There is no doubt that Sally Mann is a great photographer. She has continued to do great work since these photographs. Her atmospheric photographs of the nature around her are spectacular. She is part of the Canon.
I think part of the problem that most people have stems from the fact that she uses large and cumbersome gear, which leads to something other than the quicker 35 mm photographs and therefore longer exposures, more time for the kids to stare at the lens, etc. Poses become more extreme, appearances more rehearsed. To me the photographs in question are mostly performance.
I am really more interested in the feelings of the kids now that the work is out there without their consent, which they were unable to give at the time, for obvious reasons. I understand that there have been a number of rather loud discussions in the family about this. I seem to recall that one of her images of her son has a title along the lines that it was the last photograph he would allow to be taken of him.
In short, if the kids are OK with the photographs, now that they are grown, I really have no issue. But then, I am not a standing for office in Texas. This all feels terribly Victorian.
Chapeau to the Gallery for daring to hang them in today's environment.
I do coverage of local extremists in the DFW area. My Dallas Gay Liberation newsletter has been covering this campaign against the Museum of Modern Art since 12/26/2024. At the posts on this, you can get the background information on the people behind this campaign. They were previously shutting down drag shows and they were going after Pride events. Now they are targeting places in Fort Worth were recent elections have favored their actions.
“For Texas officials leading the charge against the exhibition, the controversy underscores concerns about protecting children from exploitation and upholding community standards.“
I would not be so charitable. I think it’s a Texas politician doing what they do; a craven political opportunist sticking his nose where it doesn’t belong to get his name in the news.
It’s political theater, dog-whistle-blowing, squeezing every last drop of useful fear and outrage from the backwoods conservatives who support them. You are correct in being uncharitable, they deserve no charity whatsoever; quite the opposite, actually.
I wonder how these officials feel about Matt “why is he not in prison?” Gaetz, or how they feel about the vile, hateful comments made online by conservatives targeting those they disagree with (which should fail any “community standards” test worth a crap).
If their answer is anything to the effect of “I’m ok with those things” then they all need to go back under the rock they crawled out from and leave Sally Mann, and everyone else for that matter, well the hell alone.
I don't understand this. When I was in school in the 60s and 70s and well into the 80s, taking photographs or drawing for art with clothes on or off was no big deal. We didn't even think about it. What about the plethora of art depicting the human body that has been with us for thousands of years? And who gets to decide what is ethical or acceptable or not? Sally Manns work is striking and significant. I have her massive book and refer to it often as inspiration for my own work. She is one of the greats. These Texas State officials would better spend their time dealing with child trafficking if they genuinely want to protect the children.
But of course they couldn't care less about the well being of children -- never have and never will. It's all and only about imposing on the rest of society their own sick, impoverished, antiquated, cowardly, and profoundly ignorant world view.
I recently read, Hold Still, Sally Mann’s memoir. She goes into detail about her family photographs and the allegations she’s fought since publishing those photos. It’s a very interesting read. - I do think she is a wonderful artist. Her early photos are honest and moving. They capture the essence of her children and their idilic childhood. They are very much the photos of a mother’s love. Sally Mann is an artist and a loving mother, and the photos of her children are proof of that. - I commend the museum for showing her work and not succumbing to negative pressure.
The faux flap illustrates, yet again, that conservatives are uniformly ignorant, lazy cowards. It is a sad commentary on the current sickly state of our society.
Not all of Mann's photo's are like this, but if you look at her photo of Jesse at 5, with the makeup, the earrings and the string of pearls, not to mention the burning gaze, and you don't think it's a particularly disturbing use of a child in the name of art, I don't know what to tell you. The naysayers have a point.
I am a proud progressive living in Houston. I have no issues with nudity in art, provided the parties are agreeable to it. In the case of some of Sally Mann's photos, my objection is that her children, prima facie, cannot be complicit in the depiction of their nudity. As such, I have issues with their inclusion in a public exhibition. Certainly, children deserve to be protected, sometimes from the artistic interests of their own well-meaning parents. I have to agree with those who object to the child nudity. I do not categorize it as "porn,"but that does not make it acceptable.
