Sally Mann Photographs Removed from Texas Museum Exhibition after Outcry

[koraks]

First I'll thank the moderators for not taking the reactionary step of closing down this topic.

You're welcome; if it continues the way it's been going for the last page or so, I don't think we'll have much reason to shut it down. Fingers crossed; I'd personally rather see it continue.

Now, for a more personal note:

The vast majority of those photographs were made when the children were pre-teens

Without wanting to draw into doubt Mann's intentions in any way, and attempting to formulate as carefully as I can: I can imagine the concern people have with creating imagery and publishing it that depicts minors in a way that some people respond negatively (and strongly so) to, and/or that some people may abuse/misinterpret/mis-appropriate. The problem here is one of consent; pre-teens are generally considered to not be optimally capable of judging the effects of their decisions, and there's reasonable doubt as to the autonomy of those decisions in the first place. I can understand why the body of Mann's work that involves images of naked children is considered problematic. The children pictured will have to live with the consequences of choices that were arguably made in part for them, not so much by them.

It would be nice if we lived in a world where the best intentions of an artist like Mann would automatically create a safe space for her work to exist in. However, this is evidently not the case. In reality, people respond to it in numerous ways, including ways that are contrary to the intentions of the work or the people involved in making the work. This makes it a difficult topic - we can reasonably expect a person like Mann to be aware of this issue, and thus, the question arises whether it's justifiable to produce and publish such work. Without wanting to, or even being able to answer this question, I think the fact that it's asked, is reasonable.

 

[AnselMortensen]

Jock Sturges had better watch his back.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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 …

You are hitting many of the hot button issues that bother me.

 

[BrianShaw]

Jock Sturges had better watch his back.

He and David Hamilton are well-experienced in this controversy.

 

[Saganich]

....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.

I think each one of us would be publicly vocal and concerned about something we perceive as so horrible we must take action against it. This is in our nature I suppose. However the underling motivation to do so may not be to 'save' people from corruption but rather as a crude reaction to aspect of the subject we may be personally in agreement with....but don't want to be associated with socially.

 

[retina_restoration]

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.

You're welcome; if it continues the way it's been going for the last page or so, I don't think we'll have much reason to shut it down. Fingers crossed; I'd personally rather see it continue.

I appreciate the decision to allow this discussion to proceed. I think people have been respectful and given thoughtful responses, on the whole.

Now, for a more personal note:


Without wanting to draw into doubt Mann's intentions in any way, and attempting to formulate as carefully as I can: I can imagine the concern people have with creating imagery and publishing it that depicts minors in a way that some people respond negatively (and strongly so) to, and/or that some people may abuse/misinterpret/mis-appropriate. The problem here is one of consent; pre-teens are generally considered to not be optimally capable of judging the effects of their decisions, and there's reasonable doubt as to the autonomy of those decisions in the first place. I can understand why the body of Mann's work that involves images of naked children is considered problematic.

Yes, I get that. "Problematic" art isn't a new idea. But I absolutely do not agree with the idea that in order to deal with "problematic" pieces, a police raid to have them removed from the museum should be prompted.

The children pictured will have to live with the consequences of choices that were arguably made in part for them, not so much by them.

Certainly. But Mann's children are fully grown adults now and have been asked their opinion n of their mother's photographs and persist in defending the work, as adults. None of her children have asked that those pieces NOT be displayed in the many shows in which they have appeared in the 33 years since they were first published. (In 'Immediate Family")

It would be nice if we lived in a world where the best intentions of an artist like Mann would automatically create a safe space for her work to exist in. However, this is evidently not the case.

It never was and will never be. Just type the words "Piss Christ" and watch the anger rise to the surface.

From what I recall, Mann was a bit surprised by the negative response to the work, and I think she may have been somewhat naive about the photographs finding "a safe space" to live in. But I find it very disappointing that decades after the initial debacle, Mann still has to deal with the kind radical prudery that believes that an unclothed body is "profane" and "offensive". To a degree, I think this is a uniquely American phenomenon.

