Sally Mann great photographer or glorified child pornographer?

[unpopular]

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"!

Yep. And Mann is an American photographer photographing American children with American cultural values.

But these are not documenting culture, they're about questioning it and pushing societal boundaries in the most sophomoric means possible.

If she were from some other culture (which one is rarely discussed) where preteen children frolic about in the nude for no particular environmental reason that would be another issue. But she isn't, and she knows this.

It's not porn, but it is cheap. It's shock rock art. It's Alice cooper biting heads off chickens. It's Marilyn Manson in Coma White.

 

[blackrose89]

I think this one is probably the most questionable. If she sees her children's nakedness as innocence, why are her nipples covered?http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_1xUdJ-1BnqE/R5HkE68Oi7I/AAAAAAAAAHE/rLag_o6LShA/s320/mann.jpg

 

[ann]

There are several things at play here. First her children have been photograph there whole lives, and in fact one of the girls is now a model and loves posing and she herself (meaning Sally) indicates the success of these images is the result of the power of their personalities.

Secondly they grew up on a farm and in a time when the culture was much different and it wasn't unusual for children be to naked. . I serious doubt she (Sally) ever intended that these years would considered porno

There are other photographers who have created a lot more waves than Sally, consider Shelby Adams, Cindy Sherman and of course Diane Arbus.

For instance, I had an aunt who used to drive a tractor , plowing the fields with as little clothing on as possible, and this was as an adult. I mean topless.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

OMG!

If there is one thing I don't miss about the US this is it. Of all countries I've known, we are the only one that manages to mix extreme sexual obsession with extreme prudishness. We need to get right in our heads on the one side so that we have a chance to get right on the other.

I love Sally Mann as a photographer. Since I haven't watched the movie Ann mentions (not for the first time, btw) I don't know if SM was trying to push the envelope or was just a woman of her time. I can't find this movie here.

But I can tell you one thing for sure. I have been trying to push back the limits because I hate them just as much as any other kind of stupidity. This hate started some 25 years ago when a french friend came to spend the summer with her daughter.

We registered her daughter in a day camp for a few weeks so we could go and shoot during the day. Then came the swimming pool day and my friend took her daughter there, dropped her off with her bag and we went shooting.

You should have seen the uproar when we went and picked up this kid. "Your kid's swimming suit doesn't have a top!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

My friend was like: "She is 8 y.o., she has nothing on top. Why does she need a top?" Since I didn't get it either, I couldn't help. Let's just say we had to find another day camp after buying a suitable swimming suit

Absolutely ridiculous.

And, to respond to some of the posts, yes, it is a cultural thing. But when there is something in my culture I don't like I fight it. And this is one thing I find ridiculous.


I'll leave you with two thoughts: 1/ In her book "C*nt" Inga Muscio mentions the fact that the more sexually repressed a country is and the more crimes are comitted against women. The US has the most crimes against women of any of the first world countries.

2/ I worry quite a lot about the people who have a problem with Sally Mann's photos. Do they have a problem with their own feelings?

 

[tirediron]

I have seen the movie Ann referred to, as well as another Sally Mann documentary. She was a very skilled photographer, with a slightly unusual (for the US at least) outlook on life. I don't see this images as pornographic at all; some are of questionable good taste IMO, but I think her real intent (and this is based mostly on "reading between the lines" from her bio documentary, was simply to push people's buttons. Seems to me, she did a good job!

 

[unpopular]

But many of these are posed, and posed in a very specific way.they are not candid photos of children being children who happen to be naked children.

They are not posed as children would pose and behave, these images do not instill innocence.

OMG!
If there is one thing I don't miss about the US this is it. Of all countries I've known, we are the only one that manages to mix extreme sexual obsession with extreme prudishness. We need to get right in our heads on the one side so that we have a chance to get right on the other.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Btw, our attitude in the US allowed me to make a few bucks with another ridiculous situation.

I had this album that someone offered me a good deal of money for. I started looking around wondering why. It turned out this particular version of the album was getting top dollars in the US because the cover had been banned there

Guess what? Everytime I was in Europe I bought every copies I could get my hands on and sold them back in the US.

This is the album:

333 images (+111): Virgin Killer (album cover), Scorpions, 1976 The...

As you will notice, you can't even see the girl's sex. Pretty poor shot for a pervert. But the cheapest copy I sold went for $300.

