Sally Mann Photographs Removed from Texas Museum Exhibition after Outcry

[GregY]

That's the right thing to do, I agree. And yet you proceed to say soon thereafter "Stripping a young minor naked for a picture of this type is child abuse and probably pornography."

You do not say "is akin to" or even "may be seen as" child abuse - you jump straight to "is child abuse". You've made it abundantly clear that you believe artists who include their unclothed children in a work of art are perpetrating child abuse. So don't be surprised, Alan, when you encounter pushback. Some of us agree with you, some of us do not.

Your boundaries are not my boundaries. I look at Sally Mann's work and I don't see "pornography" or "child abuse" or any such thing. I choose to view that work in context of who created it, what was intended by the work, its artistic value and whether or not it maintains artistic integrity. But you're free to protest as much as you like. As they say, it's a free country. But don't expect everyone to fall in line with your vision of what is moral and correct. That is territory where all too many self-proclaimed moral institutes venture in an attempt to force others to align themselves with a specific worldview.

Very articulately stated RR.... kudos

 

[Milpool]

A while back I asked the forum membership to explain to me what it is about Sally Mann's photograph "Night Blooming Cereus" (link provided) that warranted inclusion in the work seized by the Fort Worth police, and I don't believe anybody provided an answer. So, I'll ask again: please explain why this image is considered by some as offensive and (potentially) pornography?

It’s a topless female kid.

 

[Arthurwg]

I fail to see how this picture has any connection with those taken by Julia Margaret Cameron.

Soft focus.

 

[retina_restoration]

It’s a topless female kid.

And that makes it offensive? You cannot even state definitively what the figure's gender is. (and I bet that makes a difference to some)

 

[MattKing]

And that makes it offensive? You cannot even state definitively what the figure's gender is. (and I bet that makes a difference to some)

The uncertainty about gender is probably part of what makes it disquieting.

 

[Dustin McAmera]

My comment about the Mann picture in my post 510 said: "I think the DA should return photos after the Exhibition is over and move on. It's not clear Texas law was violated."

'after the exhibition is over'? That would be to deny freedom of speech without taking a judgement whether the photographs had offended against anything. You advocate arbitrary state action with no legal process. That would be pretty much the worst response.

Having caved in to the objectors, and seized the photographs before making a judgement that an offence had been committed, the police or prosecutor must now make that judgement. If the photographs do not break a law, they must be returned and the museum be permitted to show them (and protected if need be). Anything else would be a denial of justice.

 

[Dustin McAmera]

The uncertainty about gender is probably part of what makes it disquieting.

I guess it's likely to be hard to tell what sex a child before puberty is from a photo that doesn't include the face.

I see the comparison to Julia M Cameron (althoughI think she would have made it clear what she was getting at - 'Miss Elsie Thompson as "Flora" ' or some such). I don't think the photo is at all obscene by any test that you could write down. No sexual parts are shown; and the child, male or female, does not have breasts even if you could see them. There is something decidedly sensual about the draping of the large flowers over the body - maybe a joint effort by Julia Margaret Cameron and Robert Mapplethorpe? There is a difference between sensuality and sexuality. Imagine the sensation of those large heavy flowers on your body; and just the lushness of the warm environment that lets plants like that grow. I guess the intent is related to that described for 'Child in Forest' - the child in contact with and at home with lush, wild nature.

Were I to take the photo (it's not the sort of photography I do) I would have the flowers in sharper focus.


Editing to add: I looked up cereus, and its a genus of cactus, native to South America; so 'wild' is perhaps not strictly right; these might be garden plants, though I don't think it matters much. What we see in the photo are only the flowers on their long stems.

 

[Milpool]

And that makes it offensive? You cannot even state definitively what the figure's gender is. (and I bet that makes a difference to some)

Well yes that makes it offensive, inappropriate or whatever to some people for one reason or another.

 

[Pieter12]

I guess it's likely to be hard to tell what sex a child before puberty is from a photo that doesn't include the face.