In reality, people respond to it in numerous ways, including ways that are contrary to the intentions of the work or the people involved in making the work. This makes it a difficult topic - we can reasonably expect a person like Mann to be aware of this issue, and thus, the question arises whether it's justifiable to produce and publish such work. Without wanting to, or even being able to answer this question, I think the fact that it's asked, is reasonable.

Sure, since this DID happen, that makes it worthy of discussion.

 

[Pieter12]

I am not familiar with her work, so I briefly looked up some of her images. Provocative? Perhaps, but then so was the famous photo of "napalm girl".

It strikes me that the real questions are:
1. Are the images intended to bring about sexual excitement?
2. Were the people in the images actually harmed or put in harm by creating them?

I am, of course, not the arbiter of these things. But I saw nothing sexually titillating in the images that Google presented me with. Nudity in itself, including of children, is not a problem. Heck, my parents took plenty of nude photos of me when I was a baby and child. They just weren't published photographers, though I have chosen in my own adulthood to share some.

I am not sufficiently familiar with Sally Mann or her family to know what the children now think of those images and how they feel about them being on display. It would strike me that actually asking them might be a good step before any authority swoops to remove them from galleries.

If you read earlier posts, Ms Mann actually ran all the images past her children before exhibiting or publishing them. The ones they objected to were where they considered they looked “dorky” not anything to do with nuditity.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for the reply retina-restoration I have to say that most of it came across as unnecessarily strident I was simply trying to establish what numbers these Danbury people represent among the total number of people in the town/county. It may be that they have influence much greater than their numbers represent and if so that may be a case of a vigorous tail wagging the whole dog

Yes I noticed a comment by a judge. However does his comment represent no more than the same comment made by any member of Joe Public or can he exercise such judgement as if it is a legal pronouncement as might be made in a court of law. He like several other elected officials have called on these pictures to be taken down but this seems like a request rather than an order so exactly what is the legal basis for any action by the police. It is they who seem to have gone into the gallery and demanded these pics be removed or did they, the police physically remove them. So did they have a law to back this up or was the gallery persuaded that it would be better to remove them so did so on request after further consideration? If the latter then it was the gallery's decisíon, wasn't it

It may be that "things are stacked against them" to the extent that contesting the police's right in Fort Worth is not worth it and if so this may be something to rage against and I understand your position which you have made very clear but it may well be that in certain counties in certain states such actions will take place and in the short term there's nothing to be done to prevent it other than a "venting of spleens" such as on a forum like ours

In the longer term do you rely on "people's common sense" to prevail to alter the situation in Fort Worth assuming that the silent majority feel that these pics have a right to be seen by those wishing to see them or hope that Fort Worth may be an exception to what may still be the "more progressíve" view in most of the rest of the U.S. and leave it at that

Local county/ city autonomy of which this seems to be an example appears to be something that for better or worse you may have to live with

If on the other hand the action in Fort Worth represents the start of the "dying of the light " across the whole of the U.S. then this represents a much bigger problem

The answer to that, if that is how you view it, is one that I am not ín a position to suggest an answer to

All I will say is what I have already said, namely that by and large I see a greater likelihood of changes in the next few years that are likely to create more actions of "censorship" in the broadest sense of the word.

pentaxuser

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

You're welcome; if it continues the way it's been going for the last page or so, I don't think we'll have much reason to shut it down. Fingers crossed; I'd personally rather see it continue.

Now, for a more personal note:


Without wanting to draw into doubt Mann's intentions in any way, and attempting to formulate as carefully as I can: I can imagine the concern people have with creating imagery and publishing it that depicts minors in a way that some people respond negatively (and strongly so) to, and/or that some people may abuse/misinterpret/mis-appropriate. The problem here is one of consent; pre-teens are generally considered to not be optimally capable of judging the effects of their decisions, and there's reasonable doubt as to the autonomy of those decisions in the first place. I can understand why the body of Mann's work that involves images of naked children is considered problematic. The children pictured will have to live with the consequences of choices that were arguably made in part for them, not so much by them.

