It’s nothing new. The kids in the classroom started that a long, long time ago.
Sally Mann Photographs Removed from Texas Museum Exhibition after Outcry
-
- Thread starter logan2z
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy Shen Hao TFC617 A or B
- Started by djdister
-
Free CP40Y Color Printing Filtet
- Started by Roger Thoms
-
For Sale For Sale: 55mm ƒ/1.8 SMC Pentax Takumar Lens (M42 thread) and 50mm ƒ/2 Pentax-M
- Started by Kodachromeguy
-
Want to Buy Half Case For Nikon F
- Started by chuckroast
Forum statistics
- Status
That I or anyone else says that photo is fine and that the girl was likely not abused does not mean anyone here would do the same thing. And the girl wasn't 10 - she was 5 or 6 (her own words). I doubt he would've thought the photo worth taking if she'd been 10. It would've looked completely different.
It probably depends on how arty you are, the times etc.
For what it’s worth I’m with you. I don’t mean I agree with the people who wrote that ridiculous letter which apparently started the Texas museum thing. I just mean I’d never take pictures of naked children, for public display or not. Then again I’ve never been into nude photography at all.
Meh, my gob is not smacked after seeing a five year old posing au naturel in nature. The artistic intent is clearly laid out in the essay by Bullock's daughter. I just dug The Family of Man out to take a peek - the image is 7" on the long side fwiw, and the offending butt cheek is a quarter inch.
The image is the first in the book after the title page, and is used to illustrate the opening essay by Carl Sandburg. If there is any remaining confusion about the image I imagine reading Sandburg's essay would fix that. Then again maybe not.
MattKing
Moderator
As noted above, the age wasn't 10.
I was brought up mostly in the 1960s in a fairly conservative environment, so it would have been extraordinary to have my parents or most of their friends do the same as Wynn Bullock and his wife did.
But that outlook on things would not have been strange for all of those friends, nor for all of my friends or their parents either.
My brother and I were encouraged as kids to have friends that had different backgrounds than we did, and some of the most talented and creative and warm and interesting and complex people in my life came from that.
And for some/many of those childhood friends would have also been comfortable with it as well.
I'm thinking of one friend as an example. I met him at age 9, spent years in school with him, and knew his parents as well.
Their household was decidedly "counter-culture", and his eventual career path was fascinating: guitarist in an important (to the local market) punk band, trained luthier, and accomplished and well loved high school teacher.
And there is no way he or his parents would have ever insisted that I lead my life the way that he and they did.
Nor would I send in the police to make them live their life the way I think they should.
MattKing
Moderator
My friend is playing lead guitar here 
I have been watching this thread and I too wish to know why it continues. My understanding is these photographs have been around for some time, you can find many of these prints in question on the internet attached to reputable venues. Where was the public outrage? Why now? Right or wrong someone made it news and we live in a time when everybody has a virtual peach crate to stand on and voice their opinion. I respect that right, but to a point where you have said your peace, presented your arguement and we both say we agree to disagree and walk away. The continuation of this thread further divides its members therefore counterproductive to the forum’s purpose and goal. I implore the moderators to end this thread, or give it a time limit before ending it. This thread is not healthy.
Dave, there are many other threads on this (& other forums) that live well past their due date.
Recently, for example .....the one about a Cartier Bresson image....
If you impose a thread time-limit...... it can't just be for this thread.
Thank you Greg. I saw the HCB thread as well, and I am sure almost everyone who replied would have loved to have lived his life. At least one post regarding Sally Mann came very close to identifying members with being advocates of child nudity, Mr. Klein's quote above. I certainly would not expect the moderators to stop it, but then does that give me the right to say what I really think about some photographs members post? Or is it only acceptable when the artist cannot defend themselves? Lucky I'm respectfully of the forum purpose and goals.
I don't see that at all. Disagreement should always be addressed or it breeds division, not the other way around. When you "agree to disagree and walk away" you are finished with one another and nothing has progressed. That is counterproductive. It would have been better to have not engaged to begin with.
