to interpretation. I;m sure the police who seized the pictures turned them over to the DA to make that determination which is why the museum is saying nothing at this point. They could have violated Texas penal law. Frankly, any photographer taking pictures of this type for publication or public display is walking a fine line and ought to take up landscape photography instead. Proceed with caution.

The term “sexual performance by a child” in Texas refers to any live or recorded performance or exhibition in which a child under the age of 18 engages in sexual conduct. According to Texas Penal Code Section 43.25, sexual conduct includes activities such as sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse, masturbation, and lewd exhibition of genitals or the female breast. This would include asking a child for an explcity “selfie” to a video and can be charged alongside offenses like online solicitation of a minor. It’s important to point out that for Sexual Performance of a Child, a “child” is anyone under the age of 18, unlike many other criminal offenses where a child is defined as a person under the age of 17. Also note that this offense does not require any physical contact with the child. This law criminalizes the employment, authorization, or inducement of a child to engage in a sexual performance, aiming to protect minors from sexual exploitation.

Sexual Performance by a Child in Texas | Penal Code 43.25

Sexual Performance by a Child is a serious felony accusation in Texas. Learn about the charge, the punishment range, and defense. (817) 203-2220.

versustexas.com

Alan Edward Klein · Jan 13, 2025

BradS said:
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.

Child pornography is not protected speech.

BradS · Jan 13, 2025

Alan Edward Klein said:
Child pornography is not protected speech.

clearly but the photos in question are not child pornography.

Pieter12 · Jan 13, 2025

Alan Edward Klein said:
Child pornography is not protected speech.

I don't think the photos have been determined to be child pornography at this point.

BrianShaw · Jan 13, 2025

I guess a judgement has been made. Hmmm.

GregY · Jan 13, 2025

BrianShaw said:
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.

According to newsmedia the photos were seized...

Police seize Sally Mann photographs at Texas museum amid accusations of child pornography

A 1990s culture-war déjà vu at the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth—with the same photographs causing a stir decades later

www.theartnewspaper.com

BrianShaw · Jan 13, 2025

GregY said:
According to newsmedia the photos were seized...

Police seize Sally Mann photographs at Texas museum amid accusations of child pornography

A 1990s culture-war déjà vu at the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth—with the same photographs causing a stir decades later

www.theartnewspaper.com

Thank you. That seems a decisive statement. Other reports I read seem less clear than that.

I hope they are returned in good condition, unlike those of Sturges.

retina_restoration · Jan 13, 2025

BrianShaw said:
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.

The only fairly clear statement about it I have read is this, from a glasstire report/: "While the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth has not confirmed that the artworks were seized by police, The Dallas Express has reported that photographs from the museum’s Diaries of Home exhibition have been “secured as potential evidence and will not be visible to the public” while the police investigation is pending."

Edit: the article at The Art Newspaper that GregY linked to seems to make it more clear: "Police in Texas have seized several works by the photographer Sally Mannfrom the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth (The Modern), following a complaint that the images portray naked children and could be seen as pornographic."

BrianShaw · Jan 13, 2025

retina_restoration said:
The only fairly clear statement about it I have read is this, from a glasstire report/: "While the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth has not confirmed that the artworks were seized by police, The Dallas Express has reported that photographs from the museum’s Diaries of Home exhibition have been “secured as potential evidence and will not be visible to the public” while the police investigation is pending."

Thanks.

Alan Edward Klein · Jan 13, 2025

BradS said:
clearly but the photos in question are not child pornography.

You may be right - or wrong. However, you'd be playing with fire to keep photographs of nude children, especially if they're not yours. Do you want to depend on a Texas jury to see those pictures as being innocent family shots?

retina_restoration · Jan 13, 2025

BradS said:
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.

It appears to be more clear with the passing of time that the police were directly involved in the removal (seizure?) of the photographs.

retina_restoration · Jan 13, 2025

Alan Edward Klein said:
Frankly, any photographer taking pictures of this type for publication or public display is walking a fine line and ought to take up landscape photography instead. Proceed with caution.

That sounds like a very decisive judgement to me.

retina_restoration · Jan 13, 2025

Alan Edward Klein said:
Child pornography is not protected speech.

