Sally Mann's current work sucks, yes or no?

Just saw Sally Mann's current book at the store, featuring numerous

images of a rotting dog carcass and human corpses, as well as poorly

lit, extreme closeups of, guess who, that's right, her kids and a

section of grossly underexposed landscapes which were apparently

printed using interesting, yet archaic techniques.

 

I couldn't help wondering if sensationalism wasn't a substantial

ingredient in her success. The images of Immediate Family are

excellent and meticulously produced, no contest there, but again, the

subject matter is sensational, i.e., naked children, battered

children, etc.

 

And then I wondered if I was alone in this thought.

I liked her better when the Feds were chasing after her for child pornography charges, Ansel had his highs and lows, comes with the territory, its dangerous out there on the edges, better to stick with

landscapes and bluejays.

i didn't like it either.. to me, it looked as if she was aping Witkin and it didn't come across as too original nevertheless, and even appeared very pretentious.. her older work is brilliant though and i looooove it. going after her with child pornography charges is just sheer stupidity imo. to view those images as pornographic says a lot about the viewer of the pictures than the picture itself, or the photographer for that matter.

just so i'm clear, i truly like Witkin's work. as sick, twisted and morbid it may be.

Witkin's work is truly inspired, I have to admit, and his is more, um, cultivated. His photographs are more thoughtful, more composed, and more carefully produced. Mann's similar work, on the other hand, is more of a found nature. Part of her aesthetic is in the technique, the large format, glass negative, old style process, etc. And that's fine, but the subject matter feels derivative, to me, and it alone is responsible for much of the impact, I think. Or wonder. I'm not sure.

 

I heard her speak once regarding Immediate Family, and I think this is written in the preface, which I didn't read, she says she grew up with nudity in her family, and nude children running around her house were as common as flies. Her photographs in Immediate Family are expertly produced, but again, there is an element of broken taboo that, in my opinion, overshadows, even steals the spotlight from her craft. Then, in these dead shots, there is the same use of shock. In the Antietam landscapes, the impact feels to me to be all about the process and the size of the images. Sure, they've got impact, and yes, the thought, or meaning behind them is worthy of effort, but the images themselves have little to offer that I can see. I just can't help thinking that much of the hoo laa around her work is due to what I will call gimickery.

I wouldn't say that (gimmicry) about <i>At Twelve</i> or <i>Immediate Family.</i> I found those both very moving. I think motherhood is a factor in the photos of her children: not shocking to her.

yes, I agree. I don't think they are shocking to her, but to society many of them are, and that's where much of her notariety comes from.

 

To what degree is her status in the photographic community what it is because of her subject matter and use of arcane technique? She seems comfortable at being a shaker-upper. Is that what you have to do to be noticed? Infuse heavy doses of shock into your work?

I guess I don't find her work shocking, is what I meant to say. The technique produces certain effects. Interesting approach, to make a book of images related to the Civil War using a similar process to what Civil War field photographers would have used. (I haven't seen the new book yet.) Something about her work stands out for me, original and meaningful.

I guess I don't find her work shocking, is what I meant to say. The technique produces certain effects. Interesting approach, to make a book of images related to the Civil War using a similar process to what Civil War field photographers would have used. (I haven't seen the new book yet.) Something about her work stands out for me, original and meaningful.

 

Even the corpses were not shocking?

 

I can appreciate the ideas behind the Antietam photos, using the old style tools and techniques, honoring the fallen thousands who died there, and so on, and there is meaning in that, but the pictures coming out of the battlefields of the civil war had much better clarity, and were not enlarged to 40x50 inches, so these have little resemblence in that respect.

 

I'm not questioning her intent, but I admit I'm befuddled by the visual appeal of some of her work, which brings me back to the idea of success by reason of shock and gimmick.

 

The section of the book about the suicidal criminal fits the theme of the rest of the book, but I was a little skeptical when the text indicated "scars" on the landscape where it all happened, when they were little more than tire tracks in the grass and yellow crime scene tape. Hardly what I would call scars.

Inmediate Family, At twelve, and Still Time are absolutely amazing IMO. I recently went to her last exhibit at the Corcoran Museum, here in DC. These particular series (titled What Remains) were totally different, (I believe those are the ones you saw). I had the original pictures inches away from my eyes and they seemed to be developed centuries ago. I think the subject matter was disgusting and I was VERY, VERY, disappointed. But I guess many people just like the process, i dont know. Anyhow, i found it rather creepy.

That's what I mean, Rafael. What if her subject matter were potted flowers? Would there be a book out? Or does the fact that it's dead people have anything to do with it? I mean, here the camera is being used to show us what it's like to be dead, and to decompose out in the woods. How much of her fame is based on shock value? Even the books you mention, and other earlier work, are heavily based on controversy, i.e., nude children, children urinating, etc. I just wonder.

 

I'm glad to read your impressions of the exhibit in DC, how you say the images look centuries old, and I can just now see the relationship between the technique and the subject matter, both of them being old, decayed, etc. Interesting point.

Maybe I'm in the minority here but I'm impressed with Mann's most recent work. I enjoyed "Immediate Family" but thought it could just as easily have been done with a 35mm camera on Tri-X at 1600. "Still Time" was okay and "At Twelve" didn't do much for me. With "Motherland", I really began to appreciate the level of commitment she had to her craft and the depth of her feelings about the subject matter. "What Remains" is about death. The photos are of what remains after death. The uplifting part of the book is the final section of closeups of her family, pointing out the most important thing that will remain after her own death. Maybe it's not the most profound concept in the world but, in my opinion, it has more depth that her previous work.

