Sally Mann Photographs Removed from Texas Museum Exhibition after Outcry

[retina_restoration]

Most states if not all have laws against child pornography. There is also a federal law against it affecting the whole country and beyond. You would have to hide under a rock to get away with child pornography in America. Of course, each law is slightly different than the others. So a photographer has to be very careful what and where he does things. I'd stay away from it entirely. If you want to shoot genitalia, go to the zoo.

I'm pretty sure cmadc123 is specifically citing adult behavior, not child pornography. His perception of Americans as oddly prudish in finding the public display of a breast as "provocative" isn't unique. I suspect that in general, many Europeans find American behavior odd and senselessly prudish (I know I do). I mean, why on Earth do so many people react negatively when presented with a mother nursing her baby in public? How silly. Do we really think that all it takes is the sight of a woman's breast as she feeds her child to send every male within 500 feet into a sexual frenzy? Sometimes it seems that we think such things. Why else would we behave this way?

But it's important that there is a difference between prudishness and what is legally defined as child pornography. I don't think cdmac123 was suggesting anything in the context of what is legally defined as child pornography.

 

[retina_restoration]

"Lewd" pictures of nude children are enough to be considered child pornography.

There is a pretty clear legal definition for which specific criteria have to be met, Alan. Until a legal entity judges a picture to have met that criteria, it is nothing more than "of questionable taste". Sure, many people have viewed certain Mann photographs and deemed them "lewd", but that isn't anything more than personal opinion, until such time as the works have been determined by the legal system to violate child pornography laws. To date, none of Sally's photographs have been judged illegal in American law.
I find many of Jock Sturges's photo to be "lewd", but they do not meet the legal requirements to label them "illegal", as decided by the law in several attempts to censor his work. My response to his work is just a personal opinion, not a legal determination. I can be creeped out by some of what he has created, but that doesn't grant me license to send the police to raid an exhibit of his work.

 

[loccdor]

Photos don't even have to be pictures of real children. AI-produced computer images would also be a violation.

It's interesting that AI images can be considered CP, because it's been long-standing under US law that hand-drawn sexual images of children are not considered CP. I thought that the rationale for that was that there was no real child being hurt.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I'm pretty sure cmadc123 is specifically citing adult behavior, not child pornography. His perception of Americans as oddly prudish in finding the public display of a breast as "provocative" isn't unique. I suspect that in general, many Europeans find American behavior odd and senselessly prudish (I know I do). I mean, why on Earth do so many people react negatively when presented with a mother nursing her baby in public? How silly. Do we really think that all it takes is the sight of a woman's breast as she feeds her child to send every male within 500 feet into a sexual frenzy? Sometimes it seems that we think such things. Why else would we behave this way?

But it's important that there is a difference between prudishness and what is legally defined as child pornography. I don't think cdmac123 was suggesting anything in the context of what is legally defined as child pornography.

He said: "What this tells me is that anyone outside Texas, may not be in a position to understand the issues that are in play here."

I was trying to end his confusion about what people outside of Texas think. They too have laws against child pornography. This isn't something hidden in the American legal system or unique to Texas.

 

[retina_restoration]

It's interesting that AI images can be considered CP, because it's been long-standing under US law that hand-drawn sexual images of children are not considered CP. I thought that the rationale for that was that there was no real child being hurt.

I suspect that issue is viewed differently because AI "art" tools can create photorealistic works that are (often) indistinguishable from photographs. That puts a lot of AI work in a very different league. New rules for new art forms.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

There is a pretty clear legal definition for which specific criteria have to be met, Alan. Until a legal entity judges a picture to have met that criteria, it is nothing more than "of questionable taste". Sure, many people have viewed certain Mann photographs and deemed them "lewd", but that isn't anything more than personal opinion, until such time as the works have been determined by the legal system to violate child pornography laws. To date, none of Sally's photographs have been judged illegal in American law.
I find many of Jock Sturges's photo to be "lewd", but they do not meet the legal requirements to label them "illegal", as decided by the law in several attempts to censor his work. My response to his work is just a personal opinion, not a legal determination. I can be creeped out by some of what he has created, but that doesn't grant me license to send the police to raid an exhibit of his work.

I agree. "Lewd" may be like my Rorschach inkblot joke.

 

[retina_restoration]

He said: "What this tells me is that anyone outside Texas, may not be in a position to understand the issues that are in play here."

I was trying to end his confusion about what people outside of Texas think. They too have laws against child pornography. This isn't something hidden in the American legal system or unique to Texas.

You're not wrong, but neither is he in suggesting that people in another state may not "understand the issues" specific to this case, in this state, as prompted by a specific group with a specific viewpoint. He's not talking about what is baked into legal definitions - he's talking about how people from different states may have a different perception of what is happening, and why. Its at the core of this very discussion.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It's interesting that AI images can be considered CP, because it's been long-standing under US law that hand-drawn sexual images of children are not considered CP. I thought that the rationale for that was that there was no real child being hurt.

The law is concerned with images, actual or fake, encouraging pedophiles to carry out acts of actual sexual abuse of children. It's also why children, now adults, cannot approve of the pictures subsequently, as the Mann children now do. The law tries to stop the effect child pornography has on predators and potential predators.