The problem is too many people don't find the opinions of others very interesting. They don't get curious as to why someone would think differently than they do and what those different opinions actually mean. We live in a world that becomes more solipsistic every day - it's not a good way to be.
Not wanting to take part in a conversation doesn't justify attempting to silence it.
Think of this thread as a confessional. It may be healthy for the person confessing yet not so much for others.
In my mind, the only division created is between the few who keep arguing. For the rest of us it might just be TMI.
"Not wanting to take part in a conversation doesn't justify attempting to silence it."
Thank you Don. You beat the time I figured I would get personally attacked.
Thank you Don. You beat the time I figured I would get personally attacked.
MattKing
Moderator
The question of whether or not to continue the thread is being considered by the moderation team. As I've been participating in the thread, the other moderators + Sean will most likely make any decision necessary.
And @Dave Ludwig 's and other's concerns are noted.
But I don't think anyone sees any signs of "attacks" - just different opinions on what might justify the moderators locking the thread.
Just as there are clearly different opinions of what should be legal to photograph and then share with the world.
I was making a general statement. There was no attack. Or was I supposed to understand what you were saying to be a personal attack? (I didn't, by the way.)
This is one quote from the photographer.
We were traveling along the Redwood Highway trying to find a place to have a picnic. The road was so littered with cans and rubbish that we rode for miles and couldn’t find a place. Finally, we just went off and had our lunch amid the litter. When it was over, I wandered off the highway about 150 feet and saw this incredible scene. It was an ancient virginal forest. Barbara [my daughter] was with us. She was a young virginal child. I knew the qualities of her body would both contrast and harmonize beautifully with the qualities of the dead logs and living plants of the forest. The cyclic character of natural forces would be clearly evident.
The light was just right, everything was spatially balanced; the relationships between events – the young child, the new forest covering, the prehistoric trees, the rotting logs – were strong and exciting. Everything went together perfectly. I didn’t have to analyze anything. I just recognized what was in front of me. All I had to do was set up and take the picture.
~ Wynn Bullock
This is from the sitter.
"Although this event happened over 70 years ago, it was transformational. By the time I was five, I understood that being asked to model was different than posing for family snapshots and that shedding clothes meant becoming more closely connected with nature. Once Mom thoughtfully tucked a picnic cloth beneath me to protect my body from prickly dry redwood needles hidden under the lush oxalis, I relaxed. Smelling the damp, rich earth and enjoying the warmth of dappled sunlight on my skin, I felt comforted and at peace. Then the extraordinary happened. Up from the earth, the forest sang to me, embracing me with a thrumming that infused my whole being. It was a gift of belonging that is with me still."
~ Barbara Bullock-Wilson
Then there is the viewer.
This photograph is an excellent example of the triality of photography. The photographer has a vision; whether that is achieved or something different is created may not be within the photographer awareness. Their preconceptions may blind them to the actualities of the photograph. One wonders why the photographer must emphasis the virginality of the child; one would think that is a given and need not be expressed. This may be the first indication of the unsettling nature of the photograph.
The sitter may have a vision of how they wish to be presented to the viewer and will often control the outcome as best they can; perhaps not so much a factor in this particular case given the age of the sitter.
The viewer adds another interpretation, to some, this is entirely innocent and wholesome, but there is no doubt that large numbers of viewers feel differently. I remember many years ago when I first came across this image, I said to myself "this child is dead: this is awful"
In many of Bullock's photos the inclusion of human figures in often ambiguous poses gives a metaphorical aspect, evoking inescapable ideas of uncertainty, unease and mortality. It is widely recognized that Bullock's photos are deeply tempered by dark and unsettling allusion to the terrifyingly unknown.
That Alan Klein senses this is not at all remarkable; it is a very common response to Bullock’s photos; particularly this one. To suggest that Alan sees evil in everything he encounters and to be pitied is unfair.
