Sally Mann Photographs Removed from Texas Museum Exhibition after Outcry

[Pieter12]

Of course I do not, and I don't have it on authority that he really was schizophrenic. That's simply jargon. My only conjecture is that these children may have had a difficult childhood.

Does not sound any more difficult in any way than most. Probably better. I do believe he was professionally diagnosed as schizophrenic, so it's not jargon. He had three brain injuries, one as a child and two later in adulthood.

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

The issue has been around for many years.

The Water Rats, 1886

Frank Meadow Sutcliffe's famous image is one of the earliest examples of using depth of field creatively in the composition of a photograph

www.theguardian.com

I have a couple of Meadows re prints on my wall they were purchased whilst in Whitby some years ago.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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

High on my list of reasons to stay out of Texas or any other location with similar laws. The fact the they were her own children and she stopped photographing them before puberty speaks highly of her.

 

[koraks]

and she stopped photographing them before puberty speaks highly of her.

How does that matter? Apart from the question whether the kids would have still been OK with it at that point.
Also, I don't quite agree with that it "speaks highly" of someone to photograph their naked kids, or to stop doing so.

 

[snusmumriken]

The issue has been around for many years.

The Water Rats, 1886

Frank Meadow Sutcliffe's famous image is one of the earliest examples of using depth of field creatively in the composition of a photograph

www.theguardian.com

I have a couple of Meadows re prints on my wall they were purchased whilst in Whitby some years ago.

Yes, I mentioned FMS a few posts back, and he is definitely relevant here. His “Water rats” photo won a lot of praise in artistic circles, but was criticised by prudish sectors. I have the biography of Sutcliffe by Michael Holley, and he points out that the habit of local boys to swim in the nude was itself seen as a bit of a public nuisance because it offended prudish tourists. In part, stripping off and plunging in was a ploy by boys playing truant from school, to escape the school attendance officer, Mr George Bonwick.

Although FMS comes across as a well-balanced, humorous, and well-liked fellow, there is a complication here in that he bribed the boys to cooperate on this occasion and others. On at least one occasion this included shedding what sparse clothing they had.

Incidentally, the Guardian piece describing this photo as an early example of using DOF to artistic effect is BS. The distant parts are not OOF. Rather, it was Sutcliffe’s habit to increase the sense of atmosphere for artistic effect by interposing layers of tissue when printing, or by scribbling on the back of the plate with soft pencil.

 

[pentaxuser]

If that is what the laws says in Texas then I am surprised the gallery not resist the removal of the pictures or allowing for the fact that it is difficult to actually resist police as they remove picture, did not launch a case against the police's action? That assumes the police did actually seize the pictures and did not simply advise( wrongly it appears) the gallery that it was breaking the law and the gallery removed the pictures

What it sounds as if may well have happened is that the gallery weighed the effect on it to have resisted against its standing in Fort Worth and decided "discretion" was called for

Whether this is sensible in an economic sense for the gallery to bow to pressure or whether galleries need to make a stand against groups being able to force such action on it for the greater artistic freedom within the law is a much bigger issue

pentaxuser

 

[BrianShaw]

… or, perhaps, it’s a publicity stunt. Could be useful from a business perspective. After all, look at the international attention it garnered on Photrio!

 

[pentaxuser]

… or, perhaps, it’s a publicity stunt. Could be useful from a business perspective. After all, look at the international attention it garnered on Photrio!

pentaxuser

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

If that is what the laws says in Texas then I am surprised the gallery not resist the removal of the pictures or allowing for the fact that it is difficult to actually resist police as they remove picture, did not launch a case against the police's action? That assumes the police did actually seize the pictures and did not simply advise( wrongly it appears) the gallery that it was breaking the law and the gallery removed the pictures

What it sounds as if may well have happened is that the gallery weighed the effect on it to have resisted against its standing in Fort Worth and decided "discretion" was called for

Whether this is sensible in an economic sense for the gallery to bow to pressure or whether galleries need to make a stand against groups being able to force such action on it for the greater artistic freedom within the law is a much bigger issue

pentaxuser

What good is a museum if no one visits?

 

[Sirius Glass]

How does that matter? Apart from the question whether the kids would have still been OK with it at that point.
Also, I don't quite agree with that it "speaks highly" of someone to photograph their naked kids, or to stop doing so.

I am only referring only to her. What others do is out of my control and have to be understood case by case. I, personally, strongly advise against photographing any nude children.

 

[Pieter12]

Photo Eye Books has just announced the issue of a facsimile edition of Sally Mann's At Twelve. The Texas brouhaha might boost sales.

 

[logan2z]

Photo Eye Books has just announced the issue of a facsimile edition of Sally Mann's At Twelve. The Texas brouhaha might boost sales.

Published by Aperture.

Sally Mann: At Twelve, Portraits of Young Women (2024) | Aperture Photobooks

At Twelve: Portraits of Young Women is a groundbreaking classic by one of photography’s most renowned artists.

aperture.org

 

[MTGseattle]

This might get me slapped again but I gotta say what I gotta say.

