Sally Mann Photographs Removed from Texas Museum Exhibition after Outcry

[Pieter12]

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?

Not until that censorship is applied to them.

 

[Cholentpot]

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.

This is a good take.

People also tend to forget that the USA as a whole is a large country with many different ideals. It's almost as if it's 50 separate states. What's good in Texas isn't good in NY and vice versa.

Personally from the little bit of Sally's work I have seen it fits right into the kitsch category that I don't really go for. The over stylized angelic ooey gooey style that is reminiscent of the Pictorialist movement. Then again, this stuff is really from the pre photoshop era where it took loads of talent and work to make this kind of photo work.

I have kids. I have photos. I have 'em in black and white. I'm not putting them in a book, and if I did they'd surely have their clothes on.

 

[BradS]

Not until that censorship is applied to them.

Indeed. Was it Utah that recently banned the Bible from school libraries?

 

[Don_ih]

Utah that recently banned the Bible

A school board in Utah removed the King James Bible due to the violence in it. Then that decision was reversed. So, any grade one student can read about Onan spewing on the floor....

 

[Cholentpot]

A school board in Utah removed the King James Bible due to the violence in it. Then that decision was reversed. So, any grade one student can read about Onan spewing on the floor....

Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help help I'm being oppressed!

 

[Pieter12]

bit of Sally's work I have seen it fits right into the kitsch category that I don't really go for. The over stylized angelic ooey gooey style that is reminiscent of the Pictorialist movement.

Like Bloody Nose. It's been so overdone by those pseudo-romantic pictorialists. Get over it, already.

 

[Cholentpot]

Like Bloody Nose. It's been so overdone by those pseudo-romantic pictorialists. Get over it, already.

Again, I'm not familiar with her work. Are the kids ever smiling or laughing in the photos or is it always smoldering at the camera?

 

[Alex Benjamin]

"Nearly 65% of art museum directors say they’ve experienced pressure not to show an artwork or present an exhibition at least once in their careers, according to a survey conducted last summer by Artists at Risk Connection (ARC), PEN America, and the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD)."

Most Museum Directors Have Faced Pressure to Censor Art, Survey Finds

Works critical of Christianity and works by Palestinian artists were among those that would “definitely” elicit complaints, survey respondents said.

hyperallergic.com

 

[GregY]

"Nearly 65% of art museum directors say they’ve experienced pressure not to show an artwork or present an exhibition at least once in their careers, according to a survey conducted last summer by Artists at Risk Connection (ARC), PEN America, and the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD)."

Most Museum Directors Have Faced Pressure to Censor Art, Survey Finds

Works critical of Christianity and works by Palestinian artists were among those that would “definitely” elicit complaints, survey respondents said.

hyperallergic.com

I found that to be an interesting piece Alex.... worth the read

 

[chuckroast]

Some observations:

• The only "censorship" forbidden, and the only place where "free speech" actually applies is as regards to government interfering in the free expression of its citizens. Private institutions like businesses, art galleries, private schools, churches, and, for that matter, your living room, are all places that are free to apply any degree of censorship on any subject for any reason whatsoever.
  
  
• These same private institutions - say an art gallery - may receive pressure from their patrons and contributors to not display certain things. This is entirely in bounds. When you take the man's money, you take his rules. If you don't like the rules, don't take the money.
  
  
• Some speech is never protected. Speech that contains credible threat, fraud, incitements to violence, or other direct violations of privacy can legitimately be suppressed up to- and including the use of physical force (or the threat thereof) by law enforcement. That is to say, that "free speech" is not unbounded and does have long established limitations. If you aim a loaded weapon at someone and threaten to kill them, that is clearly not protected speech, even if you don't pull the trigger.
  
  
• Minors are presumed by law to not be able to give consent for a great many things. For example, minors cannot legally sign contracts, smoke, drink, or fly jet aircraft. In particular, minors are presumed - by law - to not be able to provide consent for sexual activity, displays of nudity, or other, similar "adult" activities.
  
  
• And therein lies the rub in this case. No sane court would uphold any prohibition against a parent sharing photographs of their unclothed toddler with family and friends (unless there were some clear evidence of sexual exploitation). But the question of "sharing" such images with an anonymous public via book publication makes the problem difficult. That larger pluralistic public has a rather wide range of ideas of what constitutes the "force" of sexual exploitation.
  
