From: Dave Rose (cactuscowboy@bresnan.net)
Date: 10/12/03-03:08:53 PM Z
Darryl,
In my opinion, "erotic" art photographs of nude children, e.g. as done by
Mann and Sturges, border on being a subtle variant of kiddie porn. I'm
quite familiar with Mann's work. I've looked through several of her books
and I've seen her work exhibited many years before the advent of the
internet. I considered her work exploitative then as I do now. I'm not
basing all of my opinions on a brief Google search - sorry if you got that
impression.
Your contention that Sally Mann has no "control" over how her work is
marketed overlooks the fact that she made a conscious decision to publish
and promote nude photos of her children. She had *total control* at one
time, prior to publication. It should come as no surprise that her work is
now marketed on a website selling photo books to pornography enthusiasts:
http://www.erotic-art-photography.net/erotic-books.html
In addition to Mann's work, note the availability of classic titles such as
"Sexy Girlfriends", "Orgasm XL", "Absolute Amateurs", and "Panties". You
suggest that the customers of this website are "High minded art patrons, no
doubt." (I'm LOL!) Who are these high minded art patrons? College
educated pedophiles perhaps?
I'm not familiar with the Photo-eye catalog.
I'm not slamming pornography or nude photography in general. I just don't
think that children should be involved.
Best regards from Big Wonderful Wyoming,
Dave Rose
----- Original Message -----
From: "Darryl Baird" <dbaird@umflint.edu>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: Neo-Pictorialism, sally mann and Witkin (sort of)
> Dave,
>
> You're disturbed by "other people's" marketing. If Sally could control
> this, she would certainly, but to ad hominem(ly) dismiss, attack or
> caution us against her work isn't constructive. Any additional "context"
> of her work from such dubious sources as the Internet should be seen in
> the light of the webmaster's intentions. After all, aren't they selling
> books? Who is their audience? High minded art patrons, no doubt. How
> about Photo-eye? Their catalog is roughly one third to half full of
> nudes; are they disturbing?
> FYI, Emmit G. had a similar problem with OUI magazine. They literally
> published an image of his and wrote their own copy, about "golden
> showers." Is Emmit a pervert because he photographed a female
> (wife/Edith) urinating?
>
> What we can't control is pretty difficult to defend against. BTW, do you
> own any Wynn Bullock, Ed Weston, Alfred Stieglitz, Gertrude Kaisebier,
> Lewis Carrol, or Julia Margaret Cameron books... all with naked children
> and women (like that website link)?
>
> If the world was understandable by just a Google search, we'd be in deep
> s**t.
>
> Darryl
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Dave Rose wrote:
>
> >I did a quick google search on "Sally Mann nudes" and hit upon a plethora
of
> >interesting websites. Mann may or may not have intended her work to be
to
> >erotic, but it certainly is being marketed that way. Check out this
> >website - be forewarned, some may find it disturbing:
> >http://www.erotic-art-photography.net/erotic-books.html
> >
> >Where do you draw the line between art photography and kiddie porn? I
don't
> >own any books authored by Mann or others who are photographing naked
> >children, but from what I just saw during twenty minutes of websurfing,
I'm
> >disturbed by this work and how it's being marketed.
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Dave Rose
> >Big Wonderful Wyoming
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 11/05/03-09:22:18 AM Z CST