connealy Posted March 21, 2004 Share Posted March 21, 2004 I asked recently in the Street and Documentary Photography forum about modern photographers working in a documentary style who owed a direct debt to Diane Arbus. The one that came closest for me was Sally Mann. I had seen a few of her pictures before, but somehow missed this part:<br><br>"<i>...Mann uses a one-hundred year old 8" x 10" camera which produces photographs much like those past, haunting, and even mystical photographs associated with the Victorian era...</i>"<br><br>Like Arbus, Mann is often accused of exploiting her subjects, in this case her family. Whatever your thoughts on that, her pictures are undeniably powerful. Mann's photographs are also unusually accessible on the web. Most currently working big name artists show their pictures on line in postage stamp size, but Mann's are available full-screen at <a href="http://www.sallymann.org/index-1.html" target="new">www.sallymann.org</a>. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary_woodard Posted March 21, 2004 Share Posted March 21, 2004 Whats the question? Otherwise Sally Manns work is wonderful, dispite ludicrous charges of child pornography,from the idiots that are bringing us the fabulous Iraq situation, otherwise known as the 100 year war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r s Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 I don't think it's meant to be a question from Mike but rather information to anyone who have been asleep for the last few years and missed Sally Mann ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gib Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 What is the meaning of life? this question is always available to fill any perceived question gap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
connealy Posted March 22, 2004 Author Share Posted March 22, 2004 I was also hoping someone into LF like Tito and the Dans might volunteer some information on Mann's 100 year old camera and the lenses she uses with it. I suppose the information is available in her books, and I'd like to buy some of them. However, right now I'm trying to keep my wife focused on the idea of a new 35mm film scanner. Can't afford any distractions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene m Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 I enjoy your posts Mike. Your sense of humor is pretty good too. I love Arbus' work. Her stuff is riveting. There's no doubt that my humble photographs were, in part, inspired by her. Life isn't always pretty. I've been asleep for the last ten years or so. I missed Sally Mann. I'm going to check her out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
connealy Posted March 22, 2004 Author Share Posted March 22, 2004 Thanks, Gene. I'd like to see your thoughts on the Mann stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h._p. Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 Saly Mann's pictures are technically excellent but, in my opinion, utterly repulsive. If she had presented just one image in that style, then it would have been disturbing but thought provoking. As a body of work it becomes unpleasant and I can understand those believe she has crossed the fine line between art and pornography. I think it's misleading to class her with Dianne Arbus who uses a deceptively simple style to reveal her subjects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
connealy Posted March 22, 2004 Author Share Posted March 22, 2004 I may not have looked at enough of Mann's work to really develop a full impression of it. What is posted on the web site is certainly edgy, but I don't see it as approaching pornographic; it certainly doesn't shock and repel me as does Mapelthorpe's work (though I admire much of that too). It seems to me that Mann has made a daring step in revealing intimate details of family life. I don't get the impression that the revelations are manipulated or untrue. If that is the case, then I don't know that they can be thought of as pornographic. I suppose I also have to confess that the idea of pornography doesn't hold much water for me in any case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dai_hunter Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 "...Mann uses a one-hundred year old 8" x 10" camera which produces photographs much like those past, haunting, and even mystical photographs associated with the Victorian era..." COMMENT: So Mann takes photos of naked kids on a 100 year old camera and is an �artist� for it� expecting some kind of special adulation and, in a legal sense, consideration� but a grandmother in Kansas takes pictures of her kid in a bathtub with an Instamatic and gets locked up? Three words sum that up� "pretentious"� "artistic"� "affectation"...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim obrien Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 I thought it was against the law to take pictures of anything with an Instamatic. Anyhow, is it worse to exploit your family than strangers? I have never appreciated Arbus but understand those who might. As for Mann's work, mildly exploitive, over the top perhaps... maybe she just needs an editor with better taste. I mean, I have seen my daughters in similar states of undress but they need not be spread all over the web. 90% of her work is just fine, why take it to where you upset people just to upset them? tim in san jose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r s Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 Harvey Platter wrote: <br> <i> Saly Mann's pictures are technically excellent but, in my opinion, utterly repulsive. If she had presented just one image in that style, then it would have been disturbing but thought provoking. As a body of work it becomes unpleasant and I can understand those believe she has crossed the fine line between art and pornography.</i> <br> All I can say is that I'm happy to live in a country where I am free to disagree - and that I am willing to accept and listen to others point of view (even though I in this case completely disagree with Mr Platter as I am a huge fan of Sally Mann's work - and interestingly enough I am not into pornography either). <br> <br> Dai Hunter wrote: <br> <i> So Mann takes photos of naked kids on a 100 year old camera and is an �artist� for it� expecting some kind of special adulation and, in a legal sense, consideration� but a grandmother in Kansas takes pictures of her kid in a bathtub with an Instamatic and gets locked up? <br> Three words sum that up� <br> "pretentious"� "artistic"� "affectation"...! </I> <br> Sorry but that 'logic' defies me... Why does a grandmother being sent to jail for taking snapshots of her grandchildren have anything to do with you calling Sally Mann pretentious? <br><br> I could <i>potentially</i> see it as an argument in a debate on current double-standards within art and pornography but you sort of don't make any sense. <br> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markci Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 >>> So Mann takes photos of naked kids on a 100 year old camera and is an �artist� for it� expecting some kind of special adulation and, in a legal sense, consideration� but a grandmother in Kansas takes pictures of her kid in a bathtub with an Instamatic and gets locked up? <<<< Actually three wordsthings sum _that_ up: "really"..."stupid"..."comment." Did Sally Mann suggest that grandmothers should be locked up? Did anyone who supports Sally Mann suggest that grandmothers should be locked