Sally Mann Photographs Removed from Texas Museum Exhibition after Outcry

[ant!]

Well, I guess everything has been said, so here my 2 cents:

Had to Google some of her work as I was not very familiar with it. I see normal child pictures. Been born and raised in Germany in the 80s, there are many pictures of me which are similar (ok, maybe not from a technical point of view), and in Germany it is (or was? not living there anymore since a while) normal for young kids (at least until 4-5 years I'd say) to go swimming naked, in public. I don't remember anyone up to this age actually having swimming clothes. Nakedness isn't automatically something sexual (same thing: you can see in Munich in parks in the center adults sunbathing naked, no problem). Also German christians have, at least in their majority I guess, nothing against nudity per se.
So I'd say a very American discussion...

 

[Don_ih]

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

Models who give consent are also likely paid in one way or another. Presumably, it's work they independently want to do. But if you want to claim they are exploited nevertheless, go ahead. If it is exploiting, it's agreed to by the one being exploited.

Sally Mann's children were not old enough to legally agree to being photographed in that or any other way. The person who could legally represent them was also the person with the camera. If an unrelated photographer asked to take photos of her nude children playing in the grass, saying he intended to sell prints and photo books, to have the photos in museums and galleries for the next 40 years, would she have granted free permission? Maybe. Would the children have been comfortable with a stranger taking photos of them in that situation? If you have kids, you can feel free to try that one out.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

.......I’m honestly shocked that someone suggested there was something inappropriate and titillating about Mann photographing black men......

......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......

This is always how these discussions go offrail. I never said "inappropriate and titillating." I mentioned it in context of the subjects she tends to choose. I stated that her subjects tend to be "shocking in ways."

I did read her book. I thought it was terrible, but I don't find her images offensive, nor do I dislike her. Never met her. It has been a few years now since I read her book but all I can remember is how much of a drudge it was to get through. It was basically an exercise by her of finding the most obscure words and stringing them together. And I am not illiterate. I didn't have that much of an opinion about her until I read that book. I still try to keep an open mind though the more I learn the harder it is. It just strikes me all as performative. You mentioned Newton before. With him I at least know where he stands.

 

[retina_restoration]

Models who give consent are also likely paid in one way or another. Presumably, it's work they independently want to do. But if you want to claim they are exploited nevertheless, go ahead. If it is exploiting, it's agreed to by the one being exploited.

Sally Mann's children were not old enough to legally agree to being photographed in that or any other way. The person who could legally represent them was also the person with the camera. If an unrelated photographer asked to take photos of her nude children playing in the grass, saying he intended to sell prints and photo books, to have the photos in museums and galleries for the next 40 years, would she have granted free permission? Maybe. Would the children have been comfortable with a stranger taking photos of them in that situation? If you have kids, you can feel free to try that one out.

The fact is, this is her own children - not some speculative case of "what ifs". Of course I think it's extremely unlikely that a mother would grant a photographer permission to photograph her very young children naked for the purpose of "making art'. But that's not the scenario here - it's a mother making photographs of her own children, with their permission and active involvement in the creative process. (Sure, you can say that at that age the children had neither legal rights to give that permission, nor did they fully understand what they were permitting, and you wouldn't be wrong)

I don't see the point in speculating on how a very different scenario would play out since that isn't what happened in Mann's case. I'll say it again: Sally Mann's children are now grown adults (Jesse is 43 and Virginia is 39) and they still approve of their mother showing these photos to the public. Surely that counts for something. At their current ages, they certainly know what they are agreeing to by approving the public display of their mother's photographs!

 

[retina_restoration]

This is always how these discussions go offrail. I never said "inappropriate and titillating." I mentioned it in context of the subjects she tends to choose. I stated that her subjects tend to be "shocking in ways."

I did read her book. I thought it was terrible, but I don't find her images offensive, nor do I dislike her. Never met her. It has been a few years now since I read her book but all I can remember is how much of a drudge it was to get through. It was basically an exercise by her of finding the most obscure words and stringing them together. And I am not illiterate. I didn't have that much of an opinion about her until I read that book. I still try to keep an open mind though the more I learn the harder it is. It just strikes me all as performative. You mentioned Newton before. With him I at least know where he stands.

If I misinterpreted your statement "shocking in ways" when speaking about Mann photographing black men, I apologize. It was not my intent to put words in your mouth. But when someone uses the word "shocking" in reference to a white female photographer taking pictures of a black man, it's easy to make certain assumptions about what "shocking" actually means in that context. I mean, what's shocking about that?

 

[Pieter12]

This is always how these discussions go offrail. I never said "inappropriate and titillating." I mentioned it in context of the subjects she tends to choose. I stated that her subjects tend to be "shocking in ways."

