Sally Mann Photographs Removed from Texas Museum Exhibition after Outcry

[awty]

Her pictures show a beauty and love for family, sad any one would think of them as anything but.

 

[Don_ih]

They also understand - as adults - that there was nothing exploitive about the photographs and their mother was simply depicting their family life as it was, without any agenda to sexualize her children.

It's not necessarily the perceived sexualization of her children that's exploitative. The exploitation is making her children work as models in photos that could only be anticipated as controversial. Making your income and reputation off the sale of photos of your own children is exploiting them - but that exploitation is not necessarily hurting them.

These are all distinct issues that should not be conflated. There appears to be no sexualization in those photos, they are not pornographic, the whole idea seems exploitative, but it doesn't seem anyone was harmed. Artistic merit is a completely separate issue.

"Obscenity" is a truly strange concept, because it will vary in meaning with what is acceptable within a society at a given time. So the actions of a group of people now can be destructive of something that would be more universally embraced at another time. Think of all the statues with their penises smashed off and leaves plastered over the groin. Not many people currently find statues obscene - they have received a more sanctified status as "art".

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Unfortunately it is not limited to Texas.

This seems to be Global, people now are very easily offended, like to be offended and in rage mode, and they have a voice now that gets heard and enforced for some reason...

 

[retina_restoration]

It's not necessarily the perceived sexualization of her children that's exploitative. The exploitation is making her children work as models in photos that could only be anticipated as controversial.

Mann has stated on numerous occasions that her children were willing, active participants in the crafting of the photographs (and her children have spoken publicly in agreement).

The vast majority of those photographs were made when the children were pre-teens, and I can just imagine how difficult it would be to “make the children work as models” if they were not 1) willing participants, 2) enjoying what they were doing and 3) appreciative of the opportunities their mother was presenting for them. Clearly you can see the playfulness on full display in the photographs and that cannot be forced, when dealing with young children. Surely that much is clear.

Oh, and it should also be noted that Mann has stated many times that discussions were had with the children frequently as they grew up about what they were and were not comfortable with, as far as being unclothed in photographs was concerned. Everyone involved had a say in the matter, and Mann (and the kids) were keenly aware that once the children began edging towards sexual maturity, many things they once portrayed in a photograph were off the table, for obvious reasons. I think Mann showed great sensitivity to the issues she faced, and her children were remarkably self-aware and capable of making informed decisions about the process.

If you have not read Mann’s biography “Hold Still”, I strongly recommend it. Many of these issues are discussed at length in the book, which reveals Mann’s conspicuous sensitivity towards all of her subjects and how they were presented. I’m honestly shocked that someone suggested there was something inappropriate and titillating about Mann photographing black men. In her biography she explains so many of her choices and puts them in context of her growing up in the care of an African-American woman who she regarded as a beloved “extra parent”.

Some folks have decided they dislike Mann and find many of her images offensive, but I think those people would benefit from reading her biography and potentially come away with a very different opinion if they did.

Closed minds and closed hearts are of little benefit to a photographer. I’ve often looked at Helmut Newton’s photographs and found many of them offensive in their extreme objectification of women, but it was a style born of its time, and it could also be argued that in styling the images as he did, he was empowering women to use their sexuality to subvert the patriarchy. I may not like how some of Newton’s images make me feel, but there’s no way I’d attempt to invalidate them or their value as art.

 

[retina_restoration]

Her pictures show a beauty and love for family, sad any one would think of them as anything but.

I believe so too.
Obscenity, like beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder. People see what they want to see. I see the love she cultivated in her family - nothing less. My mother would have been flabbergasted if someone ever suggested to her that photographing her 4 and 5 year old children playing in the bathtub was in any way obscene or offensive.
The only difference in Sally Mann’s case is that she’s a skilled photographer, and she offered the images for everyone to see. So what?

 

[halfaman]

Sally Mann's Inmediate Family is one of the most beautiful photobooks I ever saw, it resonated inside me like very few times has happened. It is the kind of book I would like to have done myself. Alleging pornographic intend or sexualization just because some childs (mostly her own childs!) are naked and they are not cherubs (because naked cherubs are ok, right?) concerns me very deeply.

 

[snusmumriken]

What I find weird about this episode is that it is taking place at the same time as the de-regulation of internet platforms like X and Meta.

 

[bernard_L]

It's not necessarily the perceived sexualization of her children that's exploitative. The exploitation is making her children work as models in photos that could only be anticipated as controversial. Making your income and reputation off the sale of photos of your own children is exploiting them - but that exploitation is not necessarily hurting them.

+1
Maybe that makes me a reactionary. Too bad.