The question I would pose is who of the triality is actually correct. Arguably the viewer (or the consensus of viewers) The sitter is fatally compromised by conflict of interest and the photographer intensions may not be actualized by a conflict of concept, an inability to see objectively the reality of the image versus the visualization of the image.
We were traveling along the Redwood Highway trying to find a place to have a picnic. The road was so littered with cans and rubbish that we rode for miles and couldn’t find a place. Finally, we just went off and had our lunch amid the litter. When it was over, I wandered off the highway about 150 feet and saw this incredible scene. It was an ancient virginal forest. Barbara [my daughter] was with us. She was a young virginal child. I knew the qualities of her body would both contrast and harmonize beautifully with the qualities of the dead logs and living plants of the forest. The cyclic character of natural forces would be clearly evident.
The light was just right, everything was spatially balanced; the relationships between events – the young child, the new forest covering, the prehistoric trees, the rotting logs – were strong and exciting. Everything went together perfectly. I didn’t have to analyze anything. I just recognized what was in front of me. All I had to do was set up and take the picture.
~ Wynn Bullock
This is from the sitter.
"Although this event happened over 70 years ago, it was transformational. By the time I was five, I understood that being asked to model was different than posing for family snapshots and that shedding clothes meant becoming more closely connected with nature. Once Mom thoughtfully tucked a picnic cloth beneath me to protect my body from prickly dry redwood needles hidden under the lush oxalis, I relaxed. Smelling the damp, rich earth and enjoying the warmth of dappled sunlight on my skin, I felt comforted and at peace. Then the extraordinary happened. Up from the earth, the forest sang to me, embracing me with a thrumming that infused my whole being. It was a gift of belonging that is with me still."
~ Barbara Bullock-Wilson
Then there is the viewer.
This photograph is an excellent example of the triality of photography. The photographer has a vision; whether that is achieved or something different is created may not be within the photographer awareness. Their preconceptions may blind them to the actualities of the photograph. One wonders why the photographer must emphasis the virginality of the child; one would think that is a given and need not be expressed. This may be the first indication of the unsettling nature of the photograph.
The sitter may have a vision of how they wish to be presented to the viewer and will often control the outcome as best they can; perhaps not so much a factor in this particular case given the age of the sitter.
The viewer adds another interpretation, to some, this is entirely innocent and wholesome, but there is no doubt that large numbers of viewers feel differently. I remember many years ago when I first came across this image, I said to myself "this child is dead: this is awful"
In many of Bullock's photos the inclusion of human figures in often ambiguous poses gives a metaphorical aspect, evoking inescapable ideas of uncertainty, unease and mortality. It is widely recognized that Bullock's photos are deeply tempered by dark and unsettling allusion to the terrifyingly unknown.
That Alan Klein senses this is not at all remarkable; it is a very common response to Bullock’s photos; particularly this one. To suggest that Alan sees evil in everything he encounters and to be pitied is unfair.
The question I would pose is who of the triality is actually correct. Arguably the viewer (or the consensus of viewers) The sitter is fatally compromised by conflict of interest and the photographer intensions may not be actualized by a conflict of concept, an inability to see objectively the reality of the image versus the visualization of the image.
If artists were expected to plan for any and every response to the work they produce, anticipating the worst and most outrageously misguided interpretations, they would be paralyzed with fear. People would be incapable of producing anything if the reactions of all viewers had to be taken into account.
As a viewer, if you have no room in your heart and mind for things that challenge your world view, your sense of right and wrong, then you are closed off, static and unchanging. Who wants to be that limited in this short life? Not me.
As a viewer, if you have no room in your heart and mind for things that challenge your world view, your sense of right and wrong, then you are closed off, static and unchanging. Who wants to be that limited in this short life? Not me.
in any art, it is each individual Viewer who must make an interpretaion of what the image is trying to tell them. I would sugset that is some veiwers are "Moved" by the image that the fact that several of those viewer would interpret it differently is a sign of successful art.
