Sally Mann

sNarah

I've been having disussions with several people in the last few months about a photographer called Sally Mann, mainly about the immediate family series of her. Whereas - in her opinion - it just portayes her family and how they were, a lot of people find the images disturbing or pornographic. Myself, I think they are great, albeit occasionally unsettling, because it feels like you're looking into a window you should't be looking in.

I love the way she captures the children, gritty, black. Even when they look happy, the image always has a darnkess creeping into it.

Some of her images:






The Google Link with her images shows some her more controversial images and I do advice a NSFW warning as it contains nudity.

Any other opinions on her work, thoughts or comments?

Fajitas!

I think she's fantastic. She really captures that false maturity or aspiration to adulthood you see in children.

We were only talking about her prints in the studio last week, they really are amazing in print - so much moreso than you'll see online.

As regards people seeing them as 'pornographic' - I worry more about them than the children. There's an innocence and a sense of free being captured, if you see these as being pornographic or erotic or sexually stimulating, you've got problems. I'd also advise you to never go to a beach. Or a pool. Or a playground. It's probably best you don't have children too...

Fajitas!

Aha, this is what I was looking for when I saw the images above.

Just to contrast the photos of the children that she's most known for, check the slideshow on this for some reeeeallly beautiful photographs.

http://www.photonet.org.uk/index.php?pxid=964

humberklog

The images are beautiful, moving, incisive, gentle and telling. All those boxes are ticked in my book. I like the pics but do have one nagging problem with Sally Ann's much admired colllection involving her family. And it is that it involves her family. When artists turn their attention to objects and people closest to them then my reaction is to move away a little. It's worth lessened.


This work of hers in particular really draws a dichotomy of thoughts from me on it. The pictures and insight are wonderful. The matter/subject when laid on a cold slab of the surgeon critique general says to me: lazy.

My dichotomy has been made more clear over the years. Important and beautiful art work on one hand and on the other: one of the strongest, boldest book of family snaps one could behold.

It's great work but it is a family album. Thankfully for me I like nothing more than good work and I like simple and revealing family albums.


On a by-the-by; has anyone ever met in real life someone who catagorises it as pornographic? I've heard it bandied that some have, I've just never met any in real life. I wonder if peoples expected reactions of a few is overblown? As I've only ever come across very positive reaction.

sNarah

I have, that's why I started the thread. Most of my photography people think along the lines of what's said here. I've been told by a friend: "How can I look at that without getting sick", that it's disgusting and how "dare" she portray her children naked and shown them to the world, in all their vulneralbility. (not to mention one person saying: That's internet kiddie porn, you should report that).

So yes, I have met real-life people who consider it to be child pornography or something close to it.

spinandscribble

she is playing with the fine line of false maturity like fajitas! said and that can by its nature can disturb and many of the images look straight from some high fashion magazine, that heightens this sense of the false.
I watched that pbs 21art in which she was featured and according to the her kids, now young adults, these shots were heavily constructed and are in no way a representation of their life or a true "family album". They said they could get pretty pissed off sometimes at having to stand still for really long periods when they wanted to play or wait until their hair fell wet just right across their naked bodies. She used them as mini models which is all well and good as long as they don't feel exploited. Its true they ran around their land pretty naked anyway so its not like she forced them. I think the images are beautiful but I prefer her landscape photographs. I think a lot of people have done this sort of thing since but I'd love to see them in real life.

melekalikimaka

if people think she's bad, check out Boris Mikhailov's work on homelessness in russia, he paid kids and homeless people to do some pretty sick stuff infront of the camera, mixed reviews from critics but has won some serious awards

sineadw

humberklog wrote: »

When artists turn their attention to objects and people closest to them then my reaction is to move away a little. It's worth lessened.

Why? I really see the opposite! They're not lovely kiddie bright-eyed "daddy took this!" photos. I honestly think it's more of a challenge to take photos of someone you love in an objective way. Look at Ray's a laugh, or Colin Gray's The Parents, or actually most of Nan Goldin's stuff..

Anyway.. As Sarah knows this is *hopefully* my dissertation piece. Or rather the criminalisation of photography in general with specific interest in this and the anti-terrorist legislation in the UK. I've been doing some research - grabbing Guardian review pages off the internet on Sally Mann, The story of the Brooke Shields photo taken down from the tate modern last year, Annelies Strba's bath photo - all that stuff. Just art photography, nothing 'bad'. Until it was pointed out to me that I now have a folder on my computer of images of naked and semi-naked children. So off I go for advice from the barrister who teaches media law at my college, and yep - I could potentially land myself in hot water. So I might not get to do the dissertation at all, or it might have to pass an ethics review board.

