I personally feel that Sally Mann was in the wrong for publishing nude photographs of her children to the world. Although Sally Mann is a very accomplished photographer, “in these intimate black-and-white portraits, exhibited piecemeal over the last several years, she struck a vein”(Woodland). I do not think that it is right to exploit a child like that. For example, “The ensuing criticism the images received questioned the line between pornography and fine art and problematized the objectification of children”(Cohen). Especially when they are not fully aware of what they are doing; “ can young children freely give their consent for controversial portraits, even if -- especially if -- the artist is their parent”(Woodward). Furthermore, you have to think about what the children will think when they are older. Will they be fine with it since they were children, or will they feel embarrassed and uncomfortable? I understand that they are her children and therefore I think she has the right to make photographs of them all she wants, nude or not, but I do not think it is right to release the nude ones to the public eyes. I think that Mann was trying to express the the freedom and innocence of her children which is fine since that is the lifestyle her family lives, “Ex-"dirt hippies" who still grow much of their own food and until a decade and a half ago barely made enough money to pay taxes”(Woodland). Her photographs “portrayed bruised, dancing, and running nude in the American South’s wild landscape”(Hayes). But I feel like she can just keep those photos to herself and her family. “Mann began photographing her children as soon as they were born. “For years I shot the underappreciated and extraordinary domestic scenes of any mother’s life with the point-and-shoot,” she recalls in Hold Still”(Cohen). Although the photographs show the children's innocence unlike other photographers who sexualize their subject, I still think it is not right for the children to be nude or vulnerable such as the bloody nose one. For example, “Eight years ago, their mother began to chronicle their growing up -- the wet beds, insect bites, nap times, their aspirations toward adulthood and their innocent savagery. And the work that resulted has changed the lives of all involved”(Woodland). Another factor that Mann has to consider is that there are weird people in the world and people with not the best intentions. As mentioned in the article, “If it is her solemn responsibility, as she says, "to protect my children from all harm," has she knowingly put them at risk by releasing these pictures into a world where pedophilia exists”(Woodland). One thing that I respect from her though, is that when her children said they were done being photographed and had had enough, she stopped and moved onto different subjects to photograph. Emmett, Man’s son was “ teased by his peers when his topless picture ran in The Washington Post, defused their jibes by telling them that his mother pays him huge sums of money to model for her. (In fact, she pays them 25 cents a negative.)”(Woodland). Although her son handles himself well, I do not think this is something a little kid should have to deal with. Even though I believe Sally Mann’s intentions were pure for her photographs of her children, I think that it was and is wrong for her to publish them and present them to the public.
Sources:
No comments:
Post a Comment