I wasn't interested in the book until I read the descriptions here. After reading them, I went off to find something from the book online, and after looking at them, I figure I'll buy the book, unlike all her other books which held little interest to me.

 

I don't find the subject matter "sensational" or "disgusting," those are cultural values that reflect a fear of death and a fear of childhood. The photos I saw tell stories about a facet of being here, or maybe what happens after we're here, and do it in a compelling pictorial way.

I see her recent book as a new chapter in her life. It's very different than her family pics but not so much from her, generally unheralded, fine art series. I'll admit that I have only browsed through it and didn't feel the need to buy it, but then again I never bought her other books either. To answer the question, I don't think it sucks at all, but I found it too grisly to want to look at for very long, or have in my library.

The only works of hers I've seen outside of the book of her children (i.e. actual prints hanging somehwere) were for the Nature Conservancy's "In Response to Place." The exhibit was in Chicago this spring, so I took a look.

 

I was very unimpressed with her work.

 

http://nature.org/aboutus/inresponse/about/mann.html

Doug,

 

I wasn't thrilled about her book but thought that seeing it live might be interesting. Her show was in DC and it was so strong that I just went home afterword. Her dog photos at first seemed sick but by the time I got through the show I felt it was an honest examination of life and death. Her daughters photos are all printed on glass and they seemed to be on the other side looking out. It did not have the feel of cleverness which I despise in photography. You must see this show to evaluate it. It is nothing at all like Witkin.

 

Charles Eustace

Is that a question or a statement followed by a question...the later I think?

 

Seems you already have an opinion formulated and clearly defined with little room to move

by your use of the word "sucks". FYI you may want to reserve judgment about creative

choices i.e. "poor lighting...archaic techniques"until you have a better understanding of

photography, historically, contextually and critically. I am curious who you look at and

what you find un-sucky.

 

If you could post a list please so more of us can become educated and see some good

work?

No, it's the former, Matthew. The question was posed to provoke response. I appreciate what she is doing, but I am curious how much of her success comes from what she shoots, not from why she shoots it.

 

I'm looking forward to seeing her current work up close, in person. It's on display where I work, so I'll be sure to take the opportunity, especially after Charles' comment. I suppose in book format the images lose a lot of their power. I've already seen one of her "Motherland" prints, about 40x50. As Lee says, the commitment to her craft and subject matter are worthy of note, but does this outweigh the negative power of a poor image? The photo I saw was horrible and makes mockery of the "art world," at least from my point of view, as ignorant as I am about photography.

 

I appreciate the range of comments posted here.

Ok, Well, I saw several of these her landscapes up close, heard a gallery talk by a photography scholar and have concluded that I'm not qualified to tell whether Mann's work is good, bad, important, or just what, and that I'll be happier not worrying about it, just minding my own business, keeping my nose to my own work.

No, none of Sally Mann's current work sucks, and none of her work has ever sucked. It makes me upset when I hear bad talk about Mann's work, because she is a true artist. Everyone has their own opinion, and I'm not saying that you have to like her work. What I am saying is that people need to keep an open mind about art in general. I have heard so much about how the photos of her children are awesome and that those where her highlight, but most people dont know that those photos were not made to be in a book, or in galleries etc. Those photos were regular family photographs that we all take. It just so happened that she was approched to make that series into a monograph.

To me, Mann's true works are those of the ghostly landscapes and other things that are underexposed and torn. This is true art. Mann uses her 8x10 camera with a 4x5 lens, giving her vignettes. She uses no light meters, and most of the time shoots with lenses bought from antique stores that are broken. The fact that she can even create work under those conditions is amazing and beautiful.

So for all you Sally Mann "Immediate Family", and "At Twelve" lovers, I ask you this...... Do you know what art is? Think about it. Mann is a true artist.

I wanted to point you guys to the following posts at Thinking About Art:

 

1) http://thinkingaboutart.blogs.com/art/2004/06/wow_what_a_show.html

 

2) http://thinkingaboutart.blogs.com/art/2004/07/in_response_to_.html

 

3) http://thinkingaboutart.blogs.com/art/2004/07/sally_mann_revi.html

 

4) http://thinkingaboutart.blogs.com/art/2004/07/elaboration_on_.html

Thanks JT, I will be checking these links out as soon as I can.

 

And Thanks Mike. I wrote a response to your post the day you posted it, but the photonet server coughed the very moment I went to upload it, and the whole thing was lost. I was hurrying to go somewhere for a few days, and so angry about losing my comment, that I never came back. But I agree with much of what you have written and am grateful for your point of view being shared here. Regarding art, I have a lot to learn.

Thanks Doug, for your kind response. I didn't mean to come off harsh, but I hope that you can see where I am coming from. I believe that people need to look at art more carfully before it is judged, because, even if it doesn't mean something to the viewer, it meant something to the artist for them to create it. Mann's early work is actually much like her newer work, without the use of glass negatives. For those that enjoy her new work, you should check out her "Lewis Law Portfolio" from the 70's and her "Portraits of Woman" portfolio, also from that time period. Aperture has published a few pieces of each in her book "Still Time". But these works can also be viewed in full in her very hard to find and extremely expensive book "Second Sight". Check these out. Thanks again Doug.