Sally Mann Photographs Removed from Texas Museum Exhibition after Outcry

[BradS]

That a small group of fanatical religious extremists has caused a respected art museum to remove established artworks from view is a (terrifying) tragedy.

 

[Don_ih]

While this thread survives here's a note from ARTnews:

The National Coalition Against Censorship issued a statement on Friday condemning the police seizure.

“The allegation that these works are child sexual abuse material is not just disingenuous, it is deeply dangerous to the freedom of the millions of Americans who wish to document the growth of their own children without the threat of government prosecution,” the organization said. “Furthermore, it assumes the perspective of the pedophile, and degrades the seriousness of real incidents of child abuse.”

The statement continued, “Such a seizure and investigation can only contribute to the perverse and troubling perception that all images of naked children are inherently sexual, thereby reinforcing the very sexualization of children that critics purport to oppose.”

I guess, in a general sense , it's all a consequence of legislators enacting their personal dirty minded moral fantasies into criminal law in order to prosecute those who do not care to participate in those same fantasies.

A perfectly reasonable and measured statement.

 

[Cholentpot]

That a small group of fanatical religious extremists has caused a respected art museum to remove established artworks from view is a (terrifying) tragedy.

I mean someone went around centuries ago and castrated all the churches artwork. Somewhere in the bowels of the Vatican there's a box of stone willies.

 

[Agulliver]

I agree with the published letter, the thought process (or lack thereof) which leads people to feel that all nakedness is inherently sexual is......very odd to me. Like fundamentally weird and unhealthy. And that goes for people of any age who are simply unclothed, not doing anything sexual.

Let us not speculate what the Vatican does with it's box of phalluses.

 

[pentaxuser]

I agree with the published letter, the thought process (or lack thereof) which leads people to feel that all nakedness is inherently sexual is......very odd to me. Like fundamentally weird and unhealthy. And that goes for people of any age who are simply unclothed, not doing anything sexual.

Let us not speculate what the Vatican does with it's box of phalluses.

That's because you may be a jazz club fanatic( far healthier ) rather than a religious one

pentaxuser

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The painter Gauguin faced condemnation by many in his day and even criticism very recently for painting young Tahitian girls in seeming sexual poses. This is not the first time art and morality have gone head to head.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Rather than assuming those objecting are fanatical religious extremists, maybe they are adults who had been sexually abused as children by religious authority or members of their own immediate family. Years ago, when Mann shot these pictures, these things were hidden from view but are now acknowledged publicly as a serious issue. Many adults have and are suffering psychologically from being sexually abused as children. So, many people see photographs of nude children as a sort of "gateway drug" to disturbed people who will then act out more serious and real child sexual crimes. That's why the law itself penalizes possession of even pictures created by an AI computer when no actual sex happens.

As artists, the question we must ask ourselves is whether our work respects others, and do we care if it does? Living in a society, we often pass on doing or saying something that might offend or hurt others out of respect for them even if there are no legal penalties associated with what we do.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The discussion has expanded beyond the OP's religious points. There are many laypeople who find these photos objectionable for the reasons I stated. Why would you acknowledge we should be sensitive to those who are concerned yet demand that their views not become part of this discussion? They deserve a fair hearing as well.

 

[BrianShaw]

Alan, I deleted my post. Please delete the quote. I have no interest in battling you or that aspect of the topic. Please carry on without me.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Alan, I deleted my post. Please delete the quote. I have no interest in battling you or that aspect of the topic. Please carry on without me.

Done. No offense intended.

 

[Thwyllo]

I'm late to the debate and I'm absolutely no prude but if my parents had put naked pictures of me in a public gallery I think I'd be severely pissed.

UPDATE: I'll repeat that I am absolutely no prude and out of sheer curiosity I googled "Sally Mann children" in Google images.

The very first picture in the search results was of a child of 3 to 4 years old with her genitalia exposed. Anyone on this thread who is a parent and thinks that kind of thing is remotely acceptable frankly needs urgent therapy. I don't know what the nature of the pictures she had on display was but having seen that shocking image in the public domain I'm frankly not interested in her or her work.

 

[Thwyllo]

I'm late to the debate and I'm absolutely no prude but if my parents had put naked pictures of me in a public gallery I think I'd be severely pissed.

UPDATE: I'll repeat that I am absolutely no prude and out of sheer curiosity I googled "Sally Mann children" in Google images.