No, it's not. But nobody has yet - in 33 years - succeeded in attaching the legal label of Child Pornography to Sally's photographs. I'm skeptical that Texas is going to succeed where all others have failed to judge her work as "pornographic".

I have yet to see a Sally Mann photograph that failed the Miller Test for Obscenity (from the 1973 Supreme Court case Miller v. California).

Alan Edward Klein · Jan 13, 2025

retina_restoration said:
No, it's not. But nobody has yet - in 33 years - succeeded in attaching the legal label of Child Pornography to Sally's photographs. I'm skeptical that Texas is going to succeed where all others have failed to judge her work as "pornographic".

I have yet to see a Sally Mann photograph that failed the Miller Test for Obscenity (from the 1973 Supreme Court case Miller v. California).

Sally's the mother. So she can get away with it Others should proceed with caution.
The Miller test doesn't apply to children and child pornography. Proceed with caution.

Marcelo Paniagua · Jan 13, 2025

Well, the pictures do show children in the nude and (debatable) suggestive situation/poses (which falls on the child pornography definition) . Take a look at The Wet Bed on the Smithsonian American Art Museum (one of the removed pieces).

This topic is problematic because the lewdness of a picture may be on the eyes of the beholder.

The removed pictures do display children with suggestive eyes as well as adult-like attitudes, which can cause controversy

Not saying that artist created this work with a mind on child porn but the line is pretty thin.

I have read news about children models sites that where closed because they showed children in suggestive poses even when fully clothed and was considered child pornography.

Again, a very thin line on what is considered artistic and pornography.

Also, please keep in mind that children ARE NOT ON AGE ON CONSENT TO BE PICTURE ON THE NUDE so again, thin linr. They are being exposed naked for the public to see and they may or may not be aware of what is happening. I don't know what's the context of when the pictures were taken but the point is, the general public don't know either.

Don_ih · Jan 13, 2025

MattKing said:
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.

That's a swell idea when a 4-year-old girl gets put on gallery walls, sold as prints, put in photo books. It's kinda pointless for her to not want those pictures circulating when she becomes an adult, isn't it?

The "Tomoko in the Bath" photo by Gene Smith is not supposed to be able to be seen anywhere. The rights to the photo were gifted to Tomoko's family and all publication rights were suspended. But that doesn't rip the photo out of all the copies of the Minamata book. It doesn't remove all the prints in galleries and private collections.

It doesn't remove it from Google image search, either.

Reality trumps ideology, unfortunately.

I like that someone up above unabashedly said that Sally Mann's photos constituted child pornography. They clearly don't. But the vehemence with which it was stated is what counts. That's what anyone who wants to defend the photos is up against.

You can't fight dogma with dogma. Everyone who says, "It's art!" "The kids approved!" "It's nudity, not pornography!" is just as dogmatic as those who say "It's filth! Burn it!" Some people will never not see an equation between photos of nude children and child pornography.

How do you go about making someone not find these photos obscene?

I don't find them obscene - I have liked her photos since I first saw them. So I don't need convincing. But I can understand how some people would have a problem. That something is art doesn't mean it can't also be unacceptable to large groups of people. That something is beautiful doesn't prevent some people from finding it vile.

It's a pointless endeavour.

BradS · Jan 13, 2025

Alan Edward Klein said:
You may be right - or wrong.

Yeah, obviously. I'm reassured in my opinion by the fact that these very photos (and the rest of Sally Mann's work) have been around and shown extensively for the past 30 years or so. If they were child porn they would have never have been shown nor published in book form.

Alan Edward Klein said:
However, you'd be playing with fire to keep photographs of nude children, especially if they're not yours. Do you want to depend on a Texas jury to see those pictures as being innocent family shots?

Not sure what you're getting at here. For the record, I don't find the Sally Mann's work interesting at all. I do not deny her artistic talent and I can kinda understand her, as mother of these children, living in that time and place, taking some of these photos in the spirit of family snapshots...BUT, I find it in exceedingly poor taste to make them public. Not obscene, not pornographic just tasteless. However, the fact that I find their public display in poor taste, (or that others find them offensive) is totally irrelevant. That they have artistic merit is clear to me. It also seems plain that they are not obscene and certainly not pornographic. That's not just my opinion, it has been tested many times already over the past few decades.

