From: Kate Mahoney (kateb@paradise.net.nz)
Date: 10/12/03-02:28:12 PM Z
Well, I can't resist entering this discussion either. I started photography
late, when my youngest child was fourteen.I took quite a few photos of him
naked from the waist up as part of various projects - he was quite
comfortable with this at the time. As he has got older, (now 19), he seems
much more aware of the implications of being a model than he was even at
fourteen - he is a good-looking boy and I have sometimes felt that I've been
a bit crass exposing his body like this. He's sometimes felt quite
uncomfortable with people's reactions to the work, as inoffensive as it is.
So I would say that a child isn't capable at all of "informed consent" and
it's an area that can't be ignored. The photographer may not be aware of the
whole area of issues surrounding this type of work; after all Sally Mann
could not have forseen the rise of the internet and the kiddie porn market.
Photographing your kids and publishing the work is an invasion of their
privacy, but then again where do you draw the line??? Certainly the photos
of Lewis Carroll, (which have been cited a few times in this discussion)
appear innocent enough, but they have always given me qualms about their
intent - conscious or not.
My daughter has expressly forbidden me from publishing ANY photos of her
daugther naked or otherwise on the web...and I thoroughly agree with her.
BTW, I'm not against nudity of any description though I draw the line at
"erotica" as far as my work goes - it's a matter of taste to me, I feel that
the coyness of most "erotica" is about as far from the type of work I'd like
to make as it could get. and, despite all this, some people find my work
erotic!!!!!!! Dang we just can't escape other people's opinions of our work,
no matter how hard we try.
Kate Mahoney
----- Original Message -----
From: "Darryl Baird" <dbaird@umflint.edu>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 3:59 AM
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