From: Jeff Buckels (jeffbuck@swcp.com)
Date: 10/12/03-09:53:13 AM Z
Darryl and List: How does any of this bear on the argument that an
8-year-old is incapable of giving a valid consent to their nude images
being broadcast to the public (for private profit)? I'm not hearing how
the "consent" of an 8-year-old can be meaningful consent? Who on this
list -- otherwise inclined to defend Edward Weston -- would defend him
if it came out that Charis Weston had not consented to the publication
of Weston's nudes of her? ... Nothing I've said in this exchange, by
the way, depends on the specifics of Mann's life or her interaction with
her children. I'm saying that a child is categorically incapable of
giving a valid consent. One thing Darryl says in his note, however,
makes a comment semi-related to the Mann bio hard to resist: Darryl
points out (accurately -- just look at the books: No nudes of Mann kids
as adolescents), Darryl points out that the Mann kids opted out of the
nude portraiture when they got older and became "uncomfortable" with it.
Interesting. As soon as they were old enough to actually understand
something of the situation, they opted out. Little kids don't know --
can't know -- "what's going on" and, even if they did, they don't have
the independence of mind and will to decline. That's why they're
"consent" isn't valid. -jb
-----Original Message-----
From: Darryl Baird [mailto:dbaird@umflint.edu]
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 9:00 AM
To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
Subject: Re: Neo-Pictorialism, sally mann
Dear All Alt-P'ers,
Can't sit still anymore.
I use Sally Mann's work to open my Photography Survey course using Terry
Barrett's book on criticizing photographs. I think some of his
techniques to generate an understanding and a context for photographs
might be helpful.
This is a tough topic, certainly, but we can't use our opinions or
experiences alone to form judgments. A few "facts" and opinions:
It is written about Sally (and reported by Sally) that she grew up in a
household where the wearing of clothes was very rare (for the children).
She also saw "everyday life" as her topic, not just "nekid" children.
There are scenes of play, injury, family gatherings, child-as-adult
play, and many others. Look at the composite of that body (no pun) of
images for analysis, not the ones that might shock or challenge our own
conventions.
She previously created an important (by my standards) book on the
condition of girls at twelve years old and the conditions, pressures,
and other realities these prepubescent females experienced. If you don't
know "At Twelve," then you've missed an important element in Sally
Mann's creative arc. It serves to direct my understanding of her
"intentions" far better after having seen those remarkable studies. She
learned how far she could go... with other peoples children and
understood how hard it is for the general population to deal with these
topics. But, it is a topic as old as life itself... the loss of
innocence.
Sally quit photographing her children when they became uncomfortable
posing.
Sally and her work, especially the books, were the target of a massive
assault by the Christian Right spearheaded by Randall Terry of Operation
Rescue. Even the Governor of Virginia tried to stop her work... too
politically charged for him to ignore even though he didn't see the
work. Cooler heads prevailed and Sally finished that chapter in her life
and moved on to landscapes -- a move similar to her friend and mentor
Emmit Gowin (who also photographed his children (naked!), wife (naked!)
and family (not naked!) before moving to landscapes.)
Finally, speculation about people's personal problems, including
childhood experiences, is pretty dangerous if you're speaking in a
context of art. Do we need disclaimers for our photographs?
Darryl Baird
shannon stoney wrote:
>> However Sally's children knew perfectly well what was
>> going on and in my opinion the world is richer for having those
works.
>
>
> I like those photographs a lot too, but I share Galina's, and other's,
> queasiness about them. I wonder if there can be such a thing as
> "informed consent" in a four year old. Virginia was quite small when
> some of the pictures were made. Surely the littlest ones could not
> have known how these pictures would be perceived by some people. I
> read that Sally Mann stopped photographing her children nude when
> Virginia was being followed by a stalker! Also, her oldest daughter,
> while she reveres her mother, seems to have had a lot of problems and
> you wonder if it might have something to do with having your mother
> photograph you nude a lot and show the pictures to the world. I can't
> imagine doing the same thing to my own children. It's too bad that
> children's beauty and nascent sexuality is a sexual turn-on for some
> people, but it would be naive to pretend that that doesn't exist
> because it shouldn't exist.
>
> --shannon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 11/05/03-09:22:18 AM Z CST