This is a good conversation to have again, certainly, but "minor" is the key word here, if minors were not involved there would be no issue to discuss.
I have seen the photos, and while I do not consider them to be sexually "exploitive", I could see where others might. It's telling that none of the photos are used to illustrate this stack.
I'm reminded of an image created by Robert Mapplethorpe. It was a young girl, maybe 7 or so years old, sitting on a bench, no underwear, legs spread, no imagination needed to see what the subject was. Clearly (to me) an exploitive, voyeuristic photograph. Others might see it differently.
Who do you trust to arbitrate the intent of the Mapplethorpe image, and those of Sally Mann? Your local church? The local MAP affiliated group? The "Eye of the Beholder"? AI?
It seems that most folks in this discussion think that we should just accept a public display of child nudity in this instance based on context. Great! Please, post the images to your stack in a show of support for "context"! Let's see how that works.
The people in Texas who are bringing a complaint about these images have a valid point to make OUTSIDE of the context in which most of you are viewing this. I have a foot in both camps, and generally support the gallery, BUT, sadly, understand the need to protect children from those who would exploit them. Gray areas in this protection will lead to exploitation. Choose.
Also, the cynic in me thinks the gallery maybe created this controversy to boost $, grifters grifting as grifters will. Could be.
(Sally Mann is on my list of the top 3 photographers of all time, btw, I love her work, I believe she was given a Divine spark, and I've never been offended by her photographs. That's my "context".)
And there it is...... Welcome to 2025. Or is that 1692. We will be burning witches next...., or photographers perhaps. Only in Texas......
From today's Art Newspaper:
"Although the exhibition has been open since mid-November, it seems Mann’s photographs first came under scrutiny just before Christmas, when The Dallas Express received a tip from a local resident and sent its staff writer Carlos Turcios to investigate. Turcios, who describes himself as a “dedicated conservative activist”, published his first story about the photographs
on 23 December under the headline “Exclusive: Is the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth Promoting Child Porn?” Conservative groups and politicians joined the outcry, and Turcios has written several follow-up articles in the interim. The debacle ultimately led to the seizure of Mann’s works after a police report was filed against the museum and an investigation was launched."
I saw one of Sally Mann's exhibits here in Atlanta circa 2010 and don't recall any controversy at all around her work at all. I've been to other "questionable" exhibits across several cities and never heard complaints. I feel like things are different now though in the U.S.... lines are more severely drawn, more closed off and protective, as if art can threaten morality or injure humanity. When has art actually succeeded in doing that? And who would we become if we begin censoring art?
“… critics of their approach warn that it could lead to unintended consequences, such as the suppression of legitimate artistic expression.”
On the contrary, I suspect that suppression of legitimate artistic expression by these culture warriors is, in fact, very much the *intended* consequence.
This controversy now decades old has resulted in fame, notoriety, and thousands of dollars in income for Mann. Any photo of a chid can be construed to be pornography if it is being used and viewed by seedy pedophiles. Therefore, no child image is completely safe from this label.
Her early family photos depict a side of rural, upper income family life well known to residents of the South. Private family snapshots similar to Mann’s have always existed only to be squirreled away in boxes and albums instead of appearing in a best selling books and gallery shows.
Texas is home to a vast right wing cabal famous for tilting at windmills and anything else that will help them to raise a buck or two.
No one is required to view any Sally Mann pics. Millions of people choose to do just that. I am going back to sleep now, but please wake me when you have some real troubling child frames. As a one time combat photojournalist in Vietnam, I have a pretty damn good notion of what constitutes a troubling child pic. Somehow I am thinking of the great Nick Ut, not Sally Mann.
Anyone who views Sally Mann's work and labels it as pornography reveals more about their own troubling mindset than the art itself.
Well said! The finger points backward.
agree
There is no doubt that Sally Mann is a great photographer. She has continued to do great work since these photographs. Her atmospheric photographs of the nature around her are spectacular. She is part of the Canon.