I did read her book. I thought it was terrible, but I don't find her images offensive, nor do I dislike her. Never met her. It has been a few years now since I read her book but all I can remember is how much of a drudge it was to get through. It was basically an exercise by her of finding the most obscure words and stringing them together. And I am not illiterate. I didn't have that much of an opinion about her until I read that book. I still try to keep an open mind though the more I learn the harder it is. It just strikes me all as performative. You mentioned Newton before. With him I at least know where he stands.

There is more than one book. Did you read her memoir?

 

[Patrick Robert James]

If I misinterpreted your statement "shocking in ways" when speaking about Mann photographing black men, I apologize. It was not my intent to put words in your mouth. But when someone uses the word "shocking" in reference to a white female photographer taking pictures of a black man, it's easy to make certain assumptions about what "shocking" actually means in that context. I mean, what's shocking about that?

I am not offended. No need to apologize. We agree 100% on what this thread is about, how ridiculous the censorship is.

It is shocking in context of other subjects where seemingly she intends to shock. Personally I think anyone can photograph anything but that is not the way the world see things. She never struck me as a naive or stupid person, so she has to know what she is doing, perhaps all too well.

 

[Pieter12]

If I misinterpreted your statement "shocking in ways" when speaking about Mann photographing black men, I apologize. It was not my intent to put words in your mouth. But when someone uses the word "shocking" in reference to a white female photographer taking pictures of a black man, it's easy to make certain assumptions about what "shocking" actually means in that context. I mean, what's shocking about that?

If you want to be shocked, look at her photos of human bodies decaying, rotting flesh full of maggots. I find that more disturbing than any photos of her children. Although both are perfectly natural.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

There is more than one book. Did you read her memoir?

That is the one I was talking about.

 

[Pieter12]

That is the one I was talking about.

I found it captivating. She has extraordinary stories to tell about her life.

 

[retina_restoration]

I found it captivating. She has extraordinary stories to tell about her life.

I did as well. She strikes me as a very genuine person, who has lived her life with honestly and fearlessness. She is also a bit unusual and that played into how she raised her children, and how she incorporated them into her work. Her creativity and candor is remarkable and refreshing in a culture where such things are often not valued - especially the candor. Americans, in my experience, are terrible about discussing sex and death.

 

[BrianShaw]

It’s fascinating that some can’t seem to see the difference between real child pornography and family pictures. Even with unclothed children, there’s a world of difference between the two types of photos.

 

[retina_restoration]

There is more than one book. Did you read her memoir?

I think we are all talking about the same book - her 2015 memoir entitled 'Hold Still'. She has written only one memoir.

 

[Pieter12]

I think we are all talking about the same book - her 2015 memoir entitled 'Hold Still'. She has written only one memoir.

But she has had several books published. I'm not sure if any include her writing, that is why I was asking about the memoir.

 

[snusmumriken]

If you want to be shocked, look at her photos of human bodies decaying, rotting flesh full of maggots. I find that more disturbing than any photos of her children. Although both are perfectly natural.

About the decaying bodies…I don’t think the protest in question mentioned these. I’m a biologist, so I’m unphased by this kind of thing, and by nudity too. Why are people not offended by photos of (largely) hairless pigs, dead or alive? If the kids were being pressured or encouraged into doing something sexual for the camera, that would be a different matter; but depicting the evolutionary status quo as it was before someone ate what their God expressly told them not to eat, why is that a problem?

 

[Pieter12]

About the decaying bodies…I don’t think the protest in question mentioned these. I’m a biologist, so I’m unphased by this kind of thing, and by nudity too. Why are people not offended by photos of (largely) hairless pigs, dead or alive? If the kids were being pressured or encouraged into doing something sexual for the camera, that would be a different matter; but depicting the evolutionary status quo as it was before someone ate what their God expressly told them not to eat, why is that a problem?

I wasn't offended, but I had a strong reaction to those photos. And please, let's keep fiction out of this.

 

[Dave Lusby]

Back in the day, Edward Weston got in trouble for his nudes, which I have always found to be boring. Many years ago I went to a Mapplethorpe show in Berkeley where his "problematic" images were kept under glass in an isolated room. I found them to be boring as well. The issue is that a minority of the population wants to tell the rest of us what we can see, do or think. One purpose of art is to press those boundaries. Art is dangerous, and the oppressors are not limited to Texas.

 

[MattKing]

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

It isn't clear at all that police were involved with the removal itself - just involved with a possible "criminal" investigation.
However, in Canada, and likely in both Texas and the UK itself, if the images were in some way "criminal" or if they were evidence of a criminal offence, than they could very well have been seized in support of a criminal law investigation - assuming of course that the requisite steps were taken.
If you click on the links about the background to the story in the original post, you will see comments from all sorts of politicians - including a judge - claiming that the photographs are criminal violations.
Criminal law in the USA varies from state to state. So there may very well be language on the books in Texas which purport to make Sally Mann's photography of her naked infant children a criminal offence. Whether such a statute is valid is a subject outside the realm of Photrio, but if that is what the statute actually says, and it hasn't been ruled invalid, the police probably are required to seize it.