I see the comparison to Julia M Cameron (althoughI think she would have made it clear what she was getting at - 'Miss Elsie Thompson as "Flora" ' or some such). I don't think the photo is at all obscene by any test that you could write down. No sexual parts are shown; and the child, male or female, does not have breasts even if you could see them. There is something decidedly sensual about the draping of the large flowers over the body - maybe a joint effort by Julia Margaret Cameron and Robert Mapplethorpe? There is a difference between sensuality and sexuality. Imagine the sensation of those large heavy flowers on your body; and just the lushness of the warm environment that lets plants like that grow. I guess the intent is related to that described for 'Child in Forest' - the child in contact with and at home with lush, wild nature.

Were I to take the photo (it's not the sort of photography I do) I would have the flowers in sharper focus.

The face won't tell you anything. On the other hand, I haven't heard or read any fuss about Martin Parr's The Last Resort photos with nude infants. The gender is quite obvious. https://www.magnumphotos.com/arts-culture/society-arts-culture/martin-parr-the-last-resort/

 

[Don_ih]

But Julia Margaret Cameron did not take overtly sexualised images of children. She was primarily a portrait photographer who stylistically specialised in theatrical imagery.

Cameron also took photos of nude children. Is that sexualization? A person happens to have a body - is that enough to be sexualizing? You don't see a difference between nudity and sex? How can a doctor survive?

 

[snusmumriken]

You don't see a difference between nudity and sex?

In terms of effect on viewers, I don’t think there can ever be a categorical distinction between nudity and sex. The thought experiment of substituting either Mrs Bullock or a plucked turkey in place of Miss Bullock demonstrates this.

I guess what made her children a subject to share for Sally Mann (and others before her) is the whole ‘before the fall’ concept: that mish-mash of liveliness, sensuality, innocence, freedom, trust and vulnerability. It’s been a subject for wonder and discussion in most religions for millennia.

Personally, I find Mann’s photos uncomfortable viewing. I wouldn’t put one on my wall or set one as my computer desk-top image. I’m not confident I could quickly explain the validity of the subject to friends who happened to call in, but I’m uncomfortable looking at the photos anyway. Maybe that kind of inner confusion is normal and exactly the point?

 

[Don_ih]

In terms of effect on viewers, I don’t think there can ever be a categorical distinction between nudity and sex.

There's one truly relevant distinction: nudity is a state, sex is an activity. (I wasn't referring to sex as in "what sex are you" when I made the original statement, but to sexual acts.)

I guess what made her children a subject to share for Sally Mann (and others before her) is the whole ‘before the fall’ concept

Perhaps. Or she was just bored being a mother and wanted to take real photos so took them of what she could see in front of her. Apparently, the weather is never cold there.

Maybe that kind of inner confusion is normal and exactly the point?

I doubt it. I get the feeling the photos were more to satisfy herself than to incite any reaction from a viewer. Publishing the photos, on the other hand, was quite likely counting on inciting a reaction. You do generally want a reaction when showing your prints. Confusion is probably not the reaction you'd look for, though.

 

[snusmumriken]

There's one truly relevant distinction: nudity is a state, sex is an activity. (I wasn't referring to sex as in "what sex are you" when I made the original statement, but to sexual acts.)

Always the stickler for exact usage! OK, I took your use of 'sex' to be 'sexuality' - as opposed to nudity or sensuality. And in this context I understand all of these all to be aspects of the subject, rather than physical states.

 

[Don_ih]

Well, the whole topic here hinges on what is or should be defined as pornographic when assessing a photo of a child. Photos of children engaged in any kind of sexual act would be immediately deemed pornographic. But should photos of children engaged in everyday activities - but unclothed - be deemed pornographic? There needs to be a distinction between sexual activity and nudity, even if some people are sexually aroused by the latter. People's discomfort can't be the defining factor. When it is, you have the police running in and snatching photos off the walls.

 

[Dustin McAmera]

We have read about Mann's early experience, when she got her friend to be nude for photos she presented at school. This isn't exactly the same as her later photos of her kids; we are told her kids were routinely naked on a warm day, so the nudity 'wasn't done for the camera'. Nevertheless, I think it's significant background.

