From: Galina (galina@online.no)
Date: 10/12/03-06:58:19 AM Z
Judy, Christopher and all the others who are interested in the subject,
it is an interesting discussion and it is not new.
I suppose we all have different understanding of moral issues and
especially the subject of abuse and exploitation. I do not deny that
Sally Mann's work shows a lot of talent, but that is the worst of it.
She knows what she is doing, it is cynical and unforgivable.
And believe me I am not a conservative person, rather the opposite. I
have grown up with Nabokovīs "Lollita" as an example of an artist
opening a can of worms... His intentions were pure, but just see how
badly misinterpreted his work turned to be and how much damage it
actually caused. Believe me, I was one of the victims...
Somehow I can not imagine though that Sally Mannīs intentions were
pure...
To me it is the intentions that are important here, because anyone can
open a can of worms by mistake...
As for her landscape work - I have seen it live from a close distance
and I have not been impressed. I call that kind of interpretation
"banana-nality" after a discussion with a film producer who used a
banana as a symbol in a film about child abuse: the obvious, the
primitive, the non-sophisticated.
Now try to compare Sally Mannīs recent work to for example Andre
Serrano`s use of dead bodies. To me the difference is really visible -
the intentions! What is the purpose of the work, why is it created?
What is the message? What does it lead to?
I always tell my students: "If one is capable of stopping making art -
one really should!" What is wrong about being an accountant or a
football player? Why is it so attractive to try to be an artist?
I remember a discussion with Ilja Kabakov in his loft studio in Moscow
in early 70-s, long before he turned famous. We were talking about
moral responsibility of an artist. Is it allowed to make "fake art", a
bluff, using oneīs intellectual capabilities to fool the audience?
Create something you know is going to attract attention?
We all carry a responsibility for what we are creating. If my work
leads to criminal abuse of children or dead bodies, it is my fault...
even if that has not been my intention originally.
As for responsibility of a mother, I am sure that it does not help to
ask the kids if they do not mind being abused, they might even think it
is interesting or exciting... The damage might not show before a lot of
years have passed.
You might think that there is no damage done misusing dead people, but
it somehow destroys my moral structures.
Well, we might all have different feelings about the subject.
Galina.
www.galina.no
On Saturday, Oct 11, 2003, at 23:13 Europe/Oslo, Christopher Lovenguth
wrote:
> Didn't mean to open a can of worms here.....I guess I should have known
> bringing up Sally Mann. I will say first, I went years ago to a talk
> giving
> by Sally Mann in Savannah and she. before putting any image out,
> consulted
> her kids about it. I have seen interviews done on PBS with her kids
> (all
> above 20 now, even the youngest I believe) and they are so proud of the
> work. I think Sally Mann did not have exploitation or prostitution in
> mind
> when making this work. How would she have known that her work would
> become
> so popular or successful in the public?
>
> Now with what Judy said:
>
> "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..."
>
> I like Mann's work and saw many of her southern landscapes in person
> and
> even though I'm not in to landscape work, I was in awe. It's just they
> weren't well received by the art trendy people like her previous work.
> I
> think that's mostly due to the philosophy that if art isn't
> controversial,
> it's not worth making (which I disagree with). That's doesn't make less
> valid or that I'm dispraising them, nor am I dispraising her current
> work.
> I'm just confused by it (it doesn't seem sincere to me, but who am I
> to make
> a comment like that?) and wanted maybe someone else to give comment on
> how
> they viewed her new work to maybe make it a bit clearer to me.
>
> -Chris
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Buckels [mailto:jeffbuck@swcp.com]
> Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 12:44 PM
> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Subject: RE: Neo-Pictorialism, sally mann and Witkin (sort of)
>
> "The children knew what was going on"? Huh? An 8-year-old child is
> competent to give a valid consent to public (for-profit) exhibition of
> themselves in the nude? They know what's going on? In the same way
> that the adult, full-educated artist knows what's going on? -jb
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Judy Seigel [mailto:jseigel@panix.com]
> Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 12:51 PM
> To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
> Subject: Re: Neo-Pictorialism, sally mann and Witkin (sort of)
>
>
> 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 : 11/05/03-09:22:18 AM Z CST