Ender100@aol.com
Date: 10/11/03-09:48:11 AM Z
Galina,
Where would you place the work of Jock Sturges and David Hamilton when
considering Sally Mann?
Mark Nelson
In a message dated 10/11/03 9:42:44 AM, galina@online.no writes:
> 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
> Mann´s 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 Mann´s 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
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 11/05/03-09:22:17 AM Z CST