  
• It seems to me that there is a fairly direct way to solve this particular problem. Libraries are almost always publicly funded. That means that they are under the restrictions of all government institutions to not interfere in free expression with the exceptions noted above. The "fix" is to make the material available in the library but only to adults. Until/unless someone brings evidence that actual "child porn" exists in the material - at which point law enforcement would be brought to bear - this would both prevent censorship and also limit the material to adults citizens. The ones who want to see the material would have access, the ones who found it offensive could ignore it. Minors would have no access.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Some observations:

• The only "censorship" forbidden, and the only place where "free speech" actually applies is as regards to government interfering in the free expression of its citizens. Private institutions like businesses, art galleries, private schools, churches, and, for that matter, your living room, are all places that are free to apply any degree of censorship on any subject for any reason whatsoever.
  
  
• These same private institutions - say an art gallery - may receive pressure from their patrons and contributors to not display certain things. This is entirely in bounds. When you take the man's money, you take his rules. If you don't like the rules, don't take the money.
  
  
• Some speech is never protected. Speech that contains credible threat, fraud, incitements to violence, or other direct violations of privacy can legitimately be suppressed up to- and including the use of physical force (or the threat thereof) by law enforcement. That is to say, that "free speech" is not unbounded and does have long established limitations. If you aim a loaded weapon at someone and threaten to kill them, that is clearly not protected speech, even if you don't pull the trigger.
  
  
• Minors are presumed by law to not be able to give consent for a great many things. For example, minors cannot legally sign contracts, smoke, drink, or fly jet aircraft. In particular, minors are presumed - by law - to not be able to provide consent for sexual activity, displays of nudity, or other, similar "adult" activities.
  
  
• And therein lies the rub in this case. No sane court would uphold any prohibition against a parent sharing photographs of their unclothed toddler with family and friends (unless there were some clear evidence of sexual exploitation). But the question of "sharing" such images with an anonymous public via book publication makes the problem difficult. That larger pluralistic public has a rather wide range of ideas of what constitutes the "force" of sexual exploitation.
  
  
• It seems to me that there is a fairly direct way to solve this particular problem. Libraries are almost always publicly funded. That means that they are under the restrictions of all government institutions to not interfere in free expression with the exceptions noted above. The "fix" is to make the material available in the library but only to adults. Until/unless someone brings evidence that actual "child porn" exists in the material - at which point law enforcement would be brought to bear - this would both prevent censorship and also limit the material to adults citizens. The ones who want to see the material would have access, the ones who found it offensive could ignore it. Minors would have no access.

The problem is that child pornography cannot be seen by adults or even be in their possession. It's not a matter of free expression. You can't say that we'll only let adults see it.

 

[chuckroast]

The problem is that child pornography cannot be seen by adults or even be in their possession. It's not a matter of free expression. You can't say that we'll only let adults see it.

And that is as it should be. The problem here is that people are screaming "CP" without evidence when what they really means is "inappropriate for children" or "I find this offensive". Every single claim of CP should be investigated and taken seriously with three possible outcomes: It is, in fact, CP and law enforcement needs to be engaged, it isn't but it's material appropriate only for adults and thus needs to be sequestered in the library, or its appropriate for all ages.

This is done routinely in the movie business. Adult movies are clearly marked as such and CP is never permitted. All other movies are ranked for what the appropriate audience ages are. I think video games have done some of this as well.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

These aren't movies that are reviewed by a special board and coded. These are just photos some museum displayed in their gallery for the general public to view including adults and children. The police removed them based on a complaint it was CP. The DA has to make that determination somehow and then proceed legally based on their determination. Keep in mind that in Texas, CP can be "...lewd exhibition of genitals or the female breast." So disputes about what is lewd can create a legal conundrum.

 

[chuckroast]

These aren't movies that are reviewed by a special board and coded. These are just photos some museum displayed in their gallery for the general public to view including adults and children. The police removed them based on a complaint it was CP. The DA has to make that determination somehow and then proceed legally based on their determination. Keep in mind that in Texas, CP can be "...lewd exhibition of genitals or the female breast." So disputes about what is lewd can create a legal conundrum.

Speaking for myself, I find the blending of sexual topics with minor subjects to be problematic at the very least. Something doesn't have to rise to the level of CP to still be really revolting. As just one example, the glamming up and not-too-subtle sexualization of very young girls in "beauty pageants" is really disturbing. I mourn for a culture that wishes to push sexualization boundaries with kids.

That said, it's not clear to me that Mann's pictures do- or do not do this. I've not looked at them in many years.