Mann is a few years older than me. I lived a mostly suburban life in my teenage years. I took a photography course at sixth form (age 17-18) and did once use the tiny darkroom at lunchtime, and I was sharing it with two girls who had photographed each other nude and were doing some prints. I admired their friendship, and their use of photography: 'us blokes' would not have trusted each other like that - mostly we trusted each other not to suggest anything of the sort! Anyhow, we shared the darkroom on the basis that I didn't peek, and they were careful not to leave their negatives behind.

Had I taken nude photos of myself or a friend, I would never have submitted them for a school class. It seems to me perhaps Mann set out to challenge the rules.

I also bet not all of Mann's neighbours allowed their kids to be comfortably naked; so there was a choice of a sort that this would be part of the normal life that she would photograph and show to the world.

Without condemning Mann's choices or photographs, I agree with some other posters that I would not publish family photos like these. And I wouldn't be very surprised that they were met with disapproval from some people, or that it continued over the years. But disapproval isn't the point. I don't approve of people eating meat or reading the Daily Mail, but they aren't breaking the law. If Mann's photos don't break the law, they should be not just tolerated but protected from interference.

Myself, I'm a habitual rule-obeyer, albeit one with fairly progressive views. I'm grateful there are people more minded than I am to push at the frontiers and be comfortable with controversy.

(sorry for the essay)

 

[snusmumriken]

Well, the whole topic here hinges on what is or should be defined as pornographic when assessing a photo of a child.

Sure. And inevitably, that has everyone running round in circles trying to define ‘pornography’ in different words.

It seems the museum’s own description of the photos lent some weight to there being a sexual aspect. I bet they regret that.

 

[BrianShaw]

Sure. And inevitably, that has everyone running round in circles trying to define ‘pornography’ in different words.

It seems the museum’s own description of the photos lent some weight to there being a sexual aspect. I bet they regret that.

If I’m not mistaken, the museum’s caution was referring to nudity rather than sexualization of children or pornography. Perhaps they should have specified “non-sexual nudity” to be more specific? Nonetheless, full disclosure and/or caution statements are rarely something to regret. But human nature is funny… tell someone to not look at a gory car wreck and what’s the first thing they do…

 

[Don_ih]

And inevitably, that has everyone running round in circles trying to define ‘pornography’ in different words.

Well, it should be limited to "child pornography", anyway, since that is the legal matter at hand. So, any time "pornography" is mentioned "child pornography" should be understood. There doesn't need to be a strict definition of general pornography as it pertains to adults, since it's all legal. In order to be able to decide whether or not someone is guilty of a crime, "child pornography" is defined within most legal jurisdictions. That is the definition that matters.

 

[BrianShaw]

While pornography may be generally legal, obscenity is less so. Perhaps this is also a definition distinction at play in the Mann case. We haven’t yet seen the allegations/charges, though.

 

[Don_ih]

While pornography may be generally legal, obscenity is less so. Perhaps this is also a definition distinction at play in the Mann case. We haven’t yet seen the allegations/charges, though.

Reviewing what definitions for obscenity there are in the US, in order for the photos to be ruled obscene, they would need to be seen as lacking in serious artistic merit. They would also basically need to be judged child pornography. But something can be judged child pornography and still be considered to have artistic merit.

 

[Dustin McAmera]

We haven’t yet seen the allegations/charges, though.

I doubt there will be charges. I think the process Alan mentioned (hang on to the photos without justification until it's too late to return them to the exhibition, then release them with neither charges or an apology) is what they will probably do. However, I read that the people objecting to the photographs include a judge Tim O'Hare; and a state-representative-elect David Lowe said 'It is crucial that our legal framework leaves no room for predators to misuse the realm of art to display child nudity. Should any loopholes exist, we are prepared to address and eliminate them in the upcoming legislative session in Texas'. So if the photographs don't break state law yet, some of the objectors mean to change the law so they do. Note the guy said 'child nudity'; no test for obscenity required.


(https://news.artnet.com/art-world/modern-art-museum-fort-worth-sally-mann-2594527 Brian Boucher in Artnet, 3 January)

 

[BrianShaw]

Reviewing what definitions for obscenity there are in the US, in order for the photos to be ruled obscene, they would need to be seen as lacking in serious artistic merit. They would also basically need to be judged child pornography. But something can be judged child pornography and still be considered to have artistic merit.

