Sally Mann Photographs Removed from Texas Museum Exhibition after Outcry

[Don_ih]

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?

It should be clear from what I said, but it seems people stop reading when they hit the word they don't like, that exploitation is simply using to your benefit and not necessarily to the detriment of what you're using. I said the children don't seem to have suffered any harm from it.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

I think it's a cautionary tale for photographers who take photos of children that they don't go beyond a certain line because there are tough recent laws in many states, including federally across the country, against child pornography. So you better be aware of those limits before you inadvertently get yourself in trouble.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Here's the beginning of the Texas law. It requires a sexual conduct of some kind with a minor, not just a photo of a nude child. It also covers AI-generated pictures. (see the link below)

Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 43.26. Possession or Promotion of Child Pornography​

(a) A person commits an offense if:

(1) the person knowingly or intentionally possesses, or knowingly or intentionally accesses with intent to view, visual material that visually depicts a child younger than 18 years of age at the time the image of the child was made who is engaging in sexual conduct, including a child who engages in sexual conduct as a victim of an offense under Section 20A.02(a)(5), (6), (7), or (8); and
(2) the person knows that the material depicts the child as described by Subdivision (1)...
...
The rest of the code can be found here.

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-43-26/s

 

[BrianShaw]

Thats informative. Thanks Alan.

 

[MattKing]

Hence my questions about the role of the judge in an earlier post

Many judges in the US are elected, and they have to campaign regularly to keep their job.
I don't know whether the judge who was quoted is one of the elected ones, but I expect so.
It is probably best to consider a judge who is quoted like that as a politician.

 

[MattKing]

Here's the beginning of the Texas law. It requires a sexual conduct of some kind with a minor, not just a photo of a nude child. It also covers AI-generated pictures. (see the link below)

Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 43.26. Possession or Promotion of Child Pornography​

(a) A person commits an offense if:

(1) the person knowingly or intentionally possesses, or knowingly or intentionally accesses with intent to view, visual material that visually depicts a child younger than 18 years of age at the time the image of the child was made who is engaging in sexual conduct, including a child who engages in sexual conduct as a victim of an offense under Section 20A.02(a)(5), (6), (7), or (8); and
(2) the person knows that the material depicts the child as described by Subdivision (1)...
...
The rest of the code can be found here.

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-43-26/s

You are most likely correct that this is the particular statute that people are thinking of, but there could be others as well.

 

[Pieter12]

I think it's a cautionary tale for photographers who take photos of children that they don't go beyond a certain line because there are tough recent laws in many states, including federally across the country, against child pornography. So you better be aware of those limits before you inadvertently get yourself in trouble.

I used to do a lot of street photography. I was always aware and cautious not to photograph children. You never know how someone noticing might interpret it.

 

[BrianShaw]

You are most likely correct that this is the particular statute that people are thinking of, but there could be others as well.

Like what, an ordinance that prohibits offending the sensibilities of sexually repressed old biddies?

 

[GregY]

I think it's a cautionary tale for photographers who take photos of children that they don't go beyond a certain line because there are tough recent laws in many states, including federally across the country, against child pornography. So you better be aware of those limits before you inadvertently get yourself in trouble.

No, I don't think it's a cautionary tale. Not a "draw within the lines" or else.....
It's a sign of a particular mindset. These photos were taken decades ago, and have stood the test of time in other geographic locations and views & reviews of artistic work.
I'm going to say this anyway regardless if it gets struck. Sally Mann's work doesn't come close to obscenity....dead children in Gaza and the Ukraine on the other hand.....

 

[awty]

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.

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

It happens here all the time (not so much in galleries, they usually defend their exhibitions) but generally there usually is such a large public backlash that there is a backdown. We don't like "Prudes" in Australia.
If I went to the public beach at the end of my street there would be young kids swimming in the nude as they have done forever.

 

[koraks]

Moderator note: I've removed a few more comments that took the thread away from Sally Mann and into more political territory. No offense taken on behalf of the moderators, none intended by removing these comments, and apologies to you if you've seen one of your posts removed. This is an interesting discussion and insofar as it's feasible, we'd prefer to prune it here and there instead of having to shut it down entirely.

 

[summicron1]

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?

the decaying bodies are at The Body Farm, which is a scientifically run establishment at a university somewhere I forget google it yourself. It is used to study body decomposition, which provides a lot of scientific data -- among other things so that crime labs can tell when a person died.
Many news stories have been written about the place. People ask to have their bodies left there. They put it in their wills. When I die a bunch of medical students at the University of Utah will take my body apart so they can learn how to treat living humans -- how is that different? I bet autopsies and medical body anatomy classes make good photo studies as well. Not something to view at dinner, but otherwise...