 

[BrianShaw]

And I think it's worth your while to read the "Open Letter" from the community (well, the "christians" who found the work offensive) that prompted the removal of the photographs:

https://glasstire.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Danbury-Institute-Letter.jpg?x88956

It’s also worth re-reading Genesis 9, the citation provided to justify the outrage. Two things come to mind: context is everything, and failure to investigate original sources often results in bad assumptions/conclusions. Other things that come to mind shall go unwritten as they may offend the sensibilities of the forum.

 

[Milpool]

Most of the content of the open letter should have been censored.

 

[TomR55]

Unfortunately it is not limited to Texas.

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 …

 

[Nitroplait]

I once posted a photograph on Instagram of a couple of photo books.

Among them the cover of Mann's Immediate Family - as seen here:

Amazon.com

It was removed in violation of Instagram because of "nudity". I was certain it must have been a bot-decision so I appealed it, but was informed by a person (i think) that it would not be approved.

Regardless of what one thinks of the contents of the book, I find it very sad that there is a need to levelling what is publicly accessible to the strictest moral denominator.
Especially because most of those objecting - if asked - do not think they themselves are being corrupted or damaged by seeing the offensive material - they are often offended or concerned on behalf of other people.

 

[pentaxuser]

What we do not appear to know is who and in what numbers prompted the complaint that caused the police( or was it the gallery?) to withdraw the pictures

For instance: Was there a city/county ordinance that was used or an interpretation of that ordinance that caused the gallery to err on the of caution Presumably we can rule out any action as it would not have sanction those pictures initially had the been the case and the said pictures would never have appeared


This is only important if we want to find out the reasons for the action, of course and attribute blame or otherwise to those who took the action and is not germane to a general discussion of censorship which is what this thread has largely been about

Thanks for you references to the pictures ín question. retina_restoration. With a lot more searching I was able to find Popsicle Drips, The Perfect Tomato, The Wet Bed and I think Cereus( what appears to be a naked girl with flower round her neck) fairly easily but not that of Another Cracker but I assume this was another picture involving a naked child posing with something or doing something

It seems to me that the future of censorship such as exercised here, may depend on the power and influence or perceived influence of what may be called very loosely "The Christian Right" and from what I see and hear, including the forthcoming event that will take place in January the Christian Right can be expected to exercíse more power and influence in the next few years. So certainly in those areas of the U.S. where the Christian Right is already powerful, you must expect more such actions similar to that in the area where the current issue arose

pentaxuser

 

[warden]

The comments from local politicians in these articles are typical of people desperate for the use of microphones to stoke outrage. It's clear the museum underestimated the lasting power of these images to outrage those trained for it. From the museum's curatorial essay:

The artist’s photographs from Immediate Family became ensconced in the culture wars of the late 1980s and 1990s. In the media, some images were presented in isolation from the series, becoming touchstones for moral and political debates about art and censorship. Since then, the knee-jerk controversy has faded.

Don't they wish. I'm guessing since this is a group show there weren't many images from the Immediate Family series shown, and so the museum itself is a victim of work "presented in isolation from the series, becoming touchstones for moral and political debates about art and censorship."

I'm sure Sally Mann is mortified that this show has been overcome with this tired attention, especially considering the heavy hitters that are also represented in the show:

Patty Chang
Jess T. Dugan
LaToya Ruby Frazier
Nan Goldin
Debbie Grossman
Letitia Huckaby
Deana Lawson
Laura Letinsky
Sally Mann
Arlene Mejorado
Catherine Opie
Laurie Simmons
Carrie Mae Weems

Have Weems, Opie, Mann, Lawson, Golden and Frazier ever been presented together? I doubt it. I'd love to see this show. So far the outrage of the locals seems about as lazy as one would predict (complete with a judge calling for a criminal investigation) but apparently nobody has had the idea to protect the good citizens of Fort Worth from the effects of seeing work from Catherine Opie, at least yet. Let's keep her work our little secret or the judge may come for her too.

 

[snusmumriken]

Reading the objection letter, I’m puzzled as to how the images mentioned ‘normalize … the LGBTQ lifestyle’. Can anyone enlighten me?

 

[retina_restoration]

What we do not appear to know is who and in what numbers prompted the complaint that caused the police( or was it the gallery?) to withdraw the pictures

Not true. We know exactly who prompted it (did you not read the link to the open letter that was released to the public?? It's linked to in a previous post): it was a religious organization called The Danbury Institute. Please see: https://glasstire.com/2025/01/07/po...-judge-calls-for-investigation-of-the-museum/

For instance: Was there a city/county ordinance that was used or an interpretation of that ordinance that caused the gallery to err on the of caution Presumably we can rule out any action as it would not have sanction those pictures initially had the been the case and the said pictures would never have appeared

I think that after reading more about what happened, I don't think the museum had any choice in the matter: the Police "raided" the museum and demanded they turn over the photographs.

This is only important if we want to find out the reasons for the action, of course and attribute blame or otherwise to those who took the action and is not germane to a general discussion of censorship which is what this thread has largely been about

What aspect of the perpetrator's motivations is still not clear? The Open Letter states the purpose of the raid quite clearly.

Thanks for you references to the pictures ín question. With a lot more searching I was able to find Popsicle Drips, The Perfect Tomato, The Wet Bed and I think Cereus( what appears to be a naked girl with flower round her neck) fairly easily but not that of Another Cracker but I assume this was another picture involving a naked child posing with something or doing something

It seems to me that the future of censorship such as exercised here, may depend on the power and influence or perceived influence of what may be called very loosely "The Christian Right" and from what I see and hear, including the forthcoming event that will take place in January the Christian Right can be expected to exercíse more power and influence in the next few years. So certainly in those areas of the U.S. where the Christian Right is already powerful, you must expect more such actions similar to that in the area where the current issue arose

It's tragic that many photographers will have to tread more carefully when crafting their work. I believe that sanitizing art to avoid offending the radical right (they want everyone to fall in line with their own world view. How can THAT be a healthy thing for society??) is a terrible idea.

If you don't like something, don't ingest it! It's that simple. But nobody has the right to dictate what other people can and cannot view when they seek out art.
The religious radical right often speaks in terms of outrage when speaking about the "agenda" of other populations, and yet it appears to me that few have as powerful and blatant an "agenda" as some of these religious entities. Pot, meet Kettle.

 

[Kino]

Having grown up in and around the area of this controversy, I will simply state that those who fling the accusations are the ones to watch out for...

 

[retina_restoration]

Reading the objection letter, I’m puzzled as to how the images mentioned ‘normalize … the LGBTQ lifestyle’. Can anyone enlighten me?

Given the specific targeting of Mann's five pieces and their subject matter, it seems this part of the Open Letter is completely irrelevant to the issue. I'm mystified by it.
It does, however, reveal something important about the agenda and attitude of The Danbury Institute. It must be a terrible thing to be so easily threatened by people who live different lives from what you perceive to be "righteous". I was certain that it was central to Christianity that the judgement of others was an egregious sin and all such judgement was to be left in the hands of the creator. And yet that seems to be conveniently set aside in instances such as these.

 

[pentaxuser]

What I find weird about this episode is that it is taking place at the same time as the de-regulation of internet platforms like X and Meta.

I agree but society tends to "pick the easy to reach low hanging fruit" and leave areas that seem so much more difficult to tackle, especially when one of the controllers has a lot of political influence and the other sees benefits in relaxing his platform' controls

pentaxuser

 

[Arthurwg]

I suppose, given what's already been stated in this short thread by several posters, I have no right or am an artistic idiot, if I find many of Mann's photographs not only offensive, but down right disgusting.

I can certainly understand this point of view, especially in light of contemporary views on child pornography. And there used to be something called "community standards" used for judging art and literature.

I have great respect for Sally Mann as an artist, and give her credit for creating a substantial career. Lets remember that it's often necessary to define an art practice that sets the artist apart from others and draws attention. It may be called a strategy. Another highly successful artist that I greatly respect, the painter Balthus, was also criticized for his depiction of children.

 

[Arthurwg]

I would strongly advise moderators to block further comments on this thread. It's not going to end well.

Do I detect a form of...censorship?

 

[GregY]

First I'll thank the moderators for not taking the reactionary step of closing down this topic.
While Texas may not generally be the most liberal of states, I think the action of removing the Sally Mann photos says more about the administration of the particular museum.
In contrast, I was in Fort Worth in November and as always visited the Amon Carter Museum, & noted that one section of cowboy art was a display of modern paintings related to gay cowboy subculture.
What about the furor over the "Piss Christ" photograph.... or the photographs of Mapplethorpe?
Art has always had elements of pushing boundaries of what society accepts as normal.
Should we put some clothes on Michaelangelo's David?

 

[Arthurwg]

It seems to me that the future of censorship such as exercised here, may depend on the power and influence or perceived influence of what may be called very loosely "The Christian Right" and from what I see and hear, including the forthcoming event that will take place in January the Christian Right can be expected to exercíse more power and influence in the next few years. So certainly in those areas of the U.S. where the Christian Right is already powerful, you must expect more such actions similar to that in the area where the current issue arose

pentaxuser

You may be correct, but it's also possible that the "Christian Left" might also be offended.

 

[GregY]

Do I detect a form of...censorship?

Agreed, Arthur.....
How many more pages of yawn-inspiring comments about HC Bresson's photos can we endure.
The topic is definitely a newsworthy one if we consider the range of photographic art.

 

[Sirius Glass]

What I find weird about this episode is that it is taking place at the same time as the de-regulation of internet platforms like X and Meta.

I did not miss the irony.