Michael Tyrrell - Sally Mann

We live in a world with no shortage of outrageous actions for people to become upset about, yet the public chooses to berate renowned photographer Sally Mann. After careful consideration of her work, Immediate Family, in its entirety, I have come to the conclusion that while the collection is intentionally controversial, the public response was blown out of proportion. According to the Independent, “…the photographs of the dead rotting corpses have provoked little comment. Not so the photos of the recorded lives of her three little kids”. The critiques of Mann’s other taboo collections pale in comparison to the criticisms drawn by her work in Immediate Family. To a degree, Mann is purposefully attempting to evoke a surprise factor in her audience using her children. This is made undoubtedly clear with the particular photograph of Mann’s young daughter holding a candy cigarette and looking out at the camera. At the time of the collections release in 1992, the dangers of tobacco were well known. Therefore, it is self-explanatory why it is disturbing for the audience to see a child with what appears to be a cigarette.  In addition, people tend to find offense in the nudity of Mann’s children, mostly pertaining to her daughters. These girls are younger than 10 years old and essentially depict the innocence of nakedness in their childhood, and in no case are they photographed in a sexually provocative way. My parents, like most people, have made photographs of myself as a naked child and because of the light-hearted context of these images; I find them to be completely acceptable. Critics of Mann’s work discuss the age of consent and how she abused her power as guardian of her children to exploit them. However, we must once again consider how the photographs reveal no sexual intentions, and therefore consent of their publications by a subject of eighteen years or older is simply unnecessary. Another important factor to consider before condemning Mann’s work is the culture surrounding life in rural Virginia and how these certain “controversies” are in fact a commonplace with most families. In this environment, children often ran around and played outside naked, suggesting that Mann is simply providing an authentic, uncensored look into the lives of southern Americans. After the release of Immediate Family, the Wall Street Journal reportedly censored the eyes, breasts, and genitals of Mann’s children using black bars before releasing the collection, with many other magazines refusing entirely (Woodward). Despite the original intentions of Mann’s uncensored photographs, her work often was altered to be acceptable for general audiences. Along with the nudity, people also found offense in images including bloody noses, black eyes, and other injuries. This was considered suggestive due to the vulnerable state of the children. I personally find Mann’s photographs to be well inside the realm of what is acceptable for a mother to display of her children. Injuries, nudity and many other themes conveyed in this particular collection are a large part of the childhood experience, and are simply an artistic perspective.

Works Cited:

1.     Anderson, Matthew Lee. “Is Nudity in Art Permissible?” Mere Orthodoxy | Christianity,   Politics, and Culture, 31 Mar. 2010, mereorthodoxy.com/is-nudity-in-art-permissible/.

2.     “Art or Abuse?: A Lament for Lost Innocence.” The Independent, Independent Digital   News and Media, 23 Oct. 2011, www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/features/art-or-abuse-a-lament-for-lost-innocence-   2078397.html.

3.     Woodward, Richard B. “The Disturbing Photography of Sally Mann.” The New York     Times, The New York Times, 19 Jan. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2015/04/19/magazine/the-disturbing-photography-of-sally-mann.html.