Sally Mann Photographs Removed from Texas Museum Exhibition after Outcry

[BrianShaw]

The only if I wonder about is if the museum will reinstate those items in the exhibit when this nonsense gets thrown out by the prosecutor.

 

[retina_restoration]

The only if I wonder about is if the museum will reinstate those items in the exhibit when this nonsense gets thrown out by the prosecutor.

That's going to be interesting to see, I agree.

I think it might be even more interesting to see how that church group responds if the prosecutor decides that the Mann photographs are nothing more than controversial or "in bad taste", but not illegal in that community.

 

[retina_restoration]

You're wrong. My initial impression was these were just nude photographs of children and not porn. I recommended the museum object to the police's actions and demand the photos back or leave it alone. Read my post #298 copied below.

I apologize. It just seemed to me that you were condemning the work.

 

[Cholentpot]

What is legal isn't always moral.

But put it this way.

If any of us on this forum in the year of 2025 made a catalog of work that was in the same vein as Sally's and then put it out all over the internet for public viewing and consumption. Would we get away with that? Even if one of us were to be a Mom and do it. Take nude photos of our kids, find someone who would publish it first off and then post it online. You wouldn't be getting a knock on the door from some authority?

Sally Mann gets to take cover behind a shield that the rest of us aren't privy too. And maybe the shine is off that armor now. I couldn't and wouldn't post photos of children that Sally has with out heavy heavy pushback and even possibly legal action. It's odd that in our hyper sensitive world Sally's work is still viewed as normal.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I apologize. It just seemed to me that you were condemning the work.

No sweat. Actually, I lost track of what I believe in this case. The laws aren't clear to me and are open to interpretation. It's interesting, especially for us photographers.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

What is legal isn't always moral.

But put it this way.

If any of us on this forum in the year of 2025 made a catalog of work that was in the same vein as Sally's and then put it out all over the internet for public viewing and consumption. Would we get away with that? Even if one of us were to be a Mom and do it. Take nude photos of our kids, find someone who would publish it first off and then post it online. You wouldn't be getting a knock on the door from some authority?

Sally Mann gets to take cover behind a shield that the rest of us aren't privy too. And maybe the shine is off that armor now. I couldn't and wouldn't post photos of children that Sally has with out heavy heavy pushback and even possibly legal action. It's odd that in our hyper sensitive world Sally's work is still viewed as normal.

Mann's photos were viewed with negative commentary when it was first published and things have changed to even more negative reviews in the 33 years since then. Porn laws have gotten severe due to the publicity around religious authority abusing children, and even civilian authority like scout masters abusing children away at camp. But the worse is how many children are abused by close family members screwing up their entire lives and leading to suicide in many cases. I think most of the public has gone along with these severe statutes. I have.

 

[Cholentpot]

Mann's photos were viewed with negative commentary when it was first published and things have changed to even more negative reviews in the 33 years since then. Porn laws have gotten severe due to the publicity around religious authority abusing children, and even civilian authority like scout masters abusing children away at camp. But the worse is how many children are abused by close family members screwing up their entire lives and leading to suicide in many cases. I think most of the public has gone along with these severe statutes. I have.

Personally I don't feel child nudity is inherently sexual. Up until a certain age. Where that age is is debatable so we basically just shut down the whole thing. We're also less naïve about predators than we used to be. Innocent Aunt Molly or Uncle Bill maybe is viewed under a more harsh light these days. The same way old Warner Brother cartoons aren't publicly broadcast anymore and why we will never see Song Of The South remade might be the same reason why some works of art get retired.

 

[BrianShaw]

Mann's photos were viewed with negative commentary when it was first published and things have changed to even more negative reviews in the 33 years since then. Porn laws have gotten severe due to the publicity around religious authority abusing children, and even civilian authority like scout masters abusing children away at camp. But the worse is how many children are abused by close family members screwing up their entire lives and leading to suicide in many cases. I think most of the public has gone along with these severe statutes. I have.

Without intent to be argumentative, but my recollection is different. The criticism is the same today as it was back then. The laws on pornography, obscenity, and child abuse seem to have gained greater clarity over time, though. Getting past the value- and emotionally-laden words, the details of the law seem to better support Mann’s art as legitimate. But that doesn’t change the opinion of those offended. It’s not really about law…

 

[Don_ih]

Here's a question: is the world a worse place because that set of photos exists and can be readily viewed?

 

[pentaxuser]

Porn laws have gotten severe due to the publicity around religious authority abusing children, and even civilian authority like scout masters abusing children away at camp.