I think when grandparents are being banned from places for taking photos of their grandkids and I'm potentially setting myself up for a whole heap of trouble then the world has gone slightly mad. As a matter of fact, that may well be the title of my new dissertation proposal if this one is turned down.

IMHO

And I bloody love Sally Mann's stuff. And my kids constantly moan at me for taking photos of them - I think the children of everyone who loves photography do that

TinyExplosions

sineadw wrote: »

Until it was pointed out to me that I now have a folder on my computer of images of naked and semi-naked children. So off I go for advice from the barrister who teaches media law at my college, and yep - I could potentially land myself in hot water. So I might not get to do the dissertation at all, or it might have to pass an ethics review board.

Sure use the Pete Townsend defence -it's research!

In all seriousness though, I think it's a great topic to do a dissertation on, potential legal challenges aside... best of luck!

sNarah

He is some weird-ass dude indeed!

sineadw

TinyExplosions wrote: »

Sure use the Pete Townsend defence -it's research!

That's what got me worried in the first place!

Scarlett68

They are truly beautiful images, there is no doubting that. And any allusion to pornography stems soley from the viewers own inherent aesthetic and taste.

My concern, as a mother, would be that the childrens inalienable right to privacy and choice was not addressed; and even if the children were 100% complicit in what their mother was doing at the time, they could not be sentient enough at their pre-pubscent ages to understand the possible impact (if any) on their post-pubscent future lives.... I would like to know how those kids feel now about the choices that were made for them/by them! Do they feel that that parental trust was broken? And dont get me wrong Im not saying that we should not be taking pictures of our kids, Im saying that choosing to serve them up for mass publication before each child can offer due cognisance is/was possibly imprudent.

humberklog

sineadw wrote: »

Why? I really see the opposite!

It reminds me of The Two Ronnies when Corbett would make jokes about the BBC food canteen. They were good jokes about bad food but missed me as I'd never eaten there.

Even if by going to lengths to get the shot doesn't make it more than very good family shots. Very good family shots can indeed be deeply imbedded in artistic endeavour. I do a lot of work with my own daughter...but I'm aware of the personal nature of'm. Making them, essentially, just good family shots (even if my daughter had to stand in the rain for a half hour and I end up with a lifetime payment of ice cream).

It's just my own disconnect with such work and while Mann's does (as I said) create a dichotomy of thought on it my coin still eventually falls to family album. Excellent as it is, but it is what it is to me: A family album.

And there's nothing wrong with a cracking family album and even better when a lot of work has gone into the shot as the subjects remember it more. Which when that means ice cream...:).

sNarah

Scarlett68 wrote: »

They are truly beautiful images, there is no doubting that. And any allusion to pornography stems soley from the viewers own inherent aesthetic and taste.

My concern, as a mother, would be that the childrens inalienable right to privacy and choice was not addressed; and even if the children were 100% complict in what their mother was doing at the time, they could not be sentient enough at their pre-pubscent ages to understand the possible impact (if any) on their post-pubscent future lives.... I would like to know how those kids feel now about the choices that we made for them/by them! Do they feel that that parental trust was broken? And dont get me wrong Im not saying that we should not be taking pictures of our kids, Im saying that choosing to serve them up for mass publication before the child can offer due cognisance is/was possibly imprudent.

Hey, you know what, I've never read any comments from her children anywhere... You Sinead? Must have a Google searchie so... Would be interesting to see how they feel about them.

Scarlett68

humberklog wrote: »

Even if by going to lengths to get the shot doesn't make it more than very good family shots. Very good family shots can indeed be deeply imbedded in artistic endeavour. I do a lot of work with my own daughter...but I'm aware of the personal nature of'm. Making them, essentially, just good family shots (even if my daughter had to stand in the rain for a half hour and I end up with a lifetime payment of ice cream).

But isnt intention of the tog almost immaterial?....whether its derived from artistic endeavor or just a family shot, its the viewer who ultimately determines the connect or disconnect and they who attribute merit or demerit accordingly...for you they dont make the definitive connect you need, but for others.......!

humberklog

Scarlett68 wrote: »

But isnt intention of the tog almost immaterial?....whether its derived from artistic endeavor or just a family shot, its the viewer who ultimately determines the connect or disconnect and they who attribute merit or demerit accordingly...for you they dont make the definitive connect you need, but for others.......!

Indeed. I'm only talking about how I connect with them as a viewer.

Scarlett68

Scarlett68 wrote: »

But isnt intention of the tog almost immaterial?....whether its derived from artistic endeavor or just a family shot, its the viewer who ultimately determines the connect or disconnect and they who attribute merit or demerit accordingly...for you they dont make the definitive connect you need, but for others.......!

As stated and totally appreciated HK:)

humberklog

Scarlett68 wrote: »

As stated and totally appreciated HK:)

But saying that...jayzuz, they are very, very good and do export the mind.