Sally Mann Photographs Removed from Texas Museum Exhibition after Outcry

[Dustin McAmera]

Off topic, yesterday I went to Waterstone's after a morning shift, meaning to buy 'Hold Still' - I even checked they had it in stock before going. But once I was there I bought Robert Frank's 'The Americans' instead. I think it's because I went after work - why read long text when I can just look at some pictures?

 

[retina_restoration]

Off topic, yesterday I went to Waterstone's after a morning shift, meaning to buy 'Hold Still' - I even checked they had it in stock before going. But once I was there I bought Robert Frank's 'The Americans' instead. I think it's because I went after work - why read long text when I can just look at some pictures?

Do you enjoy audiobooks? Sally reads the audiobook version of Hold Still herself, and she does a very good job of it.

 

[snusmumriken]

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?

I haven't seen what the museum wrote - I may have missed it in the thread? Rather, I was relying on the Open Letter, which states: <<A museum plaque shockingly describes the collection as showcasing "children naked, moody, and in suggestive situations" to "evoke an edgy, dark side of childhood.">>

I can't guess what the museum actually meant by that, but the letter's authors clearly read it as 'suggestive' of something immoral.

 

[BrianShaw]

Thank you. I stand corrected (and a bit embarrassed).

Someone writing test for the museum suggests that they are “suggestive”. Like you say, suggestive of what, but sexual connotation is almost guaranteed.

Diaries of Home: Sally Mann

www.themodern.org

 

[snusmumriken]

I've just looked up the Museum's website. The show is called Pretty Baby, and Mann's work is (was?) only a part of it. Here's the full quote:

"In the 1990s, the artist Sally Mann was met with a different type of criticism because the children in her images were her own. Mann began photographing her three children in 1984 for what would be published in 1992 as a monograph entitled Immediate Family. The first picture in the series, Damaged Child, shows a close-up view of the artist's young daughter Jessie, then two years old. In the image, the child's left eye is inflamed, suggesting a range of interpretations, from child abuse to what was strictly depicted: the child's temporarily "damaged" face, swollen from insect bites. Like Damaged Child, all of the formally beautiful pictures in Immediate Family present several possible readings. And undoubtedly, in showing her children naked, moody, and in suggestive situations, Mann evokes an edgy, dark side of childhood. At its debut, Immediate Family was met with a mix of praise and discussions of parental rights, exploitation, and childhood consent. Although Mann's work is not included in Pretty Baby, undoubtedly her images of children have been influential to the Western artists in the exhibition."

So it's the ambiguity and the misinterpretation it can lead to that they were talking about. It's worth reading the rest of their text, as the whole exhibition is designed to explore the controversy around child photography.

 

[BrianShaw]

That (Pretty Baby) was an earlier show. But what it tends to indicate is that, institutionally, the museum has experience with the controversy… and not afraid if it.

 

[snusmumriken]

Not to leave a stone unturned, I also checked Genesis 9, cited in the Open Letter. Although Noah's sons were evidently embarassed when they found their father drunk and naked, there is no record of any comment on the matter by God. One could infer that clothes were required dress code in that post-deluvial society, but it is inference only, and arguably it was drunkenness that was censured. There is no mention of children, except in the sense of genealogy.

 

[BrianShaw]

Not to leave a stone unturned, I also checked Genesis 9, cited in the Open Letter. Although Noah's sons were evidently embarassed when they found their father drunk and naked, there is no mention of any comment on the matter by God. One could infer that clothes were required dress code in that post-deluvial society, but it is inference only, and arguably it was drunkenness that was censured. There is no mention of children, except in the sense of genealogy.

Earlier in the thread I alluded to that verse/rationalization but only pointed to it and suggested it be read. Since this might get deleted by mods, let’s also note that the sons who discreetly covered Noah was favored in the future over the one who was repulsed.

But wasn’t nudity an issue earlier, in the Garden of Eden?

 

[snusmumriken]

That (Pretty Baby) was an earlier show.

I'm sorry, my silly mistake. Interesting that they used the same bit of text, though.

 

[VinceInMT]

…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……

If child nudity is enough to trigger legal action, libraries are full of books on Renaissance art that features that subject matter. My own collection of art history books contain that material. Are we going to have to turn them in for shredding?

 

[Arthurwg]

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.

Well said. And I find those pictures uncomfortable as well.

 

[jeffreyg]

Thirteen years ago (Feb) Sally Mann spoke and presented slides (digitally) at the University of Miami. I attended the packed lecture held in a large auditorium . I don’t recall her showing the pictures mentioned in the comments made here. Actually I don’t remember anything she said but no one raised any objections and she was well received.

 

[Dustin McAmera]

Are we going to have to turn them in for shredding?

I think burning is the preferred method.

 

[Arthurwg]

I think we'll have to admit that virtually any depiction of nudity can be sexually arousing, regardless of inclusion of sexual activity. I also think we may be due for a reexamination of the relationships of "fine art" (as VincelnMT mentioned), pornography and obscenity.

 

[Pieter12]

Well said. And I find those pictures uncomfortable as well.

I don't. The war pictures of Lee Miller make me uncomfortable and enraged. As do those coming out of Ukraine. Why should happy, naked children make anyone uncomfortable?

Although it does not address child nudity per se, here's a quote from my opening essay in my book, Flesh & Bone. "Images of nude figures often evoke a wide array of emotions, influenced by cultural climate and the photographer’s perspective. The portrayal of the nude form can elicit feelings of admiration, desire or discomfort, depending on the context and the viewer."

 

[Pieter12]

I think we'll have to admit that virtually any depiction of nudity can be sexually arousing, regardless of inclusion of sexual activity. I also think we may be due for a reexamination of the relationships of "fine art" (as VincelnMT mentioned), pornography and obscenity.

