The Photography of Sally Mann

[engardeknave]

About a week ago after listening to an NPR interview with photographer Sally Mann, I made a post in the FDR Facebook group about her work, specifically her book "Immediate Family". There are many potentially disturbing images in this collection, including some of her young children naked. (I linked to a Google image search for "sally mann immediate family" with a warning about content.)

 

I was quickly banned from the group, and I'm assuming my post went down the memory slot as well. Somehow I doubt this would have happened were I female.

 

The book is available on Amazon, where many of the photos are posted, and more can be found via simple google image search. There's nothing illegal about the book. I will say I was very surprised at the reaction, but before posting my thoughts I'd like to hear if anyone else has anything to say about this. Specifically with regard to the value of her photography, and the kind of reaction to it I experienced.

 

[i'd include links to Amazon and/or Google, but I suspect they are causing my posts get spam-filtered.]

[engardeknave]

I don't think these links show anything particularly offensive, but other people seem to react very strongly to the photos, so you might not want click these at work.

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1597112542

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=sally+mann+immediate+family&source=lnms&tbm=isch

[wdiaz03]

My personal opinion, so take that for what its worth, I think she is using her kids. I would not want my naked pics circulating around the internet because my mother decided it was art when I was a boy. But that is just me.

 

Some of the pictures are interesting some show WAY too much skin for my taste. But i would not buy any of her stuff...Not that type of art lover.

 

What are your thoughts?

[engardeknave]

My understanding is that the kids were very much into participating in photo sessions and got to pick which photos were published. Although it certainly could be argued that children can't make that decision.

As a photographer myself, I can't help but marvel over the breathtaking look of large format photography. I think many of these photographs are beautiful and compelling. In fact, I had a strong emotional reaction to the one with the man sitting there sort of cradling the girls. It speaks of the incredible vulnerability we all face in the world, often seemingly in the presence of dark forces. This one seems to have tripped all of my child-nurturing/female-protective instincts at once.

There are a few I see that I have mixed feelings about or no feelings at all. A couple (usually involving urine) look like straight up post-modernist tripe.

The reaction people have to these photos is what really interests me, though. I was not told by an administrator of the FDR Facebook group that the subject matter is inappropriate, and that the post will have to be deleted. I was immediately banned without warning for attempting to discuss a book that is sold on Amazon. The message is clear: 'You are a pedophile'. And there is no way that would have happened, of course, were I female. Even in the FDR community, men are regarded as sexual predators because they are men.

The social cost of even discussing these photographs is so high, that in the short time the thread I posted remained up, the only kind of comment posted was something trivial, along the lines of "oh now I have to format my hard drive!!!111".

You know what really bothers me? Some of these photos do creep me out a little, but I can't even tell if this is because they are actually erotisizing children, or if my brain is simply recognizing the imminent danger and prodding me toward the more socially palatable conclusion. It is a situation where I can't even distinguish between my own thoughts and that of the mob, and this is infuriating.

[PatrickC]

It's interesting that you would risk being banned again on this forum, by linking to the same material.

 

The artist certainly dances on thin ice with her material and is highly controversial. I remember the artist well and recall the pictures of her children without having to look at them thankfully and yes they are very beautifully done as I remember. However, those pictures would be considered as child pornography in the UK. At least similar pictures have convicted people of the crime for merely being in possession of them. I would hope a forum like FDR was a place I wouldn't find myself innocently clicking on a link to that would put me in possession of child pornography.

 

I would personally advise you to remove the link to the pictures, which are likely to be removed in a similar manner to that of the Facebook group. But mostly because there's an important discussion to have here about child automony and parental responsibility.

 

My understanding is that the kids were very much into participating in photo sessions and got to pick which photos were published. Although it certainly could be argued that children can't make that decision.

 

Legalities aside, It's well known that children will accept and comply with their parents wishes, even joyfully so. Which later in adulthood they may regret agreeing too. I think it's reasonable to question the parents motives here for taking these pictures and then making them public. There might be a case for parents having a private album of pictures with the childs consent. But parents should understand that children are likely to have very different feelings about their nudity being made public once they become an adult. It also potentially opens the way for all kinds of predators that might seek them out, either now or in the future.

 

On an aside I think you're right there is a double standard when it comes to men as opposed to women consuming and producing this kind of content. I think this artist would have had a much more negative (possibly criminal investigation) reaction to her pictures if she had been a man. However, I don't think this is what the admins on the Facebook group were doing to you. They were probably looking at it from the childs perspective.

[neeeel]

I wonder if the person who downvoted engardeknaves post #4, would explain why? I dont see anything in his post that is worthy of downvoting.

[engardeknave]

I made a final comment here with the assumption that it wouldn't show up for twenty-four hours, but it looks like I'm actually able to post in real time now! So maybe I'll post some other thoughts I have later, now that a conversation is within the realm of possibility.

[Artist707]

Hi engardeknave, 

 

I would like to first say that I'm sorry that you got banned for something that you only wanted to discuss. I can really sympathize with you because I had similar experiences involving me and my girlfriend.  

 

And this product it is sold on Amazon, so there shouldn't be any legality issues there I think. So it is, in my opinion, injustice for people of the FDR community to ban you just wanting to talk about this. 

 

My thoughts on the matter are that these are some really disturbing images. I cannot stand looking at them for much longer than few seconds because not only because of my history, but also because I think this is a form of legalized pedophilia. The title "immediate family" for this photoshoot tell me something about what the photographer wanted to capture: a sexualized view of family members. I think there is also an element of incest here as well. And in most of the photographs, the pose of the children are very sexual and something that you might find in a adult magazine...maybe even playboy or something like that. That is very disturbing. 

 

Also something else to think about is the fact that the photographer is a woman. What is a man shot these photos? How would you respond to them? How would society respond to them? Would he not be called a pedophile?