up? Is there in fact a single person in the world who thinks Sally Mann should not be locked up and the that grandmothers should? >>> Anyhow, is it worse to exploit your family than strangers? In a sense, yes, when the family in question is your children. The only intelligent concern about Sally Mann is that as both mother and photographer has a bit of a conflict of interest. If she were photographing somebody else's children at least they would have a disinterested guardian who isn't getting famous looking out for them. I don't necessarily think the kids have been exploited, but that's the one potential line of criticism that I find hard to refute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tito sobrinho Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 Mike, this is the first time that I've heard of her one-hundred years old camera. Approximately 1 year ago, there was an article about her in View Camera Magazine whereas she looks for uncoated 8x10 lenses with all sorts of defects (separation, fungi, and scratched elements) in order to produce, "glow", "dreamy", and "creamy" prints, if you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awahlster Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Well I have only seen what's on the web site offered and while I can appreciate a little of what is shown there. I don't get it snap shots in B&W of family in posed situations many with young girls in stages of undress I would have never allowed my daughter to be seen by other members of their own family at the age these girls are. As to posting there images onto the internet NOT on a dare! And by the way least you accuse me of being a prude I'm not religious I'm not against a little porno, I'm just against crappy pictures being called art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
connealy Posted March 23, 2004 Author Share Posted March 23, 2004 I have to admit I'm mystified by the angst over Mann's pictures of her family. When I look at them I see a group of people who are not self conscious about their bodies in the presence of other family members; that seems like rather a good thing. Mann has recorded that fact along with quite a lot of other impressions of them displaying a range of emotions. It does not appear to me that anyone is being exploited or threatened. The large camera and lenses used contribute to a consistent style along with the high level of intensity of the artist's engagement with her subjects. That Mann was able, using such cumbersome equipment, to produce pictures that are characterized by considerable spontaneity and informality seems quite extraordinary. My feeling about people's discomfort when viewing these pictures is that it is probably due to being confronted with portrayals of childhood which are real depictions of everyday life rather than the saccharin mythology too often sought in family snapshots and the work of portrait studio hacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
connealy Posted March 23, 2004 Author Share Posted March 23, 2004 "<i>exactly what part of this photo is not kiddie porn?</i>"<br><br> The girl is undressed, she is not engaged in any behavior that is "pornographic". Would you find the pose provocative if she had her clothes on? Perhaps the problem being confronted is yours.<br> While I think it is a good thing to reference specific photos in the process of criticism, it is not permissible to reproduce them without permission, here or anywhere else. It is particularly reprehensible to illegally reproduce them and attach derogatory labels to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awahlster Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Mike your very correct i should not have posted the photo here i should have instead posted a link to it. BUT it's not my feelings here that I and others bring up it is that this is no different then what is considered Kiddie porn except that this photographer calls it art. There have been a number of cases of family members arrested for photographing young girls naked JUST LIKE THESE photo's. I am going to ask the moderators to remove the post and so the photograph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
connealy Posted March 23, 2004 Author Share Posted March 23, 2004 Thanks Mark, I appreciate your rethinking of that part of your initial reaction to the picture in question. As for the rest of it, I respect your right to have your own feelings about things and to express them within what is legally permissible. It seems unlikely you and I will ever agree about any of the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
julian_bell1 Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Unfortunately pornography, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john falkenstine Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 I once started a forum on photogs and galleries refusing to show images or presenting them in postage size format, it was quickly dumped as not being relevant. The Sally Mann images are excellent and show a different perspective on perception of what is going on around us. The hint of sexuality is a skill that she displays in her images and apparently is enough to invoke fear and intolerance in others..showing to me that she's upped the ante and is thinking out of the box of conformity. Mike: thanks for posting the link and starting an interesting forum, hope the thread doesn't go tangent. I can see that your main item of interest is the camera she uses, which I think is a stunning piece of equipment. Large format images, when done properly have an amazing level of depth of field and detail. I tried it for a while, still have my Graphlex, but it is a pig to drag around and to set up. It would be fun to have more articles on these larger cameras, but I have the feeling that the use of such equipment is also accompanied (unfortunately) by a Luddite mentality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted March 29, 2004 Share Posted March 29, 2004 Pornography requires some form of sexual activity. Mere nudity is not pornography, even child nudity. Deal with the images as you will but don't try to make them out to be something they are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted March 29, 2004 Share Posted March 29, 2004 Also, don't upload photos to which you don't own the copyright. If necessary, provide a link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markci Posted March 29, 2004 Share Posted March 29, 2004 <i>BUT it's not my feelings here that I and others bring up it is that this is no different then what is considered Kiddie porn except that this photographer calls it art.</i> <p> OK, the comments just get stupider. <p> Kiddie porn is photos of six-year-old girls giving their fathers blowjobs. It's photos of eight-year-old boys being rectally penetrated. <p> There's absolutely nothing about the photo you posted that is even remotely child pornography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shannon_johnson1 Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 Why is this even on this forum? I thought this was supposed to be classic cameras?? It amazes me people pay to be members here just to argue and show how ignorant they are. To the moderator, you might want to look up the definition of pornography, child pornography. http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/iclp/ocp.htm http://www.llrx.com/features/updatecipa.htm http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2256.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now