Yes the law making authorities usually act in this way and that's fine but I fear that the key to making a change in terms of lowering the incidence of such acts is ensuring that the law is acted upon. In this regard there is a tendency to tackle any issue by "picking the low hanging fruit only because it is easier

So Sally Mann pictures are removed but we have a situation where those in their early teens can easily access hard core porn by means of the almost ubiquitous mobile phone which is portable computer with total access to the internet where this hard core porn can be found. There authorities seem unwilling or unable to take action against "hi-tech", for want of a better word be that well known sites or more obscure and unnamed but easily accessed sites

The laws may have got tougher and the religious groups grown in ínfluence but I am far from convinced that this has improved the situation or will improve the situation affecting our next generation

pentaxuser

 

[Pieter12]

Here's a question: is the world a worse place because that set of photos exists and can be readily viewed?

I'm not that sure they can be readily viewed. I wonder how many of the posters here have actually seen the images? Or is it conjecture. They are not on her website and they are not widely exhibited. The books are fairly expensive. Depending on location, the books may or may not be in the local library.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Some observations:

• The only "censorship" forbidden, and the only place where "free speech" actually applies is as regards to government interfering in the free expression of its citizens. Private institutions like businesses, art galleries, private schools, churches, and, for that matter, your living room, are all places that are free to apply any degree of censorship on any subject for any reason whatsoever.
  
  
• These same private institutions - say an art gallery - may receive pressure from their patrons and contributors to not display certain things. This is entirely in bounds. When you take the man's money, you take his rules. If you don't like the rules, don't take the money.
  
  
• Some speech is never protected. Speech that contains credible threat, fraud, incitements to violence, or other direct violations of privacy can legitimately be suppressed up to- and including the use of physical force (or the threat thereof) by law enforcement. That is to say, that "free speech" is not unbounded and does have long established limitations. If you aim a loaded weapon at someone and threaten to kill them, that is clearly not protected speech, even if you don't pull the trigger.
  
  
• Minors are presumed by law to not be able to give consent for a great many things. For example, minors cannot legally sign contracts, smoke, drink, or fly jet aircraft. In particular, minors are presumed - by law - to not be able to provide consent for sexual activity, displays of nudity, or other, similar "adult" activities.
  
  
• And therein lies the rub in this case. No sane court would uphold any prohibition against a parent sharing photographs of their unclothed toddler with family and friends (unless there were some clear evidence of sexual exploitation). But the question of "sharing" such images with an anonymous public via book publication makes the problem difficult. That larger pluralistic public has a rather wide range of ideas of what constitutes the "force" of sexual exploitation.
  
  
• It seems to me that there is a fairly direct way to solve this particular problem. Libraries are almost always publicly funded. That means that they are under the restrictions of all government institutions to not interfere in free expression with the exceptions noted above. The "fix" is to make the material available in the library but only to adults. Until/unless someone brings evidence that actual "child porn" exists in the material - at which point law enforcement would be brought to bear - this would both prevent censorship and also limit the material to adults citizens. The ones who want to see the material would have access, the ones who found it offensive could ignore it. Minors would have no access.

Agree with your points.

 

[Don_ih]

I'm not that sure they can be readily viewed. I wonder how many of the posters here have actually seen the images? Or is it conjecture. They are not on her website and they are not widely exhibited. The books are fairly expensive. Depending on location, the books may or may not be in the local library.

That didn't answer the question. Assume they take significant effort to view.

 

[Pieter12]

That didn't answer the question. Assume they take significant effort to view.

I wasn't answering the question, just pointing out that there are a whole lot of armchair critics--and censors--voicing opinions on work they most probably have never seen in person, possibly in print.

Now to answer the question, no.

 

[Pieter12]

As an addendum, this seems to be an American issue. (Sidebar: the Puritans came to America so they could be more puritan). There is nothing intentionally suggestive in Ms Mann's photos. Some are really trying to interpret the images as such mostly because the children are nude. Off the top of my head, the French photographer Alain Laboile regularly photographed his children playing unclothed at home, as well as the Dutch photographer Hendrik Kerstens who has been photographing his daughter Paula in the studio for years, clothed and unclothed.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

As an addendum, this seems to be an American issue. (Sidebar: the Puritans came to America so they could be more puritan). There is nothing intentionally suggestive in Ms Mann's photos. Some are really trying to interpret the images as such mostly because the children are nude. Off the top of my head, the French photographer Alain Laboile regularly photographed his children playing unclothed at home, as well as the Dutch photographer Hendrik Kerstens who has been photographing his daughter Paula in the studio for years, clothed and unclothed.