I'm not sure how we, as a society and culture, benefit from these photos, and I can understand that some find them offensive, but I am firm in my belief that removal of art from an art museum by agents of the government motivated by appeals to religion is absolutely contrary to everything that we as a nation founded on the ideal of "freedom and liberty for all" stand for and believe. Censorship is a stepping stone along the path toward tyranny and oppression ... and that's not a path that I want to be on. I honestly do not believe that the religious folk want to be on that path either...but maybe they don't see the connection?

retina_restoration · Jan 13, 2025

Don_ih said:
I don't find them obscene - I have liked her photos since I first saw them. So I don't need convincing. But I can understand how some people would have a problem. That something is art doesn't mean it can't also be unacceptable to large groups of people. That something is beautiful doesn't prevent some people from finding it vile.

It's a pointless endeavour.

I agree, Don. I totally get how some people will find them offensive. In this instance I don't agree with those people, but I do get it.
It's impossible to convince someone who finds an image obscene or offensive that it is not. There's no point in trying. But that doesn't mean artists shouldn't push back against forces that see fit to raid a museum to force the removal of the works.
I wonder if Joel Peter Witkin is still subjected to this kind of criticism?

retina_restoration · Jan 13, 2025

BradS said:
I'm not sure how we, as a society and culture, benefit from these photos, and I can understand that some find them offensive, but I am firm in my belief that removal of art from an art museum by agents of the government motivated by appeals to religion is absolutely contrary to everything that we as a nation founded on the ideal of "freedom and liberty for all" stand for and believe.

Absolutely.

cowanw · Jan 13, 2025

BradS said:
Censorship is a stepping stone along the path toward tyranny and oppression and that's not a path that I want to be on. I honestly do not believe that the religious folk want to be on that path either...but maybe they don't see the connection?

Or maybe they do. and the object is to make voluntary censorship the usual option.

Melvin J Bramley · Jan 13, 2025

Reality trumps ideology, unfortunately. Ouch!!
That said there are more naked children on the walls of religious buildings than be counted.

VinceInMT · Jan 13, 2025

retina_restoration said:
....I’ve come to view my upbringing as one marked by a certain ineptitude and a lack of guidance from them. At the heart of it all was their insistence that a “good life” could be achieved by finding work that paid a decent living and “fitting in” with society. However, I found neither of these approaches useful, and I believe I would have turned out to be a vastly different person if my parents had recognized my true self and encouraged me to pursue my interests and abilities. Instead, they struggled to guide me towards career choices that would have been detrimental to my well-being.

So, as I say, none of us escapes childhood undamaged.

This struck me personally. My own parents were quite big on authoritarianism and conformance, neither of which suited who I would become. When, right after high school, I became mired in a huge criminal case due to my employer having committed a major crime where I, according to law enforcement, was either an accessory or a witness, they offered zero guidance and I fended for myself in the decision-making about what to do, something that came back to bite me years later. That upbringing had a major impact on how I raised my own kids AND how I treated students in the decades I worked as a high school teacher.

I've been catching up on this thread with interest especially because I've been asked, and I accepted, to serve on the Collections and Exhibitions Committee for our contemporary art museum. While I don't recall them having any big controversies over their exhibitions, I'm guessing that it comes up in committee meetings on occassion. My first one is this week and I'm looking forward to it.

BradS · Jan 13, 2025

cowanw said:
Or maybe they do. and the object is to make voluntary censorship the usual option.

"voluntary" as in, voluntary under extreme duress?

cmacd123 · Jan 13, 2025

I wonder if it is relavant that apperently the Norm in the Mann Family was that the children normally were not expected to wear clothing when the weather was nice? (many families quietly have that Norm.)

retina_restoration · Jan 13, 2025

cmacd123 said:
I wonder if it is relavant that apperently the Norm in the Mann Family was that the children normally were not expected to wear clothing when the weather was nice? (many families quietly have that Norm.)

It's relevant to understanding the home environment the Mann children grew up in, yes. But beyond that, I'm not sure it's useful information.
Sally states in no uncertain terms that this is the case. She herself grew up in a similar manner: she mentions in her biography that her mother often struggled to keep clothes on her as a child.

Sally Mann Photographs Removed from Texas Museum Exhibition after Outcry

​

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency