From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 10/11/03-12:51:08 PM Z
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, Galina wrote:
>
> 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.
Hi Galina -- I shall now disagree about Sally Mann's photographs and the
'helpless victims" etc. Or course I have often said that if I had taken
those photographs of my own children they would have ground me up and fed
me to the fishes... However Sally's children knew perfectly well what was
going on and in my opinion the world is richer for having those works. I
find them marvelous. The kids were savvy and full of attitude -- and so
was Sally, an original hippy type, out of Bennington. The point, or some
of it, may be that sexuality in children is natural and not a crime.
Read Freud. An enlightened parent can cherish that... and so should the
culture.
In any event, I don't think art can be judged by the motive... who are we
to declare some other person's motives, especially of the mixed variety?
(Not to mention that if all art done for the "wrong" motives were wiped
out -- uh oh !)
I took snapshots (before I was a "photographer") of my own daughter with
her girlfriends playing dressup -- they were adorable & irresistable. If
we lived in a warm climate where they could have been doing that in a
state of undress, and if we were all unhibited enough to have them running
around naked, it could be edenic, rather than perverted... In this
culture, I probably wouldn't have photographed it, but that could be my
inhibition more than my "morality."
So again I feel we have to "judge" by the art & Mann's was marvelous...
The one I would condemn in that respect would be Jock Sturges... his
dismal, strained, pose-y and leering photographs have no redeeming
features at all -- they're even bad prints.
I'll add that Mann's photographs of the southern landscape in collodion
did gain a lot of attention, and deservedly so... I found them stunning.
As for her new work being dispraised now, I haven't seen it, but no
photographer can be expected to score brilliantly with every project...
cheers,
Judy
>
> 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