Sally Mann great photographer or glorified child pornographer?

[blackrose89]

I've heard this both ways. Curious what people here think of her work.

Here is probably her most controversial work

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en...urce=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=35MCT_-HLIro2QXw5pyeAg

From my experience it seems to be two extremes, people either love her work or find it offensive.

 

[cgipson1]

Nudity is not porn.. (except in the minds of some religious nuts). Naked children presented in their daily lives, I have no problem with.. as long as it is done tastefully.

I find something like the Jon Benet fiasco far more disgusting.. when a young girl is made up to look much older, and to act much older also.

Unfortunately in our society, we have enough sick people that prey on children.. that it makes the wisdom of either nudity or child beauty pageants questionable.

 

[Natalie]

I would say her photos definitely aren't pornography... The children aren't engaged in sexual activities or being portrayed in an overtly sexual manner, so she can't be called a pornographer any more than an artist working with non-sexual adult nudes could be. There is a definite double standard when it comes to gender with this sort of photography though; just imagine if a man was trying to do the same sort of thing, everyone would go completely nuts.

 

[mwcfarms]

Very accomplished photographer regardless. Some people's opinion may differ and thats ok.

 

[ann]

Many years ago, it was no big thing for children to be naked and have their picture taken. Lots of people would be in jail for babies on bear rugs:er:

Even Jock Sturges nudes on the beach in France are bland imho and he took a terrible hit about them.

These days people are "crazy" and cameras are the new guns.

Her work does seem to be very polarizing but I won't call it porn.

I happened to like her work.

The history of photography is full of polarizing people, art seems to do that far more than some realize.
We could list a whole slew of folks that many on this site and others like it don't understand, get or approve of the work. My feeling is that they aren't trained photographers, basically serious amateurs who have limited understanding of photography as an art form. This doesn't mean they shouldn't have an opinion, but many times that opinion is based on limited knowledge.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[ann]

If you haven't seen it , rent What Remains from Netflex, very en lighting video about her, her family and the work.

 

[cgipson1]

If you haven't seen it , rent What Remains from Netflex, very en lighting video about her, her family and the work.

Ann.. thanks.. will check that out!

 

[Trever1t]

I saw a naked kid in the tub on America's Funniest Home Videos yesterday and I see no porn in this artist's port. I do see images designed to invoke emotion, well done at that!

 

[jwbryson1]

I may be the minority here, but nudity on a child from the waist up (bathtubs, beach, etc.), seems okay to me. These images that have nude young girls with full frontal nudity make me sick and I think are probably viewed more often by pedophiles than by "accepting" adults for their "artistic" content. Just my $0.02.

 

[ann]

I may be the minority here, but nudity on a child from the waist up (bathtubs, beach, etc.), seems okay to me. These images that have nude young girls with full frontal nudity make me sick and I think are probably viewed more often by pedophiles than by "accepting" adults for their "artistic" content. Just my $0.02.

I do believe that pedophiles seek these images out, but that is not the fault or the intent of the photographer (at least not the ones I am talking about)

Different intent, different world.

 

[paigew]

I do not think that her work is pornography or anywhere close to it. Anyone who has a child knows kids love to be naked, and her photos just capture that. I am sure though as mentioned pedophiles do seek these images There is no way to prevent sickos from getting off on what pleases them.

 

[jwbryson1]

I do believe that pedophiles seek these images out, but that is not the fault of the photographer

Sorry, I have to respectfully disagree. That's like saying that a person who drives drunk and kills another motorist is not at fault for driving drunk because they didn't intend to hit the other person. If you put these images out there, then you are de facto "at fault." You may choose to disagree.

I could not view these images. Sorry. Not my cup of tea.

 

[unpopular]

I am not sure if pornography is the right word, but I don't know if the nudity is appropriate, either.


Take for example these images:


fans of sally mann - susannacole: Big Burger by Sally Mann
http://www.theconveniencestore.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/prof_11_sally_mann_pose-775091.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MWiLOKJU3...lly-mann-immediate-family-3.jpg



Why are the children nude, why are they posed the way that they are, what does this say about childhood, what does this say about the subjects themselves? At a fairly young age, around six, children begin to have a sense of privacy. Even my three year old son doesn't particularly like having his private parts cleaned, he is beginning to develop a healthy sense of privacy.

A 10 year old girl would not normally sit at the table topless. An eight year old boy would not be seen "hanging out" with his nude sisters, a seven year old girl wouldn't normally play about half naked.

These are not family pictures brought out to embarrass the fiancé of our daughters, or looked over as our son builds his courage to meet his date before prom. They serve no purpose except to hold these kinds of discussions about pornography and art - perhaps not pornographic the children are not being exploited for primarily sexual motivations, but nonetheless, the children are being exploited.

 

[cgipson1]

At a fairly young age, around six, children begin to have a sense of privacy.
.

The are emulating Mom and Dad, and friends, and teachers.... what they are being taught!

In other cultures, that don't have the silly religion based bias's that we have in the US.. this is not the case. Nudity is accepted in some cultures for what it is.. just nudity.... but it takes the narrow minded to take something natural and beautiful, and make it dirty and "sinful"!

 

[Proteus617]

Sorry, I have to respectfully disagree. That's like saying that a person who drives drunk and kills another motorist is not at fault for driving drunk because they didn't intend to hit the other person. If you put these images out there, then you are de facto "at fault." You may choose to disagree.

Faulty reasoning there. Check out Maxfield Parrish's Daybreak. An image that includes a very young nude girl with a somewhat erotic subtext. One could make the argument that it would appeal to a pedophile. By your definition, Parrish was a pornographer and the painting and all subsequent prints are pornographic. My grandmother had a very nice print of "Daybreak" that hung on her wall for 50 years. According to Wikipedia, it's one of the most popular art prints of the 20th century and hung in an estimated 1 in 4 American homes.