From: Galina (galina@online.no)
Date: 10/11/03-08:28:13 AM Z
Hello everybody,
it has been a while since I participated in a debate here, but Sally
Mann is an interesting subject...
I have personally tried to understand how it all works: why some work
obviously looks like prostitution (Sally Mann) while some other is a
serious and respectable piece of art (Diane Arbus, Witkin).
If I could find the right words for the definition of the differences,
it could be a guide for all of us. But sometimes it is nearly
impossible to formulate the differences, therefore there is so much
discussion about it.
Even though I can not explain exactly why, but I am sure that Sally
Mannīs work is the worst kind of prostitution, especially because she
is not selling her own body like Cindy Sherman, but bodies of her own
and other helpless children and other victims. That is why her other
work that is not based on selling the bodies is not awakening any
interest at all.
The even worse consequence of this kind of prostitution is the fact
that it is so inspiring for the thieves, who make it a hundred times
more dangerous through plagiarism. Here in Norway there is an artist
copying Sally Mannīs work and exploiting her children just in the same
hopeless manner. I have seen a few examples of her work that make me
really upset. The worst thing is that this norwegian artist thinks
probably that she is unique and is not even aware of her plagiarism...
But their purposes are the same - to get attention... which they both
achieved.
I have nothing against conceptualism and the art that is following
intellectual threads, I can respect provocations, imitations and
homages. But I really hate speculative works that lack elementary norms
of morality and pretend to be what they are not.
I have been giving a lecture newly where I tried to explain the
difference between photographs of Lewis Caroll and Sally Mann, both
showing hidden eroticism shining through the small children. And
believe me that I am not a moralist of the worst kind...
In short, it all is about small differences, that can make the same
subject and the same idea either beautiful or disgusting, depending on
the purpose of the intentions. If the purpose is to show the beauty and
to express the deep feeling, to share an emotion - it will gain my
respect. If the intention is to get attention and money... I am sorry.
With best regards to you all,
Galina
Galina Manikova
Alternative alternative
Kiellands gate 1a
3182 Horten
Tel/fax: +47 33 03 91 00
www.galina.no
On Friday, Oct 10, 2003, at 23:32 Europe/Oslo, Christopher Lovenguth
wrote:
> Ha, I thought I'd throw it all in the subject line. I've been gone all
> summer but have kept up with topics without the ability to reply.
>
> Anyway, the reason for the subject line is that upon returning to San
> Francisco, I went to my local favorite bookstore to find Sally Mann
> has a
> new book out. Not being able to fork out $50 for it, I looked at it
> in-store
> for about an hour. Her new work, even from many years ago with her
> southern
> landscapes, I very much put in the category of Neo-Pictorialism.
>
> I think the reason we are seeing (and myself personally working in)
> this
> reclaiming of "Pictorialism" is the fact I think artist (speaking of
> photographers specifically here) are moving back in to self/environment
> exploration and manipulation of composition to get a point across,
> instead
> of a kind of documentation approach that has dominated images for about
> 20-25 years. With this, I think artist want to set themselves visually
> at a
> distance from snapshot and F64 like work. Pictorialism is an easy way
> to do
> that. I think neo-pictorialism is also why you have seen a huge
> increase in
> alt process work being done.
>
> Now the reason for the Witkin tag in the subject line is that I'm quite
> confused at the majority of Sally Mann's new book and wanted to get
> input in
> to what you all think. I feel her cadaver (or decaying bodies whatever
> it
> actually is) work seems to almost be a "have a new toy and want to
> play with
> it" as grotesque as it sounds. I understand she is exploring her new
> appreciation for death, but I'm still confused as to what she actually
> is
> doing here. The reason I bring up Witkin is for comparison, which I
> find
> appropriate. In his work, he is exploring the beauty in object be it
> alive
> or dead (not to start a whole new Witkin debate here) and I find his
> work
> for the time intriguing. But with Mann's work, I find it almost
> exploitation. It is as if her landscape work after her family images
> wasn't
> doing as well because of lack of controversy or whatever. Mann is one
> of the
> primary reasons I do what I do. I have always held her as a standard
> for
> composition, lighting, printmaking, imagery and impact on the viewer.
> I feel
> that if I could do just half of what she does, I'd consider my image a
> success. But this new work just has me confused. I do however; love her
> portraits in the back of the book and sort of wish that she had
> focused more
> on that.
>
> Sorry to have thrown it all together but I didn't want to write more
> then
> one email.
>
> -Chris
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 11/05/03-09:22:17 AM Z CST