I'm still gobsmacked with people's posts. It doesn't matter that her buttocks are only 1/2 " in the photo or that she is 5 or 6 or that many consider it art or that the parents and the child and her now as an adult think it was wonderful. Stripping a young minor naked for a picture of this type is child abuse and probably pornography. They may have gotten away with it 60 years ago but they wouldn't today.
Alan, your posts haven’t reallly been about Sally Mann, Wynn Bullock, or photography lately. It’s quite likely that everyone understands your personal ethics now. You’re entitled to that, and entitled to being respected. But continual restatement doesn’t really help the conversation as it reads more like emotional reaction rather than a discussion of the photographs. Just a differing perspective for you to consider, offered man-to-man.
I think you're probably right that there would be more scrutiny over this type of photo today (at least in Texas) though I think this image, had it been made today, would be exactly as harmless as it was back then. Just my opinion of course.
Brian, This thread is about how photographs can hurt children when they're used improperly as models and how penal statutes are enforced. It has nothing to do with ethics per se, but common sense and doing the right thing. I am a father and I would never have made my daughter strip naked to take photographs of her for publication. If anyone here does that, would they admit it right now, here? I doubt anyone will. All this argument for art and other justifications are just bravado and argument for argument's sake.
Also, we are talking about modern times with new rules, standards, understandings, and penal statutes. If someone applies the standards of the past today, they could wind up in jail for a long time. I've posted many parts of the Texas and Federal statutes many times to show the legal issues, not the ethical issues. These statutes were not around 60 years ago with Bullock.
MattKing
Moderator
I have no doubt that Alan is expressing an honestly held belief about the propriety of what Wynn Bullock did and the role of nudity in society ~74 years ago.
Many people - not just photographers - have a different outlook on that issue.
From 20 years later, a Canadian National Press award winner published on the 1st page (IIRC) of the Vancouver Sun - one of Vancouver's two daily newspapers, and the most serious (and stodgy?) one at that:
Sun Photographer Glenn Baglo took this on assignment for a story about Wreck Beach that ran in the Sun. Both the photo and the story were controversial - and at least the photo won awards.
Like Wynn Bullock in the 50s, and Sally Mann later, Glenn Baglo included nudity to support his work. And it was neither dangerous nor harmful nor risky to o so - to children or others.
When I looked for this photo on the internet, I was sad to learn that Glenn Baglo passed away in 2024. He was a talented photo-journalist, and a generous and friendly person in life. I worked with him when I worked as a darkroom technician at the Sun in the 1970s.
Many people - not just photographers - have a different outlook on that issue.
From 20 years later, a Canadian National Press award winner published on the 1st page (IIRC) of the Vancouver Sun - one of Vancouver's two daily newspapers, and the most serious (and stodgy?) one at that:
Sun Photographer Glenn Baglo took this on assignment for a story about Wreck Beach that ran in the Sun. Both the photo and the story were controversial - and at least the photo won awards.
Like Wynn Bullock in the 50s, and Sally Mann later, Glenn Baglo included nudity to support his work. And it was neither dangerous nor harmful nor risky to o so - to children or others.
When I looked for this photo on the internet, I was sad to learn that Glenn Baglo passed away in 2024. He was a talented photo-journalist, and a generous and friendly person in life. I worked with him when I worked as a darkroom technician at the Sun in the 1970s.
Sorry, but that’s not what it’s about. That’s what you made it about by inserting, repeatedly, your values, ethics, and opinions, as well as throwing around some terms not in the law you cite. But carry on…
Thank you Brian...you beat me to it.
20 years later means 54 years ago. Still a different time yet the photo was controversial although no genitalia or breast was showing. Actually, I think it's simple. If a photographer wants to do nudes, use adults only. No children. Why would you put yourself in a position to go to jail?
- Status
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |