Very articulately stated RR.... kudos
That's the right thing to do, I agree. And yet you proceed to say soon thereafter "Stripping a young minor naked for a picture of this type is child abuse and probably pornography."
You do not say "is akin to" or even "may be seen as" child abuse - you jump straight to "is child abuse". You've made it abundantly clear that you believe artists who include their unclothed children in a work of art are perpetrating child abuse. So don't be surprised, Alan, when you encounter pushback. Some of us agree with you, some of us do not.
Your boundaries are not my boundaries. I look at Sally Mann's work and I don't see "pornography" or "child abuse" or any such thing. I choose to view that work in context of who created it, what was intended by the work, its artistic value and whether or not it maintains artistic integrity. But you're free to protest as much as you like. As they say, it's a free country. But don't expect everyone to fall in line with your vision of what is moral and correct. That is territory where all too many self-proclaimed moral institutes venture in an attempt to force others to align themselves with a specific worldview.
A while back I asked the forum membership to explain to me what it is about Sally Mann's photograph "Night Blooming Cereus" (link provided) that warranted inclusion in the work seized by the Fort Worth police, and I don't believe anybody provided an answer. So, I'll ask again: please explain why this image is considered by some as offensive and (potentially) pornography?
I fail to see how this picture has any connection with those taken by Julia Margaret Cameron.
It’s a topless female kid.
And that makes it offensive? You cannot even state definitively what the figure's gender is. (and I bet that makes a difference to some)
My comment about the Mann picture in my post 510 said: "I think the DA should return photos after the Exhibition is over and move on. It's not clear Texas law was violated."
The uncertainty about gender is probably part of what makes it disquieting.
And that makes it offensive? You cannot even state definitively what the figure's gender is. (and I bet that makes a difference to some)
I guess it's likely to be hard to tell what sex a child before puberty is from a photo that doesn't include the face.
I see the comparison to Julia M Cameron (althoughI think she would have made it clear what she was getting at - 'Miss Elsie Thompson as "Flora" ' or some such). I don't think the photo is at all obscene by any test that you could write down. No sexual parts are shown; and the child, male or female, does not have breasts even if you could see them. There is something decidedly sensual about the draping of the large flowers over the body - maybe a joint effort by Julia Margaret Cameron and Robert Mapplethorpe? There is a difference between sensuality and sexuality. Imagine the sensation of those large heavy flowers on your body; and just the lushness of the warm environment that lets plants like that grow. I guess the intent is related to that described for 'Child in Forest' - the child in contact with and at home with lush, wild nature.
Were I to take the photo (it's not the sort of photography I do) I would have the flowers in sharper focus.
But Julia Margaret Cameron did not take overtly sexualised images of children. She was primarily a portrait photographer who stylistically specialised in theatrical imagery.
You don't see a difference between nudity and sex?
In terms of effect on viewers, I don’t think there can ever be a categorical distinction between nudity and sex.
I guess what made her children a subject to share for Sally Mann (and others before her) is the whole ‘before the fall’ concept
Maybe that kind of inner confusion is normal and exactly the point?
Always the stickler for exact usage!There's one truly relevant distinction: nudity is a state, sex is an activity. (I wasn't referring to sex as in "what sex are you" when I made the original statement, but to sexual acts.)
Sure. And inevitably, that has everyone running round in circles trying to define ‘pornography’ in different words.Well, the whole topic here hinges on what is or should be defined as pornographic when assessing a photo of a child.
Sure. And inevitably, that has everyone running round in circles trying to define ‘pornography’ in different words.
It seems the museum’s own description of the photos lent some weight to there being a sexual aspect. I bet they regret that.
And inevitably, that has everyone running round in circles trying to define ‘pornography’ in different words.
While pornography may be generally legal, obscenity is less so. Perhaps this is also a definition distinction at play in the Mann case. We haven’t yet seen the allegations/charges, though.
We haven’t yet seen the allegations/charges, though.
Reviewing what definitions for obscenity there are in the US, in order for the photos to be ruled obscene, they would need to be seen as lacking in serious artistic merit. They would also basically need to be judged child pornography. But something can be judged child pornography and still be considered to have artistic merit.
I doubt there will be charges. I think the process Alan mentioned (hang on to the photos without justification until it's too late to return them to the exhibition, then release them with neither charges or an apology) is what they will probably do. However, I read that the people objecting to the photographs include a judge Tim O'Hare; and a state-representative-elect David Lowe said 'It is crucial that our legal framework leaves no room for predators to misuse the realm of art to display child nudity. Should any loopholes exist, we are prepared to address and eliminate them in the upcoming legislative session in Texas'. So if the photographs don't break state law yet, some of the objectors mean to change the law so they do. Note the guy said 'child nudity'; no test for obscenity required.
(https://news.artnet.com/art-world/modern-art-museum-fort-worth-sally-mann-2594527 Brian Boucher in Artnet, 3 January)
This discussion is built on this question: was the seizure of the photographs was legally warranted and do the photographs contain subject matter that violates Texas law. Everything else that has poured out as a result of asking the question is speculation, opinion, and emotional response (a lot of which is rooted in moral objection).Without condemning Mann's choices or photographs, I agree with some other posters that I would not publish family photos like these. And I wouldn't be very surprised that they were met with disapproval from some people, or that it continued over the years. But disapproval isn't the point. I don't approve of people eating meat or reading the Daily Mail, but they aren't breaking the law. If Mann's photos don't break the law, they should be not just tolerated but protected from interference.
This is my opinion. as well. Do we classify fire hydrants as "obscene" because 0.001 percent of the population gets turned on by the sight of one?Have to disagree. That’s Philadelphia lawyer mumbo jumbo. Part of obscenity is that it may stimulate sexual arousal. That alone can be used to justify anything as non-art. The objections in this situation are much more basic than the law. It’s mostly about Texan Puritan prudeness .
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?