 

[Pieter12]

I want to know when all those photos made of naked babies lying on fur rugs will be seized…

 

[cowanw]

All this from a state where George Krause (born 1937) established the photography department of the University of Houston.
You may be familiar with his "Fountainhead
picture, but not his "I. Nudi. Mother & son, 1985"

George Krause | Artnet

George Krause is an American photographer born in 1937 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. View George Krause’s 49 artworks on artnet. Find an in-depth biography, exhibitions, original artworks for sale, the latest news, and sold auction prices. See available photographs, and prints and multiples for...

www.artnet.com

Some results may have been delisted consistent with local laws.
Krause's website has been delisted by GOOGLE
It is not 1985 any more

 

[retina_restoration]

I want to know when all those photos made of naked babies lying on fur rugs will be seized…

When you display them in a public gallery setting, I expect.

 

[jeffreyg]

I think some might to like to read this from Kera news a non profit news organization.

 

[Arthurwg]

I want to know when all those photos made of naked babies lying on fur rugs will be seized…

Even possession of the book might be illegal.

 

[retina_restoration]

I think some might to like to read this from Kera news a non profit news organization.
View attachment 388200

This is the link to the actual article, and yes - we posted this yesterday as well. See post 363, here.

 

[KevinW]

Since I have not read every response to this long thread, forgive me if this has already been mentioned but Sally Mann addresses previous controversies with the photographs of her children in the documentaries; What Remains: The Life and Work of Sally Mann, and Blood Ties: The Life and Work of Sally Mann. The later also has interviews with her then teen children about what they thought. Both documentaries are available to watch for free on YouTube.

 

[MattKing]

So the laws there are more concerned about the privacy of clothed people on a public street than adults taking pictures of naked children in the privacy of their homes? American laws take the opposite view. That was my point. Photographers should know what laws are where before they get themselves in trouble with local customs.

No.
Its just that there are different laws, which have different purposes and intentions, that provide different processes to administer, and specify different remedies, to deal with different circumstances.

 

[MattKing]

I wonder how well this internet listing does with Texas customers:

I particularly like the name of the artist. Sad that he died when only 32!
Confession: a reproduction of this was proudly in amongst the framed paintings, prints and photographs this morning at our favourite thrift store.
It was a bit smaller, but the frame was nice.
Regular priced at $12.50 - one of their more expensive items of that nature - but it had one of today's orange half price stickers on it!
The frame was a good one - that is how I get many of the frames I like to use.

 

[Don_ih]

Were her children “abused” or “damaged” in the making of those photographs? Sally’s adult children have been asked this and similar questions and they have stated that they do not think so.

That has been mentioned a number of times. It's a bit meaningless, though, since the ethical issue is potential harm from an action. Could have her children suffered harm from the publication of those photos? is the actual ethical question.

 

[MattKing]

That has been mentioned a number of times. It's a bit meaningless, though, since the ethical issue is potential harm from an action. Could have her children suffered harm from the publication of those photos? is the actual ethical question.

In addition, the nature of the potential harm is also important to the question of what the legal remedy might be.

 

[Pieter12]

That has been mentioned a number of times. It's a bit meaningless, though, since the ethical issue is potential harm from an action. Could have her children suffered harm from the publication of those photos? is the actual ethical question.

Possibly. And her and other children have also possibly suffered harm caused by a myriad of other issues during childhood. Sexual abuse probably happens far more than child pornography (although they are or could be directly linked).

 

[Don_ih]

In addition, the nature of the potential harm is also important to the question of what the legal remedy might be.

And, in terms of legality, there is no requirement that the children suffered any harm for the photos to be determined pornographic.

And her and other children have also possibly suffered harm caused by a myriad of other issues during childhood.

That's a non-sequitur. The question is about the responsibility of the parent to not put their children in a potentially harmful situation - not about all the ones that have.

 

[retina_restoration]

That has been mentioned a number of times. It's a bit meaningless, though, since the ethical issue is potential harm from an action. Could have her children suffered harm from the publication of those photos? is the actual ethical question.

There is potential harm in taking a child to view a Disney movie. There is potential harm in feeding your children hot dogs containing nitrites. There is potential harm in choosing to expose children to society at large!

There is nearly infinite potential for children to come to harm out in the world (and in the hands of their own family), but if we start crafting a society in which no child can ever be damaged in any way, shape or form by their parent's choices, we'd all suffocate from our own rules.

 

[retina_restoration]

And, in terms of legality, there is no requirement that the children suffered any harm for the photos to be determined pornographic.

I guess I have to say it yet again: there have been legal inquiries to investigate Mann's photographs over the past 33+ years, and not yet has any court or legal entity found her guilty of producing pornography. It's just not there! Unless the legal system rewrites their definition of child pornography, it's unlikely there will ever be a different outcome.

 

[retina_restoration]

That has been mentioned a number of times. It's a bit meaningless, though, since the ethical issue is potential harm from an action. Could have her children suffered harm from the publication of those photos? is the actual ethical question.

Well, her children were not raised to be inhibited prudes, so in that regard I doubt there ever was any potential for harm. It is my personal opinion that to raise children to be ashamed of their bodies and afraid of nudity is doing greater harm than how the Mann family chose to raise their kids.

 

[Arthurwg]

Unless the legal system rewrites their definition of child pornography, it's unlikely there will ever be a different outcome.

It looks like the entire country is in the midst of a "rewrite," so don't be surprised if we get one in the arts as well.