The very first picture in the search results was of a child of 3 to 4 years old with her genitalia exposed. Anyone on this thread who is a parent and thinks that kind of thing is remotely acceptable frankly needs urgent therapy. I don't know what the nature of the pictures she had on display was but having seen that shocking image in the public domain I'm frankly not interested in her or her work.

...... And frankly someone needs to shut this thread down.

 

[Cholentpot]

...... And frankly someone needs to shut this thread down.

Not a fan of Sally's work on an art level and on the subject matter but I think this has been a robust and informative thread. Appealing to authority never ends well. My views of free speech are inline with let the debate happen. Let people shout and yell and insult and all sorts of matter. We're creatures of speech, when the speech stops then the real problems happen.

 

[Thwyllo]

Not a fan of Sally's work on an art level and on the subject matter but I think this has been a robust and informative thread. Appealing to authority never ends well. My views of free speech are inline with let the debate happen. Let people shout and yell and insult and all sorts of matter. We're creatures of speech, when the speech stops then the real problems happen.

In normal circumstances and were we talking about naked adults there's no question but if you haven't seen the image that I've just referred to perhaps you should look at it. It's literally child pornography there is no other description. Take as many photographs as you like of naked consenting adults but this kind of thing, regardless of any so-called artistic worth, is just a magnet for paedophiles.

If I posted a photograph like that in the UK I'd be arrested and charged before you could say Jack Robinson.

 

[Arthurwg]

I mean someone went around centuries ago and castrated all the churches artwork. Somewhere in the bowels of the Vatican there's a box of stone willies.

Not to mention all those phallic noses removed from Greek and Roman statues.

 

[Arthurwg]

The very first picture in the search results was of a child of 3 to 4 years old with her genitalia exposed. Anyone on this thread who is a parent and thinks that kind of thing is remotely acceptable frankly needs urgent therapy.

You are probably correct, but that and other pictures put her on the map, drew attention and distinguished her from other artists. She did go to art school, and had to realized that success require some form of distinction.

 

[retina_restoration]

The discussion has expanded beyond the OP's religious points. There are many laypeople who find these photos objectionable for the reasons I stated. Why would you acknowledge we should be sensitive to those who are concerned yet demand that their views not become part of this discussion? They deserve a fair hearing as well.

These "laypeople who find these photographs objectionable" are not being exposed to the images if they do not go to view them. You make it sound like everyone, everywhere is being harmed by exposure to them, whether they have viewed them or not! The fact that there are indeed people who have been abused and are therefore extremely sensitive to the subject of abuse isn't a reason to remove the images from view in a museum setting! Of course the opinions of all people matters. That's not in question. But in this instance, we are questioning the actions of a small number of people who have a clear opinion on the subject of nudity in general and an agenda to sanitize the Texan population and force them into compliance with their own views.

I quote parts of the Open Letter to the Museum:

"We call upon the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth to take immediate action by removing these disturbing images from public display. The protection of children and the moral fabric of our society demand it."

I feel it's extremely important to remember that it is unreasonable for a group to force the removal of a number of photographs that they define as "obscene, objectionable" based on their narrow definition of "moral" (I welcome anyone who can explain to me how the photograph "Night Blooming Cereus" is in any way "immoral!), preventing everyone from viewing them, not just those whose moral compass aligns with theirs. By removing the work and preventing anyone from seeing it is gross overreach.

Let's talk about "the protection of children". This has forever been one of the most useful tools of the morally righteous. Obviously children need to be kept away from damaging content, but surely that is the job of the Parents, not a public museum or the police (in this instance)?! I mean, what parent would take a child to view this show if they were going to find the material offensive? (If they didn't do a minimum of research beforehand to determine the suitability of the work for young eyes, then they haven't done their due diligence as a parent) Nobody is making anyone look at these images - they must voluntarily choose to go see them. Anyone who blindly wanders in to the exhibit, ignoring all of the warnings and descriptions, and then gets offended by what they see have only themselves to blame.

The removal of the work from behind closed doors (doors that you must voluntarily pass through) is an act that punishes those who do want to see the work and who do not equate nudity with pornography. That is not a reasonable action, IMO.

"the exhibit as a whole effectively works to normalize pedophilia, child sexual abuse, the LGBTQ lifestyle, and the breakdown of the God-ordained definition of family".