 

[Don_ih]

not some speculative case of "what ifs"

You miss my point. It was exploitation - but exploitation that her children accept and agree with. You explain some way in which it was not exploitation, and then the discussion may progress.

 

[Pieter12]

Back in the day, Edward Weston got in trouble for his nudes, which I have always found to be boring. Many years ago I went to a Mapplethorpe show in Berkeley where his "problematic" images were kept under glass in an isolated room. I found them to be boring as well. The issue is that a minority of the population wants to tell the rest of us what we can see, do or think. One purpose of art is to press those boundaries. Art is dangerous, and the oppressors are not limited to Texas.

So what would you find interesting?

 

[Pieter12]

You miss my point. It was exploitation - but exploitation that her children accept and agree with. You explain some way in which it was not exploitation, and then the discussion may progress.

Any usage is exploitation to some degree. In fact, that is the definition of the word.

 

[MattKing]

You miss my point. It was exploitation - but exploitation that her children accept and agree with. You explain some way in which it was not exploitation, and then the discussion may progress.

Out of curiosity Don, do you believe this sort of "exploitation" is bad - i.e. is there a pejorative component to your use of that term in this circumstance?

 

[retina_restoration]

Back in the day, Edward Weston got in trouble for his nudes, which I have always found to be boring. Many years ago I went to a Mapplethorpe show in Berkeley where his "problematic" images were kept under glass in an isolated room. I found them to be boring as well. The issue is that a minority of the population wants to tell the rest of us what we can see, do or think. One purpose of art is to press those boundaries. Art is dangerous, and the oppressors are not limited to Texas.

I always found Weston's nudes of Charis to be lovely, but quite tame. Nothing remotely provocative about them. Mapplethorpe - well, that's a different animal entirely. Robert was uninhibited in his desire to depict aspects of his personal sex life in photographs, and there was no way that wasn't going to be provocative. Are they great photographs? Not to me. They're competent, and they have style, but I don't really relate to the subject matter and find a lot of the images "sensational for the sake of being sensational". That doesn't mean they haven't had an impact on photography, but I can only assign them so much gravitas considering how much they are clearly designed to shock. (Shock in art is a useful tool, of course)

 

[pentaxuser]

It isn't clear at all that police were involved with the removal itself - just involved with a possible "criminal" investigation.
However, in Canada, and likely in both Texas and the UK itself, if the images were in some way "criminal" or if they were evidence of a criminal offence, than they could very well have been seized in support of a criminal law investigation - assuming of course that the requisite steps were taken.
If you click on the links about the background to the story in the original post, you will see comments from all sorts of politicians - including a judge - claiming that the photographs are criminal violations.
Criminal law in the USA varies from state to state. So there may very well be language on the books in Texas which purport to make Sally Mann's photography of her naked infant children a criminal offence. Whether such a statute is valid is a subject outside the realm of Photrio, but if that is what the statute actually says, and it hasn't been ruled invalid, the police probably are required to seize it.

Hence my questions about the role of the judge in an earlier post Did he have the evidence presented to him in a court and if so by whom and if that is what happened did he authorise a seizure of the pictures?

However if there was evidence of criminal behaviour then in the U.K. the police can act independently of any judge and arrest the party or parties involved, conduct interviews and present evídence to the accused party or parties. Then decide if the evidence forms in its opinion a case that will stand up in court . It is then required to place the evidence to the Criminal Prosecution Service(CPS) for its decision before charging the accused. If the CPS agrees to a prosecution then a date is set for a criminal trial. At no stage ín this whole procedure does a judge form any part of it

None of this or any semblance of this appears to be the case in Fort Worth and maybe in U.S Federal law or the law in Texas none of this is needed, hence why I said that what happened or appears to have happened based on what the various articles cited is alien to the system here

However what the police and judge did or did not do may be in legal accordance with Texas law but no source appears to have stated that

If what happened was perfectly legal then OK. However I'd be very uncomfortable if such an action could be taken in the way in the U.K. as it appears to have been done in Fort Worth

pentaxuser

 

[retina_restoration]

Any usage is exploitation to some degree. In fact, that is the definition of the word.

Yes, exactly. The word “exploit” can be used in various situations, not all of which imply harm. For instance, you can seize an opportunity without causing any harm or diminishing its value. However, it can also have a pejorative connotation, suggesting taking unfair advantage of someone or something, often for selfish or unethical gain. Therefore, it’s crucial to use the term appropriately in different contexts and comprehend the intended meaning behind its usage.