Have to disagree. That’s Philadelphia lawyer mumbo jumbo. Part of obscenity is that it may stimulate sexual arousal. That alone can be used to justify anything as non-art. The objections in this situation are much more basic than the law. It’s mostly about Texan Puritan prudeness .

 

[BrianShaw]

I doubt there will be charges. I think the process Alan mentioned (hang on to the photos without justification until it's too late to return them to the exhibition, then release them with neither charges or an apology) is what they will probably do. However, I read that the people objecting to the photographs include a judge Tim O'Hare; and a state-representative-elect David Lowe said 'It is crucial that our legal framework leaves no room for predators to misuse the realm of art to display child nudity. Should any loopholes exist, we are prepared to address and eliminate them in the upcoming legislative session in Texas'. So if the photographs don't break state law yet, some of the objectors mean to change the law so they do. Note the guy said 'child nudity'; no test for obscenity required.


(https://news.artnet.com/art-world/modern-art-museum-fort-worth-sally-mann-2594527 Brian Boucher in Artnet, 3 January)

Contempt of “societal values” is like contempt of cop. Offending the wrong person/people too often results in punitive actions without, or in lieu of, due process. That very much could be the situation in this instance, as you and others have previously speculated.

 

[retina_restoration]

Without condemning Mann's choices or photographs, I agree with some other posters that I would not publish family photos like these. And I wouldn't be very surprised that they were met with disapproval from some people, or that it continued over the years. But disapproval isn't the point. I don't approve of people eating meat or reading the Daily Mail, but they aren't breaking the law. If Mann's photos don't break the law, they should be not just tolerated but protected from interference.

This discussion is built on this question: was the seizure of the photographs was legally warranted and do the photographs contain subject matter that violates Texas law. Everything else that has poured out as a result of asking the question is speculation, opinion, and emotional response (a lot of which is rooted in moral objection).

I have no problem discussing any and all of that and I have found the conversation thoughtful and civil, but all roads must lead back to "were laws broken?" If all we do is linger in the territory of "but it offends me and I don't approve!", then we're going in circles, expressing opinion - but not getting any closer to understanding the legal matter (which is entirely in the hands of Texas legal entities, not ours). Some of what has been discussed has been enlightening and helped define "child pornography" as the law sees it, and that's important.

Ultimately, it is only the legal definition that is going to count. It's fine for the community (ours at Photo, or the people of Texas) to express opinions on morality and cultural acceptability, good/bad taste, but those things exist separate from the law; they are opinions and expressions of cultural models. Lots of art created in our culture is considered to be "in bad taste" or violate the sensibilities/moral code of some people - that's hardly new. But unless there is clear evidence that such work violates the law, then such work lives solely in the realm of "bad taste/offensive", and in the words of Dustin, must be "protected from interference".

Some folks don't like that idea, since they find work like Mann and Bullock deeply offensive, and that is their prerogative to be offended. There's no way I would try to tell anyone how they should feel about the art they encounter - that is not a reasonable thing to do. But neither is it the right of those people to force others to conform to their moral views either, and it is most certainly not within their rights to force the removal of such work from public view unless it is clear that laws have been broken.

I persist in thinking that the Danbury Institute went well beyond their rights to prompt the removal of Mann's work from the museum, but it appears that the police in Fort Worth had an obligation to act on the complaint and leave it to the law to figure it all out later. I consider that to be a grotesque overreach on part of the Danbury and the police. That is just my opinion, of course - you are not required to agree with it.

Have to disagree. That’s Philadelphia lawyer mumbo jumbo. Part of obscenity is that it may stimulate sexual arousal. That alone can be used to justify anything as non-art. The objections in this situation are much more basic than the law. It’s mostly about Texan Puritan prudeness .

This is my opinion. as well. Do we classify fire hydrants as "obscene" because 0.001 percent of the population gets turned on by the sight of one?

 

[cowanw]

I expect prenatal ultrasounds will soon be suspect.