I think part of the problem that most people have stems from the fact that she uses large and cumbersome gear, which leads to something other than the quicker 35 mm photographs and therefore longer exposures, more time for the kids to stare at the lens, etc. Poses become more extreme, appearances more rehearsed. To me the photographs in question are mostly performance.
I am really more interested in the feelings of the kids now that the work is out there without their consent, which they were unable to give at the time, for obvious reasons. I understand that there have been a number of rather loud discussions in the family about this. I seem to recall that one of her images of her son has a title along the lines that it was the last photograph he would allow to be taken of him.
In short, if the kids are OK with the photographs, now that they are grown, I really have no issue. But then, I am not a standing for office in Texas. This all feels terribly Victorian.
Chapeau to the Gallery for daring to hang them in today's environment.
I do coverage of local extremists in the DFW area. My Dallas Gay Liberation newsletter has been covering this campaign against the Museum of Modern Art since 12/26/2024. At the posts on this, you can get the background information on the people behind this campaign. They were previously shutting down drag shows and they were going after Pride events. Now they are targeting places in Fort Worth were recent elections have favored their actions.
“For Texas officials leading the charge against the exhibition, the controversy underscores concerns about protecting children from exploitation and upholding community standards.“
I would not be so charitable. I think it’s a Texas politician doing what they do; a craven political opportunist sticking his nose where it doesn’t belong to get his name in the news.
It’s political theater, dog-whistle-blowing, squeezing every last drop of useful fear and outrage from the backwoods conservatives who support them. You are correct in being uncharitable, they deserve no charity whatsoever; quite the opposite, actually.
I wonder how these officials feel about Matt “why is he not in prison?” Gaetz, or how they feel about the vile, hateful comments made online by conservatives targeting those they disagree with (which should fail any “community standards” test worth a crap).
If their answer is anything to the effect of “I’m ok with those things” then they all need to go back under the rock they crawled out from and leave Sally Mann, and everyone else for that matter, well the hell alone.
I don't understand this. When I was in school in the 60s and 70s and well into the 80s, taking photographs or drawing for art with clothes on or off was no big deal. We didn't even think about it. What about the plethora of art depicting the human body that has been with us for thousands of years? And who gets to decide what is ethical or acceptable or not? Sally Manns work is striking and significant. I have her massive book and refer to it often as inspiration for my own work. She is one of the greats. These Texas State officials would better spend their time dealing with child trafficking if they genuinely want to protect the children.
But of course they couldn't care less about the well being of children -- never have and never will. It's all and only about imposing on the rest of society their own sick, impoverished, antiquated, cowardly, and profoundly ignorant world view.
I recently read, Hold Still, Sally Mann’s memoir. She goes into detail about her family photographs and the allegations she’s fought since publishing those photos. It’s a very interesting read. - I do think she is a wonderful artist. Her early photos are honest and moving. They capture the essence of her children and their idilic childhood. They are very much the photos of a mother’s love. Sally Mann is an artist and a loving mother, and the photos of her children are proof of that. - I commend the museum for showing her work and not succumbing to negative pressure.
The faux flap illustrates, yet again, that conservatives are uniformly ignorant, lazy cowards. It is a sad commentary on the current sickly state of our society.
Sally Mann is a great srtist.
Not all of Mann's photo's are like this, but if you look at her photo of Jesse at 5, with the makeup, the earrings and the string of pearls, not to mention the burning gaze, and you don't think it's a particularly disturbing use of a child in the name of art, I don't know what to tell you. The naysayers have a point.
https://gagosian.com/news/museum-exhibitions/sally-mann-looking-family-photographs-collection-dayton-art-institute-ohio/
I am a proud progressive living in Houston. I have no issues with nudity in art, provided the parties are agreeable to it. In the case of some of Sally Mann's photos, my objection is that her children, prima facie, cannot be complicit in the depiction of their nudity. As such, I have issues with their inclusion in a public exhibition. Certainly, children deserve to be protected, sometimes from the artistic interests of their own well-meaning parents. I have to agree with those who object to the child nudity. I do not categorize it as "porn,"but that does not make it acceptable.