 

[Pieter12]

That said, it's not clear to me that Mann's pictures do- or do not do this. I've not looked at them in many years.

Mann's photos are just kids being kids. The only ones sexualizing them are the demented gatekeepers of puritan morality. Soon, we won't be able to show women's ankles.

 

[MattKing]

Mann's photos are just kids being kids. The only ones sexualizing them are the demented gatekeepers of puritan morality. Soon, we won't be able to show women's ankles.

Some of the photos depict kids pretending to be "characters", and some of those characters are more adult than others.
Kids do like to "play act", based on what they observe out in the world. Just because a child pretends to be an adult, doesn't mean that they are pretending to be an adult behaving in an abusive or dangerous or socially condemnable manner.

 

[Don_ih]

Mann's photos are just kids being kids.

Some of the photos depict kids pretending to be "characters", and some of those characters are more adult than others.

I agree with Matt. Lots of those photos were directed. None of them lack the touch of the photographer's hand. Practically none of them are "kids being kids" since the kids are at the very least totally aware the photos were being taken at the time.

But there's nothing wrong with any of that.

 

[chuckroast]

I agree with Matt. Lots of those photos were directed. None of them lack the touch of the photographer's hand. Practically none of them are "kids being kids" since the kids are at the very least totally aware the photos were being taken at the time.

But there's nothing wrong with any of that.

I think whether we- or anyone else are OK with this is sort of beside the point, though. This was a (presumably) private museum. Their removal of the display in question is not censorship - they are entirely within their rights as a private institution to display, or not, anything they jolly well feel like.

The question of whether the content in question fell to to the level of CP was properly remanded to law enforcement.

 

[Cholentpot]

Mann's photos are just kids being kids. The only ones sexualizing them are the demented gatekeepers of puritan morality. Soon, we won't be able to show women's ankles.

The photos are kids being kids as imagined by the parent.

Kids being kids don't make for great photos. Unless you count a sugar rushed blur bounding off the walls.

Wait.

That gives me an idea...

 

[Pieter12]

The photos are kids being kids as imagined by the parent.

Kids being kids don't make for great photos. Unless you count a sugar rushed blur bounding off the walls.

Wait.

That gives me an idea...

Maybe you should try reading her memoir, Hold Still. She describes how she took many of the photos, some re-staged after she noticed the kids doing something, some intentionally set up, some more spontaneous--or as much as that is possible with an 8x10 view camera. She also writes about the detractors and negative reviews of her work, talking to the local FBI office about her photos and accusations made against her.

 

[MattKing]

Based on everything I've read, it is clear to me that a large proportion of the photos of the kids were either inspired by the lives of those kids, influenced or informed by the participation of the kids or a combination of all.
I would expect that those who are most uncomfortable with the photos are least likely to understand the relatively "bohemian" growing up experience enjoyed by the family.
My growing up experience was a fairly old fashioned and conservative one, but I did have friends (in the 1970s) who were much more "counter culture". It surprised me how accepting my parents were of what seemed very different values than the conservative, middle class ones that my parents were most likely both comfortable with. I attribute that to their love of jazz.

 

[Cholentpot]

Maybe you should try reading her memoir, Hold Still. She describes how she took many of the photos, some re-staged after she noticed the kids doing something, some intentionally set up, some more spontaneous--or as much as that is possible with an 8x10 view camera. She also writes about the detractors and negative reviews of her work, talking to the local FBI office about her photos and accusations made against her.

I have exactly 1 good photo of my kids on 4x5. I took it during the Great Eclipse. The only reason it worked was because one of them was under the weather and they both had blinders on so they couldn't really move.

And is a staged photo really capturing the essence? It's just kids hamming it up for the camera at that point. Shooting anything on 8x10 is a nightmare.

 

[Pioneer]

Funny thing, my grandson Nick paged through her book back when he was about six. He brought it out and gave it Grandma and said it wasn't very good. She laughed and told him if he didn't like that book he better not look at some of his grandfather's pictures.

I never heard anymore about it but every now and then she will ask Nick if I still have the book.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I agree with Matt. Lots of those photos were directed. None of them lack the touch of the photographer's hand. Practically none of them are "kids being kids" since the kids are at the very least totally aware the photos were being taken at the time.

But there's nothing wrong with any of that.

What you're describing could be considered by some a violation of Texas law.

. 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.

 

[MattKing]

What you're describing could be considered by some a violation of Texas law.

. 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.

But that law still requires a sexual performance.
And nothing in those photos constitutes that.
Nudity does not equate to sexual.