 

[ann]

But many of these are posed, and posed in a very specific way.they are not candid photos of children being children who happen to be naked children.

They are not posed as children would pose and behave, these images do not instill innocence.

OMG!
If there is one thing I don't miss about the US this is it. Of all countries I've known, we are the only one that manages to mix extreme sexual obsession with extreme prudishness. We need to get right in our heads on the one side so that we have a chance to get right on the other.

Who said they weren't posed?

Some of the poses came from the children themselves. Have you never seen children play dress up (or maybe they don't do that anymore )

I have had students print photos of their children, that are along the same lines and they would be shocked to think anyone would think they are making images that would be consider porno.

 

[jwbryson1]

By your definition, Parrish was a pornographer and the painting and all subsequent prints are pornographic.

Where did I say that this is pornography? You have misquoted me.

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.

What does this have to do with anything?

 

[unpopular]

If they were not posed, then they were selected to push social boundaries. I whole heartedly disagree that they are pornographic, but they are tasteless, tactless and appeal only to question our social norms - in this way I feel these images do exploit children.

The exploitive quality is not sexual in nature, but exploitive none the less.

 

[jwbryson1]

But many of these are posed, and posed in a very specific way.they are not candid photos of children being children who happen to be naked children.

They are not posed as children would pose and behave, these images do not instill innocence.

I have to agree with this.

 

[paigew]

Btw, our attitude in the US allowed me to make a few bucks with another ridiculous situation.

I had this album that someone offered me a good deal of money for. I started looking around wondering why. It turned out this particular version of the album was getting top dollars in the US because the cover had been banned there

Guess what? Everytime I was in Europe I bought every copies I could get my hands on and sold them back in the US.

This is the album:

333 images (+111): Virgin Killer (album cover), Scorpions, 1976 The...

As you will notice, you can't even see the girl's sex. Pretty poor shot for a pervert. But the cheapest copy I sold went for $300.

wow! that shot is pretty inappropriate. I wouldn't want my daughter posed that way, thats for sure. Looking at more of her photographs my opinion has changed a little. I do not think it is pornography, but yes, some photos are inappropriate.

I am all for nakedness and being natural and I wouldn't think twice if I saw a kid at a pool naked...heck, it would probably be my kid . But yes, posing them in suggestive ways seems to be 'pushing the limit'. A limit that perhaps shouldn't be pushed with children.

 

[jwbryson1]

I am all for nakedness and being natural and I wouldn't think twice if I saw a kid at a pool naked

I agree with Paige on this one. It's not just the nudity that's an issue for me. It's the nudity of the children, combined with the nude adults (at least on the one that blackrose posted). But it's also the way these kids are posed with sultry gazes at the camera. You can't convince me that's not done intentionally to sexualize the pose in some way. Hypersexualized kids are not a good thing. Period. End of discussion. Of course, the media and the "MTV Culture" in this country would prefer to have it otherwise because sex sells. Hyperliberalization of this country will be our downfall. The liberal mind is truly a mental disorder.

 

[cgipson1]

Btw, our attitude in the US allowed me to make a few bucks with another ridiculous situation.

I had this album that someone offered me a good deal of money for. I started looking around wondering why. It turned out this particular version of the album was getting top dollars in the US because the cover had been banned there

Guess what? Everytime I was in Europe I bought every copies I could get my hands on and sold them back in the US.

This is the album:

333 images (+111): Virgin Killer (album cover), Scorpions, 1976 The...

As you will notice, you can't even see the girl's sex. Pretty poor shot for a pervert. But the cheapest copy I sold went for $300.

wow! that shot is pretty inappropriate. I wouldn't want my daughter posed that way, thats for sure. Looking at more of her photographs my opinion has changed a little. I do not think it is pornography, but yes, some photos are inappropriate.

I am all for nakedness and being natural and I wouldn't think twice if I saw a kid at a pool naked...heck, it would probably be my kid . But yes, posing them in suggestive ways seems to be 'pushing the limit'. A limit that perhaps shouldn't be pushed with children.

Is it any worse than putting small girls in evening dresses... and putting heavy makeup on them, and teaching them to walk down a stage in an adult manner? Many pervs would find this more provocative than just nudity!

 

[cgipson1]

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.

So it is the artist's fault that there are PERVS out there? Is it the gun manufacturers fault, that their products are used by psychos to kill people ? Is is Ford's fault when some moron in an F250 run through a School Zone and kills someone?