It would be nice if we lived in a world where the best intentions of an artist like Mann would automatically create a safe space for her work to exist in. However, this is evidently not the case. In reality, people respond to it in numerous ways, including ways that are contrary to the intentions of the work or the people involved in making the work. This makes it a difficult topic - we can reasonably expect a person like Mann to be aware of this issue, and thus, the question arises whether it's justifiable to produce and publish such work. Without wanting to, or even being able to answer this question, I think the fact that it's asked, is reasonable.

It's even more problematic today than when Mann released the book years ago. Recently, many adults are now willing and have publicly acknowledged being sexually abused as children, a frequently occurring situation that had been kept secret and well hidden from public view in years past. So more people are concerned today with the issue.

 

[retina_restoration]

I'm curious if anyone reading this discussion believes it was reasonable to initiate a police raid on the museum to have the works removed from the Forth Worth show?

 

[Pieter12]

It's even more problematic today than when Mann released the book years ago. Recently, many adults are now willing and have publicly acknowledged being sexually abused as children, a frequently occurring situation that had been kept secret and well hidden from public view in years past. So more people are concerned today with the issue.

There were so many bogus "repressed memories" of child abuse that it has become a dubious claim at best. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory_syndrome

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Do I detect a form of...censorship?

Nope. I'm pleasantly surprised to see how civilized this conversation has remained, even more so considering the religious and political undertones (or should it be overtones?) in the subject matter.

And I have no problem saying that part of the reason the conversation has remained civilized is that I carefully avoided intervening in it.

 

[retina_restoration]

It's even more problematic today than when Mann released the book years ago. Recently, many adults are now willing and have publicly acknowledged being sexually abused as children, a frequently occurring situation that had been kept secret and well hidden from public view in years past. So more people are concerned today with the issue.

The whole "repressed memories" thing has about as much credibility as the Polygraph and Phrenology: it is extremely prone to produce false and unreliable data.
The psychiatric community currently has a different view on RMT as a valid psychiatric and "legal" tool; research has shown that the techniques used in RMT can create false memories—detailed but fabricated recollections of events that never occurred. It is not a reliable tool for gathering evidence of abuse.
Besides, you’re getting way off topic with this.

 

[koraks]

I think people have been respectful and given thoughtful responses, on the whole.

Yes, and thanks also for sharing your thoughts. I agree with all of what you say in the post I quoted the above from. That being said, and with acknowledgement to the fact that Mann's children presently also don't object to the photos and their publication - that they would respond this way, today, was not guaranteed back then when the photos were made. I think that makes it very tricky. It worked out well (at least for them, so far, and insofar as we know how they feel about it) this time, but what does that mean for today's or tomorrow's equivalent to Sally Mann? I don't think there's really a way to fully address that. It'll remain the artist's judgement call - and that means there will always be room for criticism.

BTW, I'm aware I'm reflecting only on a specific aspect of the situation and I'm sidestepping the question of the specific intervention that apparently took place in Texas. I've not read up on it and I doubt I could comment on it in a way that would remain within the scope of the forum rules.

 

[Pieter12]

One thing that has not been mentioned in this discussion is the fact that Sally Mann is not conventional. In her memoir, she writes about not wanting to wear clothes at a young age so it only seems normal and natural for her children to gallivant around their private property nude. Ms. Mann took photos, as many photographers would, of her children at play, sometimes having them pose for her since she used an 8x10 camera. There was no lascivious intent, only a photographer at work. It is other's distorted interpretation of the images that have made them controversial.

it does strike me as absurd that this took place in Texas, home to "Debby Does Dallas" among other things.

 

[argentic]

I'm sure Sally Mann is mortified by these accusations. But it's exactly these kinds of reactions that propelled her and Jock Sturges onto the international art scene thirty years ago. It's about the best free publicity she can get. Even more people worldwide will have the opportunity to see her work.