Interestingly, in Europe, it seems legal to take pictures of nude children while photographing clothed adult strangers on public streets is illegal. In America, the opposite is true. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Yes the law making authorities usually act in this way and that's fine but I fear that the key to making a change in terms of lowering the incidence of such acts is ensuring that the law is acted upon. In this regard there is a tendency to tackle any issue by "picking the low hanging fruit only because it is easier

So Sally Mann pictures are removed but we have a situation where those in their early teens can easily access hard core porn by means of the almost ubiquitous mobile phone which is portable computer with total access to the internet where this hard core porn can be found. There authorities seem unwilling or unable to take action against "hi-tech", for want of a better word be that well known sites or more obscure and unnamed but easily accessed sites

The laws may have got tougher and the religious groups grown in ínfluence but I am far from convinced that this has improved the situation or will improve the situation affecting our next generation

pentaxuser

It's always difficult for a society to find a balance. After all, we don't want to become ISIS or the Taliban. Or do we?

 

[retina_restoration]

As an addendum, this seems to be an American issue. (Sidebar: the Puritans came to America so they could be more puritan). There is nothing intentionally suggestive in Ms Mann's photos. Some are really trying to interpret the images as such mostly because the children are nude. Off the top of my head, the French photographer Alain Laboile regularly photographed his children playing unclothed at home, as well as the Dutch photographer Hendrik Kerstens who has been photographing his daughter Paula in the studio for years, clothed and unclothed.

It is my opinion that this persistence of puritanical values has done more harm than good to the American society. This culture seems to be stuck in a kind of perpetual adolescence, to me - incapable of growth. So much of what enrages some folks seems utterly benign to me, including Sally Mann's photographs. Lots of needless fussing and outrage aimed at people who just want to make art. The unfortunate thing is that Mann has become a target - repeatedly - because her work is so highly regarded. Whether you appreciate the work or not, "the art community" regards Mann as one of the most important photographers of our time, and that makes her a target for those looking for a place to dump their outrage.

How many of you think Sally Mann would choose to ignore the mental and physical well-being of her children in the pursuit of the work she's done? If you disregard the fierce nature of "maternal instinct" then you are omitting an important factor when considering Mann's motives.

 

[MattKing]

Interestingly, in Europe, it seems legal to take pictures of nude children while photographing clothed adult strangers on public streets is illegal. In America, the opposite is true. Different strokes for different folks.

Any EU and Quebec legal restrictions on photographing strangers on public streets apply equally to children and adults - and are essentially not criminal law restrictions.
They are related to what is essentially a property interest in one's privacy.
Entirely different laws.

 

[retina_restoration]

It's always difficult for a society to find a balance. After all, we don't want to become ISIS or the Taliban. Or do we?

America isn't trying hard enough to "find balance", IMO. Too many people with both power and an agenda, working to force their opinions on others.

 

[Sirius Glass]

America isn't trying hard enough to "find balance", IMO. Too many people with both power and an agenda, working to force their opinions on others.

Well said. There is no longer even handedness in news or discussions.

 

[Arthurwg]

OK, now you've done it. I'm actually going to take her book off the shelf and have a look at it.

 

[Arthurwg]

After reviewing the pictures in "Immediate Family," which I haven't looked at for many years, I can say that several and perhaps many are highly provocative and probably do meet some of the criteria for child pornography. But more importantly, however, they are great pictures, full of poetry, artistry and a refined sensibility. They are in some sense masterpieces.

Although these photographs established her career, her later work is also just as wonderful, full of the same poetry and profound sensibility. In some ways it's unfortunate that she is most famous for her early pictures and not what came after. Safe to say they are also masterpieces.

I have a copy of "Mother Land," a large soft cover volume published by Edwynn Hook Gallery (ND), of her landscapes of Georgia and Virginia, mostly from the 1990s. They are spectacular, IMHO. It's unfortunate that these pictures were not included in the museum show.

 

[Milpool]

Here's a question: is the world a worse place because that set of photos exists and can be readily viewed?

The world is not affected either way by this. I assume the question is somewhat rhetorical.

 

[Cholentpot]

After reviewing the pictures in "Immediate Family," which I haven't looked at for many years, I can say that several and perhaps many are highly provocative and probably do meet some of the criteria for child pornography. But more importantly, however, they are great pictures, full of poetry, artistry and a refined sensibility. They are in some sense masterpieces.

So does that make it ok? Because it has artistic merit that cancels out the negativity of it?