I've gotten slapped down from the so-called left in the past few years as much as the so-called right. My views and way of life has been under attack in as much as any marginalized group. My own work remains under wraps because of who and what I believe and it is directly attributed to left wing views.

I know that the photographic and arts community generally has a leftist bend. I'm cool with that regardless of my personal views. However to frame this as a Liberal Vs. Conservative censorship game and not be aware of your own sides failings is dishonest.

I'm pretty sure I did not call out either party (liberal,conservative) In what I said. I simply don't agree with this particular flavor of "community overwatch."
There are certainly myriad problems on all points of the political spectrum, I do not dispute that.

Let's shift to books for just a moment. "The Tin Drum" by Gunter Grass and "Catcher in The Rye" by J D Salinger are both frequently on banned book lists for different reasons.
Should those books be summarily removed from every library in a community? I do not think so.
Should either book be in an elementary school library? Probably not. One family who is aghast at the content should not decide for the whole community what is available.

I also am not "Anti-religion." I just do not partake. My Father-in-Law was a man of quite profound faith, and we had quite a few decent discussions about things related to that. I've seen a lot of good come from various religious groups; a sense of community, a support group for/within that community, a sense of belonging. I personally cannot balance those aspects against all of the complete garbage that people also perpetrate in the name of religion.

Also, my calling out of Texas and Florida was only in relation to the subject of I guess censorship. I'd have been more than happy to vacation in Florida, but unfortunately, every time I've checked Hawaii has been cheaper. (Until one factors in groceries).

 

[pentaxuser]

What good is a museum if no one visits?

The answer is none at all but I am not sure why my post appears to you to have any relevance to your question I was simply speculating and then providing possible answers as to why the gallery did not take action to stop the removal of the the pictures or launch legal action

As I said: If the gallery's owner(s) feel that its future would be seriously affected by reputation or lack of future attendance if it had not removed the pictures then that may be the reason

pentaxuser

 

[BrianShaw]

What good is a museum if no one visits?

Archival historical preservation. There are plenty of museums and collections that aren't open to the public. That doesn't demean them or devalue them. Although... it's very frustrating to know an artifact exists in a museum and access to interested researchers is extremely difficult or impossible. Been there; done that.

 

[Pieter12]

The answer is none at all but I am not sure why my post appears to you to have any relevance to your question I was simply speculating and then providing possible answers as to why the gallery did not take action to stop the removal of the the pictures or launch legal action

As I said: If the gallery's owner(s) feel that its future would be seriously affected by reputation or lack of future attendance if it had not removed the pictures then that may be the reason

pentaxuser

I could well be that some at the museum did not intend to ruffle any feathers and would like to maintain a certain image and relationship within the community, so they complied. On the other hand, the controversy has brought them to the forefront and maybe more people will want to visit, now and in the future.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The answer is none at all but I am not sure why my post appears to you to have any relevance to your question I was simply speculating and then providing possible answers as to why the gallery did not take action to stop the removal of the the pictures or launch legal action

As I said: If the gallery's owner(s) feel that its future would be seriously affected by reputation or lack of future attendance if it had not removed the pictures then that may be the reason

pentaxuser

That's the point I was making. Museums are a business in the end. So trying not to offend many potential visitors would be in your business interest.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Archival historical preservation. There are plenty of museums and collections that aren't open to the public. That doesn't demean them or devalue them. Although... it's very frustrating to know an artifact exists in a museum and access to interested researchers is extremely difficult or impossible. Been there; done that.

The museum in question is not one of those. It relies on the public to visit. The Mann display was not for archival historical preservation.

 

[koraks]

Museums are a business in the end.

Some are, most aren't. Unless you consider every organization a business. Which is what you tend to do, but it's not an accurate view.

 

[BrianShaw]

The museum in question is not one of those. It relies on the public to visit. The Mann display was not for archival historical preservation.

Yes, Alan, that seems quite correct. I was just answering a seemingly generic question you asked in reply to @pentaxuser. It’s not apparent to me that most museums really rely on admissions versus for their major funding; it’s most likely grants and endowments that are their lifeblood. Now the Mann display may become an archival historical collection that is not public ally displayed.

 

[Pieter12]

Yes, Alan, that seems quite correct. I was just answering a seemingly generic question you asked in reply to @pentaxuser. It’s not apparent to me that most museums really rely on admissions versus for their major funding; it’s most likely grants and endowments that are their lifeblood. Now the Mann display may become an archival historical collection that is not public ally displayed.

As you state, museums depend on many sources of funding beyond admissions. Sometimes they don't want to alienate organizations and individuals who supply those funds. Beyond that, was Sally Mann's work part of the collection or on loan? It doesn't seem to be specified.

Of interest, if it hasn't been posted here before, is the curatorial description of the exhibit:

Diaries of Home features works by women and nonbinary artists, who explore the multilayered concepts of family, community, and home.