 

[retina_restoration]

I'm sure Sally Mann is mortified by these accusations. But it's exactly these kinds of reactions that propelled her and Jock Sturges onto the international art scene thirty years ago. It's about the best free publicity she can get. Even more people worldwide will have the opportunity to see her work.

Both Second Sight: The Photographs of Sally Mann (1983) and At Twelve: Portraits of Young Women (1988) were published before Immediate Family (1992) and these two monographs were regarded as significant, important works and did a great deal to "propel her onto the international art scene". It's inaccurate to suggest that Mann hadn't already achieved significant fame prior to Immediate Family. That volume is not solely responsible for her reputation as one of the most important American photographers of our age.

 

[Saganich]

I'm curious if anyone reading this discussion believes it was reasonable to initiate a police raid on the museum to have the works removed from the Forth Worth show?

To use police resources to remove art from a gallery and not arrest anyone makes it unreasonable since the art could have been removed by anyone.

 

[pentaxuser]

I'm curious if anyone reading this discussion believes it was reasonable to initiate a police raid on the museum to have the works removed from the Forth Worth show?

Well this is a completely alien action to me so No is my answer It's alien in that in the U.K. unless a picture clearly contravenes U.K. law on what constitutes child pornography such a raid would not be lawful but clearly the legal situation in the U.S is clearly a "world away"

pentaxuser

 

[argentic]

Both Second Sight: The Photographs of Sally Mann (1983) and At Twelve: Portraits of Young Women (1988) were published before Immediate Family (1992) and these two monographs were regarded as significant, important works and did a great deal to "propel her onto the international art scene". It's inaccurate to suggest that Mann hadn't already achieved significant fame prior to Immediate Family. That volume is not solely responsible for her reputation as one of the most important American photographers of our age.

Hi,

I didn't pretend that she wasn't a great artist before immediate family. But the scandals about her work (which I consider unjustified) really propelled her notoriety internationally. Here in Europe for example only a select few had heard of her before. BTW in Europe you can love or hate her work, but it isn't considered pornography at all.

 

[BrianShaw]

Well this is a completely alien action to me so No is my answer It's alien in that in the U.K. unless a picture clearly contravenes U.K. law on what constitutes child pornography such a raid would not be lawful but clearly the legal situation in the U.S is clearly a "world away"

pentaxuser

Look closer. Perhaps not this exact scenario but There is plenty of evidence online where the British police, England especially, enforce “suspicion” and other legal non-criminal activities against photographers that someone deems annoying or odd.

 

[Don_ih]

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).

That is true. I didn't deny it. But it was still exploitation. The photos could have existed solely for the "immediate family" to view and it would not be exploitation. The photos were turned into a source of income. That her children were ok with it then and now means they were not harmed. But they were exploited.

Closed minds and closed hearts are of little benefit to a photographer.

Judgment is a more important quality.

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

Good luck. Those who want a platform will bring all their crap with them.

Jock Sturges had better watch his back.

He already plead guilty to having sexual relations with a 14 year old when he was a teacher. As for David Hamilton, he committed suicide before his day in court.

 

[Pieter12]

That is true. I didn't deny it. But it was still exploitation. The photos could have existed solely for the "immediate family" to view and it would not be exploitation. The photos were turned into a source of income. That her children were ok with it then and now means they were not harmed. But they were exploited.

By that line of reasoning, any subject is being exploited by photographers who sell their photos. Including paid models who give consent.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Context matters. Used to matter. Now people have just dirty eyes

 

[pentaxuser]

Look closer. Perhaps not this exact scenario but There is plenty of evidence online where the British police, England especially, enforce “suspicion” and other legal non-criminal activities against photographers that someone deems annoying or odd.

Well I don't think what you said above is a good analogy to the scenario I painted where I said that what happened in Fort Worth and how it was initiated was completely alien to how the law governs a police raid on a gallery

However that is not to say police action in the U.K. is all sweetness and light - just that police action of the nature we are discussing would not take place on the basis it seemingly was in Fort Worth

pentaxuser