Matthew Stevens
Sally Mann Analysis
In September 1992, Sally Mann published her third book of photographs titled, “Immediate Family.” This series of work was well accepted by many but also criticized for the nudity of children shown throughout the book. I think Mann was right to make these photographs and to share them with the world. It is the media’s perception that is skewed rather than the images themselves.
Nearly all the controversy surrounding Sally Mann’s photographs has to do with their raw nature. The children are shown growing up on a farm, which involves things like them being naked or in private situations such as wetting their bed. Although these situations are something all adults were at one time faced with, they still criticize the photographs as ‘pornographic’ or ‘too revealing’. I believe what separates art from erotica is the intent of the photographer and what they plan to do with the images they are making. It is clear that Mann's intent is to express herself and her children growing up, as she has stated on multiple occasions, “Out of a conviction that my lens should remain open to the full scope of their childhood, and with the willing, creative participation of everyone involved, I photographed their triumphs, confusion, harmony and isolation, as well as the hardships that tend to befall children — bruises, vomit, bloody noses, wet beds — all of it.” Sally Mann was clearly trying to show the lives of her children in an honest manner. Because of this she was completely justified in producing these photos for the world to see.
Sally Mann’s photographs were made when her children were all very young. Because of this, some argue that they were not able to give proper consent to be photographed. The 7-year-old child who made the decision to share these photos is not the same person they will be decades later. It is also argued that it is the older self that would have to deal with any consequences of these photographs. While these are valid arguments I think that because the photos were taken by the mother of the children, who obviously had their best interests in mind, the photos are okay to be distributed as artwork. It is not Sally Mann’s fault if her photos are interpreted as sexual; she had clear intentions to put the lives of her children into a photographic form and to make beautiful artwork.
Overall, I agree with Sally Mann’s decision to produce and publish the photographs of her children’s lives. Her pictures seem almost surreal in their ability to immerse the viewer in nature and family. I think the photos are something everyone can relate to and that may be part of the reason some react so strongly to their contents. Sally Mann had clear intentions for her photographs, but she simply cannot control how the media will perceive them. It is difficult to portray the purely primal innocence of children without sexual undertones in today’s digital and connected world, but I think Mann did the best she could and was successful in creating impactful images.
Works Cited
“The Disturbing Photography of Sally Mann.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 19
mann.html.
Mann, Sally. “Sally Mann's Exposure.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 16 Apr.
2015, www.nytimes.com/2015/04/19/magazine/the-cost-of-sally-manns-exposure.html.
Morrison, Blake. “Sally Mann: The Naked and the Dead.” The Guardian, Guardian News and
Media, 28 May 2010, www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2010/may/29/sally-mann-
naked-dead.
No comments:
Post a Comment