"Normalize pedophilia"??? I think they'd have great difficulty proving that in the eyes of the law, no matter how clear Texas's laws are on the subject of child pornography. The extreme religious agenda is on full display in that letter, and they are pulling out all their best weapons to fuel outrage in like-minded people. To put it mildly, that letter is way over the top. I'm with Brad when he says "That a small group of fanatical religious extremists has caused a respected art museum to remove established artworks from view is a (terrifying) tragedy."

To those who penned that letter I say "It's not your job to control what museums can show to its citizens. Not everyone in this society aligns with your views, and yet you attempt to speak for everyone and dictate what is available to all museum visitors, regardless of their beliefs. You do not have the right to make those decisions for everyone, and yet that's what you've done. Surely it is morally objectionable to act as a dictator, controlling a state's entire population based on guidelines that are not embraced by all?"

Consider this scenario: In many Hindu communities (There are approximately 2.5 millions Hindus in America), the cow represents ahimsa (non-violence), a core tenet of the religion, and harming or killing cows is seen as morally and spiritually objectionable. Should we also allow zealous Hindus to go after MacDonalds and all other restaurants who serve beef on their menu and prohibit them from doing so?

 

[AnselMortensen]

This thread should be shut down because a few people don't like it.

 

[retina_restoration]

Not a fan of Sally's work on an art level and on the subject matter but I think this has been a robust and informative thread. Appealing to authority never ends well. My views of free speech are inline with let the debate happen. Let people shout and yell and insult and all sorts of matter. We're creatures of speech, when the speech stops then the real problems happen.

"Appealing to authority" is what the group who penned the Open Letter did, in an effort to exert control over the Texas population. That isn't how things are done on this forum. We choose to discuss these challenging subjects, refraining from censorship as much as possible.

It's a bad idea to request that this discussion be "shut down". It's the very same force that is being questioned in this thread. Only when things go badly off the rails should we resort to ending a discussion. There's no rational reason to force this community into silence on this subject. If you are offended by what's being said here, nobody is making you read and participate in it. That's what the "Ignore Thread" button is for.

 

[retina_restoration]

This thread should be shut down because a few people don't like it.

The ultimate irony.

 

[retina_restoration]

In normal circumstances and were we talking about naked adults there's no question but if you haven't seen the image that I've just referred to perhaps you should look at it. It's literally child pornography there is no other description. Take as many photographs as you like of naked consenting adults but this kind of thing, regardless of any so-called artistic worth, is just a magnet for paedophiles.

If I posted a photograph like that in the UK I'd be arrested and charged before you could say Jack Robinson.

I'll say it yet again: Sally Mann's daughter's and now 42 and 39 and they have never, in all these many years, requested that these photographs not be shown to the public.

 

[retina_restoration]

Not to mention all those phallic noses removed from Greek and Roman statues.

Michelangelo's David had better watch out. *scans the museum goers for hammers and chisels*

 

[BrianShaw]

My plans to publish pictures of my dog should probably be curtailed as that may inadvertently contribute to petophelia.

 

[Arthurwg]

These "laypeople who find these photographs objectionable" are not being exposed to the images if they do not go to view them. You make it sound like everyone, everywhere is being harmed by exposure to them, whether they have viewed them or not!

The fact is that the pictures have entered the Zeitgeist. They have created a standard as to what's acceptable in society, and they have encouraged some form of "pleasure". They are with us, like it or not.

 

[retina_restoration]

In normal circumstances and were we talking about naked adults there's no question but if you haven't seen the image that I've just referred to perhaps you should look at it. It's literally child pornography there is no other description. Take as many photographs as you like of naked consenting adults but this kind of thing, regardless of any so-called artistic worth, is just a magnet for paedophiles.

If I posted a photograph like that in the UK I'd be arrested and charged before you could say Jack Robinson.

The actual definition of "pornography" has very specific requirements. Specifically, an image must meet three criteria here in the USA to fit the definition of "pornography", as laid out in the Miller Test:

Miller Test for Obscenity (from the 1973 Supreme Court case Miller v. California):
Material is considered obscene—and therefore illegal—if it meets all three criteria:

1 The average person, applying contemporary community standards, finds that the work appeals to prurient interest (an excessive focus on sexual matters).

2 The work depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, as defined by state law.

3 The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Material failing the Miller Test may be deemed illegal and banned.

I don't think any of the censored Mann photographs could be labeled as "pornography" as defined by the Miller Test. All four of the photographs do not meet test requirement number two. None of those photographs depicts "sexual conduct". In my opinion, none of those works meet the criteria for number 3 either.