There are some who become sexually aroused by underwear, even shoes. There's no accounting for how people react to any given image or object.

 

[snusmumriken]

I don't. The war pictures of Lee Miller make me uncomfortable and enraged. As do those coming out of Ukraine. Why should happy, naked children make anyone uncomfortable?

Although it does not address child nudity per se, here's a quote from my opening essay in my book, Flesh & Bone. "Images of nude figures often evoke a wide array of emotions, influenced by cultural climate and the photographer’s perspective. The portrayal of the nude form can elicit feelings of admiration, desire or discomfort, depending on the context and the viewer."

I think you answered your own question, didn't you?

 

[Arthurwg]

There are some who become sexually aroused by underwear, even shoes. There's no accounting for how people react to any given image or object.

Yes, many things can make one uncomfortable, and many things can be arousing. But we're not talking about that here. We are talking about something quite specific, and those analogies don't apply. It's not about war pictures, concentration camps or shoes.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Perhaps we are conflating your comments about the Texas show and your comments about photographs that include nudity and children.

I think you and others are misinterpreting many things I said. The law clearly states that nudity of children has to be lewd to be child pornography. I mentioned that many times. I also state many times that the definition of the word lewd is open to interpretation. It's not clear to me what the interpretation is nor what its limits are. Maybe it is to others. Because of the iffiness of interpretations especially to a jury, the point I was making to the photography community in general is you better be careful if you intend to shoot nude children. Even if you are ultimately found innocent, if some District Attorney anxious to make a name for themself charges you, it will become costly monetarily and emotionally to defend yourself. Just a word of legal caution.
Regarding my personal beliefs, I don;t think shooting children nude is appropriate except in a family shot of maybe a baby that's innocent and certainly not for publication. The whole category just doesn't appeal to me at all.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

That is several allusions now to Alan and individuals expressing concern, having problems of their own or suggestions that one wonders what it is about that person's mind that takes them to that place, etc.
Enough weasel words; what are you all implying that requires phrasing things with deniability. Speak plainly or can the rhetorical smears.

Good one BrianShaw ( I would do a happy face but my settings here don't seem to allow for that) - although I said "within the norm" which since this discussion has been going on for decades, I think is still a fair statement; but yes, I don't know the norm where you are.
MattKing comments are eminently correct, but do not address the suggestion which questions "a mind that takes him to that place."
We are free to fill in what that place is, according to our own preconceptions. Rhetorically this is often intended to suggest the individual is actually secretly guilty in some way of the offense they decry or that their mind is not quite right.
At least that is how my poor mind thinks.

That's two times you're calling me a "secret pervert" and I demand the moderators remove your posts. Ad hominem attacks are not allowed here.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I'm more focused on why the TX authorities should wait until the show is over. They should decide the fate of the allegation(s) much sooner than Feb 2. Either they are going forward with prosecution or not...

I mentioned that in my post because the DA may feel the pictures are questionable. But, they don;t feel they can get a unanimous decision in a trial or just feel it's not worth it with 33-year-old photos that have been around so long. There may have been discussions between the DA and museum officials about it and some agreement was made with the museum forgoing using the material and the DA not making charges. Who knows? Also, I don't think anyone from the museum has demanded its return. That indicates maybe a deal was made or they're too frightened to put their personal names on the demand fearing being charged personally. If I was a museum official, I'd be backing off associating with these photos to avoid potential legal involvement. In any case, all these things we should find out later.

 

[retina_restoration]

I think you and others are misinterpreting many things I said. The law clearly states that nudity of children has to be lewd to be child pornography. I mentioned that many times. I also state many times that the definition of the word lewd is open to interpretation. It's not clear to me what the interpretation is nor what its limits are. Maybe it is to others. Because of the iffiness of interpretations especially to a jury, the point I was making to the photography community in general is you better be careful if you intend to shoot nude children. Even if you are ultimately found innocent, if some District Attorney anxious to make a name for themself charges you, it will become costly monetarily and emotionally to defend yourself. Just a word of legal caution.
Regarding my personal beliefs, I don;t think shooting children nude is appropriate except in a family shot of maybe a baby that's innocent and certainly not for publication. The whole category just doesn't appeal to me at all.

Alan, the following is a direct quote from you: "Stripping a young minor naked for a picture of this type is child abuse and probably pornography."

You've abandoned the territory of "legal caution" by stating "this is child abuse" and have delivered what you consider to be a fact. Are we misinterpreting this statement? If so, in what way?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

The difference could be about ten years in jail. And who here would want to leave that up to a conservative Texas jury to decide that difference?

 

[BrianShaw]

I mentioned that in my post because the DA may feel the pictures are questionable. But, they don;t feel they can get a unanimous decision in a trial or just feel it's not worth it with 33-year-old photos that have been around so long. There may have been discussions between the DA and museum officials about it and some agreement was made with the museum forgoing using the material and the DA not making charges. Who knows? Also, I don't think anyone from the museum has demanded its return. That indicates maybe a deal was made or they're too frightened to put their personal names on the demand fearing being charged personally. If I was a museum official, I'd be backing off associating with these photos to avoid potential legal involvement. In any case, all these things we should find out later.

It might be better, at this point, to stop speculating, unless you have some actual insight into the DA’s case. Seems like both you and I have as few real insights as the man-in-the-moon.

 

[Pieter12]

I think you answered your own question, didn't you?

Yes, many things can make one uncomfortable, and many things can be arousing. But we're not talking about that here. We are talking about something quite specific, and those analogies don't apply. It's not about war pictures, concentration camps or shoes.

But it is about being uncomfortable or aroused.