And as I said previously, Mann's work is very well done, lots of technical expertise, and as to the naked children romping outside being porn -- good lord, how silly are we in this country these days?

 

[Ivo Stunga]

If one sees only porn whilst looking at non-sexual images, then the idea holds - dirty minds see dirty things. And is there a benefit of avoiding some strong reminders of their fallacy?

 

[Agulliver]

I've tried to read most of the posts here. What I am taking in is the following:

Sally Mann photographed her own children growing up, evolving into teengers as all children do. She had their permission at the time, and perhaps even more importantly she has the permission of them as near middle aged adults to publish and exhibit those photos. The subjects of the photos are now plenty old enough to be involved in those decisions themselves.

The images I've seen don't show anything I could reasonably interpret as pornography. There are some poses that might be described as precocious but no sexual acts, nothing designed to titillate or elicit sexual arousal in the viewer. Frankly if that's what you see, then we are poles apart and I encourage you to clutch at those pearls a little less tightly.

I am reminded of a case in the 80s or possibly early 90s here in the UK when an emplooyee at Boods (think Walgreen's) reported a customer (who I recall was a celebrity) who had given a film to her local Boots for D&P. On it were photos of her young children naked in the bath, in the garden and so on. The over-zealous employee thought these were illegal and contacted the police. It made national headlines, but the eventual conclusion was that these were simply family photos with naked kids. The police and Boots confirmed that simply being naked, for kids and adults, was not a problem with photos.

I don't see any parallels to street photography where you are generally photographing people you do not know. Additionally, people are generally not naked in the streets except for things like the naked bike ride, when they know they're going to be photographed.

There have been issues on beaches, where once people waved cameras about everywhere there is sometimes now concern that anyone with a "big lens" is up to no good and photographing kiddies naked or in swimming clothes. Again though, the concern would be that if there were any nefarious persons doing so....they'd be photographing children of people they do not know, and would therefore not be simply documenting their or a friend's family at the beach.

 

[argentic]

Excellent summary, Agulliver.

And... Sally Mann STOPPED photographing her kids when, reaching adolescence, they didn't consent anymore. But as adults these same kids still consent today to her exposing their childhood photographs. How much more consent do you need?

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Any amount imaginable, because THEY (offended viewers) do not consent.
The problem lies within, but external factors are sought to blame.

 

[Agulliver]

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.

I do feel that there is an important question here, and beyond Sally Mann and her photographs.....and that is.....was anyone harmed? Did anyone suffer because of the publication or exhibition of these photographs?

It appears in this case the answer is "no", at least not until some over-zealous and self-appointed guardians of human morality got invoved and they found themselves the subject of a controversy rather than a photo gallery.

But if the answer had been "yes", as it sometimes is, there are still further questions along the lines of "was it worth it?".

Ultimately the subjects of the photos, all now well into adulthood, support the exhibition of the photos taken of them as children.

 

[Agulliver]

Any amount imaginable, because THEY (offended viewers) do not consent.
The problem lies within, but external factors are sought to blame.

Nobody is forcing people who don't want to view these photographs to do so. And if someone entered the gallery unawares, and found themselves uncomfortable, they would be welcome to leave.

The photos in themselves do not depict sexual acts, are not created to arouse sexual excitement and if they do....then the viewer might well wish to seek some help. They are not in themselves harmful, and the subjects are fully in favour of them being exhibited.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Exactly the behavior I'd expect from those that don't like a particular body of work. But there's no drama in that and drama must go on...

 

[Don_ih]

It's an important fact that people, for the most part, don't come up with their own ideas of what's right and wrong. A very complicated thing tends to need to be made rather straightforward. So, when the issue is child pornography, that gets reduced to photos of naked children. Many people who are generally sensible will look at almost any photo of a naked preteen and say it's child porn. For the most part, they've never had to reflect on whether such a photo might not be pornographic. For them "child porn" means "pictures of naked children".

It's really the job of those who represent the art to defend the art against such accusations and to try to explain how the work is not pornographic. But that latter task is virtually impossible with the more dogmatic morally outraged.

 

[Agulliver]

It's an important fact that people, for the most part, don't come up with their own ideas of what's right and wrong. A very complicated thing tends to need to be made rather straightforward. So, when the issue is child pornography, that gets reduced to photos of naked children. Many people who are generally sensible will look at almost any photo of a naked preteen and say it's child porn. For the most part, they've never had to reflect on whether such a photo might not be pornographic. For them "child porn" means "pictures of naked children".