This is a good conversation to have again, certainly, but "minor" is the key word here, if minors were not involved there would be no issue to discuss.
I have seen the photos, and while I do not consider them to be sexually "exploitive", I could see where others might. It's telling that none of the photos are used to illustrate this stack.
I'm reminded of an image created by Robert Mapplethorpe. It was a young girl, maybe 7 or so years old, sitting on a bench, no underwear, legs spread, no imagination needed to see what the subject was. Clearly (to me) an exploitive, voyeuristic photograph. Others might see it differently.
Who do you trust to arbitrate the intent of the Mapplethorpe image, and those of Sally Mann? Your local church? The local MAP affiliated group? The "Eye of the Beholder"? AI?
It seems that most folks in this discussion think that we should just accept a public display of child nudity in this instance based on context. Great! Please, post the images to your stack in a show of support for "context"! Let's see how that works.
The people in Texas who are bringing a complaint about these images have a valid point to make OUTSIDE of the context in which most of you are viewing this. I have a foot in both camps, and generally support the gallery, BUT, sadly, understand the need to protect children from those who would exploit them. Gray areas in this protection will lead to exploitation. Choose.
Also, the cynic in me thinks the gallery maybe created this controversy to boost $, grifters grifting as grifters will. Could be.
(Sally Mann is on my list of the top 3 photographers of all time, btw, I love her work, I believe she was given a Divine spark, and I've never been offended by her photographs. That's my "context".)
And there it is...... Welcome to 2025. Or is that 1692. We will be burning witches next...., or photographers perhaps. Only in Texas......
From today's Art Newspaper:
"Although the exhibition has been open since mid-November, it seems Mann’s photographs first came under scrutiny just before Christmas, when The Dallas Express received a tip from a local resident and sent its staff writer Carlos Turcios to investigate. Turcios, who describes himself as a “dedicated conservative activist”, published his first story about the photographs
on 23 December under the headline “Exclusive: Is the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth Promoting Child Porn?” Conservative groups and politicians joined the outcry, and Turcios has written several follow-up articles in the interim. The debacle ultimately led to the seizure of Mann’s works after a police report was filed against the museum and an investigation was launched."
Brave new world? Surely not!
I saw one of Sally Mann's exhibits here in Atlanta circa 2010 and don't recall any controversy at all around her work at all. I've been to other "questionable" exhibits across several cities and never heard complaints. I feel like things are different now though in the U.S.... lines are more severely drawn, more closed off and protective, as if art can threaten morality or injure humanity. When has art actually succeeded in doing that? And who would we become if we begin censoring art?
“… critics of their approach warn that it could lead to unintended consequences, such as the suppression of legitimate artistic expression.”
On the contrary, I suspect that suppression of legitimate artistic expression by these culture warriors is, in fact, very much the *intended* consequence.
This controversy now decades old has resulted in fame, notoriety, and thousands of dollars in income for Mann. Any photo of a chid can be construed to be pornography if it is being used and viewed by seedy pedophiles. Therefore, no child image is completely safe from this label.
Her early family photos depict a side of rural, upper income family life well known to residents of the South. Private family snapshots similar to Mann’s have always existed only to be squirreled away in boxes and albums instead of appearing in a best selling books and gallery shows.
Texas is home to a vast right wing cabal famous for tilting at windmills and anything else that will help them to raise a buck or two.
No one is required to view any Sally Mann pics. Millions of people choose to do just that. I am going back to sleep now, but please wake me when you have some real troubling child frames. As a one time combat photojournalist in Vietnam, I have a pretty damn good notion of what constitutes a troubling child pic. Somehow I am thinking of the great Nick Ut, not Sally Mann.
Now, I’ve seen actual porn disguised as “fine art.” Example: Robert Mapplethorpe. But a quick search (with safe search off) of this woman’s work —
Well, if that’s “pornography” in Texas, you have to wonder about Texans.