These artists challenge documentary photography by pushing it into conceptual, performative, and theatrical realms. They probe preconceptions about domestic, familial, and communal spaces in the United States, which are often considered feminine spheres. Such environments and their relationship to feminism and feminist art have a history dating back to the 1970s—especially in photography, where women artists have been among the strongest voices. The photographers presented in Diaries of Home show us the dynamics of both biological and constructed families; for example, Sally Mann takes up her three children as subject matter in lush portraits that are intimate and compelling, while Nan Goldin portrays her lover and group of friends as a kind of chosen family. Each artist offers visual narratives ranging from the very personal to broader examinations of society in works that depict tales of love, desire, loss, home, and the intricacies of human relationships.

The artists in Diaries of Home use the vernacular of documentary photography, which creates an immediate sense of familiarity and understanding. Yet, the works subvert the implied truthfulness of the imagery by exploring the medium’s inherent subjectivity through enticing fiction and drama, or by magnifying everyday affairs. The affection, kinship, hardship, and deeply intimate narratives captured lend a diaristic quality to the photographs, creating a conceptual focal point that inspired the exhibition’s title.

Diaries of Home features a diverse, multi-generational group of artists with a variety of photographic processes, ranging from printed images to slides and video. 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, and Carrie Mae Weems use themselves and others as center points to explore various social relations in and outside of the home. The resulting imagery that gives shape to Diaries of Home captures the psychological interiority, the complex family dynamics, and the inconsequential and profound moments of daily routine—all aspects that compose a life’s journey.

The exhibition is co-curated by Chief Curator Andrea Karnes and Assistant Curator Clare Milliken.

Diaries of Home features mature themes that may be sensitive for some viewers.

 

[Cholentpot]

I have a bunch of little ones so that makes me an expert on kids right now.

They can't consent to anything honestly. One of the kids identifies as a firetruck, the other is in love with a 1972 library reference edition of the Rand McNally world maps, and I have another trying to recreate snow in the freezer. Having them consent to anything is preposterous. Now, say I took some photos and wanted to publish but maybe I thought that it might put them in a bad light. I would wait until they understand the repercussions and then ask if they're ok with it. Having a 6 or 7 year old agree to something in the adult realm is bonkers.

As a side note, elementary school tries to get kids to sign waivers I've learned. I told my kids anything that you're asked to sign must been seen by your parents first. If you miss out on an activity or get threatened with a grade strike or any punishment of any kind no matter how petty, put my phone number in the signature spot. And my kids, bless 'em have made their Pop's proud. They've refused to sign anything and had their entire class revolt with them. Creating little revolutionaries I am...

Now if they'd only hold still for one darn tootin' photo...

 

[Pieter12]

I have a bunch of little ones so that makes me an expert on kids right now.

They can't consent to anything honestly. One of the kids identifies as a firetruck, the other is in love with a 1972 library reference edition of the Rand McNally world maps, and I have another trying to recreate snow in the freezer. Having them consent to anything is preposterous. Now, say I took some photos and wanted to publish but maybe I thought that it might put them in a bad light. I would wait until they understand the repercussions and then ask if they're ok with it. Having a 6 or 7 year old agree to something in the adult realm is bonkers.

As a side note, elementary school tries to get kids to sign waivers I've learned. I told my kids anything that you're asked to sign must been seen by your parents first. If you miss out on an activity or get threatened with a grade strike or any punishment of any kind no matter how petty, put my phone number in the signature spot. And my kids, bless 'em have made their Pop's proud. They've refused to sign anything and had their entire class revolt with them. Creating little revolutionaries I am...

Now if they'd only hold still for one darn tootin' photo...

The Mann children consented to the exhibition and publication of the photos long after they were taken. They rejected some, in at least one instance because the child thought he looked dorky. None was concerned about the nudity, it was pretty much normal form them to go around without clothes at home and on their private farm.

 

[BrianShaw]

… and when they were originally photographed they “gave consent” by not putting up a fuss and having a temper tantrum. Anyone who has, or was, a child understands how that works.

 

[Chuck_P]

I've been trying to follow along with this thread..........and it's the assertion of obtaining "consent" from a child at the time of photographing them in the nude that is probably the most ridiculous part of this whole thing, imo. The photos themselves are plainly not pornographic but why make the decision to go public with the nudity of children, even with the now adult consent from those same children.....for the sake of "art"? No, my admittedly pessimistic view on it, is because it's for the sake of shock value, because.........it's Sally Mann. I'm not necessarily offended by them, it seems innocent enough, but I think it's a decision wrought with bad taste. If anyone in this thread tried to do a similar thing where you live (assuming some art gallery would let you), how long do you think it would be before you, and maybe the gallery, are in deep doo doo? Maybe the gallery is offended at your "art" and calls the law on you. Do you think the claim of "art" would come to the rescue? I doubt it but I could be dead wrong, just my .01 cent opinion, if that. .