It's really the job of those who represent the art to defend the art against such accusations and to try to explain how the work is not pornographic. But that latter task is virtually impossible with the more dogmatic morally outraged.

While I generally agree that most people don't think too independently about morality....I stand by my statement that if someone looks at pictures of naked children and their first thought is that they're designed to elicit sexual excitement in the viewer...then they should probably seek some therapy.

Which is what it boils down to. People have taken photos of their babies and kids naked since Mr. Eastman invented the word "Kodak". There are plenty of such photos of me. It's what people did, and still do. Sally Mann just happens to be in a position to exhibit hers. And the (now adult) kids have consented.

 

[bags27]

There will not and cannot be a resolution to this. As Justice Potter Stewart wrote, he knew pornography when he saw it. The emphasis is on "he." We each see things differently from each other, and we each see things differently from how we saw them a moment before.

Community norms in America have always leaned toward the dominant ethics of early "settlers." We don't call it Puritanical for nothing. Artists often--some might say their very raison d'etre is to--push against community norms. And then norms push back. This is no different than the reactions to Mapplethorpe or Chris Ofili.

 

[BrianShaw]

While I generally agree that most people don't think too independently about morality....I stand by my statement that if someone looks at pictures of naked children and their first thought is that they're designed to elicit sexual excitement in the viewer...then they should probably seek some therapy.

Which is what it boils down to. People have taken photos of their babies and kids naked since Mr. Eastman invented the word "Kodak". There are plenty of such photos of me. It's what people did, and still do. Sally Mann just happens to be in a position to exhibit hers. And the (now adult) kids have consented.

Before Kodak…

1879: Lewis Carroll seeks permission to photograph nude children

In 1879 Charles L. Dodgson was better known to the world as Lewis Carroll, author of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, published 14 years earlier.

alphahistory.com

And he still holds a reputation by some as a pervert and creep.

Lewis Carroll's Shifting Reputation

Why has popular opinion of the author of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland undergone such a dramatic reversal?

www.smithsonianmag.com

 

[Cholentpot]

I've tried to read most of the posts here. What I am taking in is the following:

Sally Mann photographed her own children growing up, evolving into teengers as all children do. She had their permission at the time, and perhaps even more importantly she has the permission of them as near middle aged adults to publish and exhibit those photos. The subjects of the photos are now plenty old enough to be involved in those decisions themselves.

The images I've seen don't show anything I could reasonably interpret as pornography. There are some poses that might be described as precocious but no sexual acts, nothing designed to titillate or elicit sexual arousal in the viewer. Frankly if that's what you see, then we are poles apart and I encourage you to clutch at those pearls a little less tightly.

I am reminded of a case in the 80s or possibly early 90s here in the UK when an emplooyee at Boods (think Walgreen's) reported a customer (who I recall was a celebrity) who had given a film to her local Boots for D&P. On it were photos of her young children naked in the bath, in the garden and so on. The over-zealous employee thought these were illegal and contacted the police. It made national headlines, but the eventual conclusion was that these were simply family photos with naked kids. The police and Boots confirmed that simply being naked, for kids and adults, was not a problem with photos.

I don't see any parallels to street photography where you are generally photographing people you do not know. Additionally, people are generally not naked in the streets except for things like the naked bike ride, when they know they're going to be photographed.

There have been issues on beaches, where once people waved cameras about everywhere there is sometimes now concern that anyone with a "big lens" is up to no good and photographing kiddies naked or in swimming clothes. Again though, the concern would be that if there were any nefarious persons doing so....they'd be photographing children of people they do not know, and would therefore not be simply documenting their or a friend's family at the beach.

We're back to this but automated.

I digitized my families VHS tapes going back to the 80's and uploaded them as unlisted and private to youtube to share with my family. The youtube bots took them down and reported to me that I had violated the youtube terms and conditions and further legal action may be taken. I appealed and they had (I assume) a human go through the flagged footage. It was kids in a bathtub. Videos were still blocked but no legal action was taken.

I think in general we've come to err on the side of caution and we'll see more and more stuff that was viewed as ok in the past get automatically reported because of current ideals. It's apolitical. The robots are the moral arbiter now.

 

[BrianShaw]

The old adage, “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” isn’t always accurate…

And the sad fact is that accusation, whether justified or not, is too easily interpreted as conviction.

Erring on the side of caution, as annoying as that may be, makes sense…