From: Kate Mahoney (kateb@paradise.net.nz)
Date: 10/12/03-03:22:50 PM Z
Well, Daryll, all I can say is if that is the case, it's up to us photographers to exert control where we can, in the images we make, to the best of our abilities and the current climate......yes I know about all the Lewis Carroll controversy....don't forget that at this time child nudity WAS a no-no, and child prostitutes roamed the streets at the same time - odd double standards! Le plus ca change........and ol' Charles Dodgson didn't exactly exhibit those images, did he?????
Want the last word :)
Kate
----- Original Message -----
From: Darryl Baird
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: Neo-Pictorialism, sally mann
Hi Kate,
One point and then I promise not to bore any of you good folks again (fingers crossed for good measure).
The context (!) of a photograph is all important to its "meaning." Lewis Carroll's photos have been through the ringer in a politically correct world, with modern tastes and standards applied willy-nilly. This re-contextualization is different from revisiting -- where we try to understand the times and the images as a package. Carroll was an odd and singular individual, which also helps to fuel the fires of mistrust (and condemnation).
In the case of your kid's photos, each image suffers/enjoys a very different fate depending on the intentions suggested by the surroundings... a milk carton panel, a family website, or a pornography web page could all use the same identical image of your boy or girl, each with unique outcomes (or meanings). Any "publication" of an image is fair game in this wacky world.
...back to lurk mode...
Darryl
Kate Mahoney wrote:
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