Ashley Murch-Sally Mann

Sally Mann was one of the first ever extremely influential female photographers. Famous for her photographs of her children, those picture were raw, real and controversial to many. Causing an uproar and the question of if these pictures were wrong or not. I personally feel Sally Mann did nothing wrong, and her work is pure art. In fact, Sally Mann has always been my favorite photographer because how real, raw and pure her pictures are. The world looks at nudity as something highly inappropriate because it automatically associated with sex. Sally Mann’s main backlash was the fact that she had pictures of her children nude. In reality she was just capturing her children as they went on with their lives, in such a natural state. Brian Yoder asked someone people about their views on nude art and some quotes were “I cant show my kids this” and “Nude means sex”(1). Sally Mann did not looks at her own children as sexual beings. Mann said when she was 17 her father gave her a camera and told her the only things worth photographing were love, death and whimsy(2). So her photographs were exactly that, pictures of her loved ones, naturally as they went through life. When she sat down to photograph she did not say let me take nude, sexual pictures of my children, instead she said let me just photograph my children. Her intent was in no such way in a harmful or sexual way. Just pure. “For years I shot the under appreciated and extraordinary domestic scenes of any mother’s life with the point-and-shoot” Mann says when talking about her work (3). This quote just continues the idea that her photos weren't created to be some pornographic nature, but the art of family, children and love. She made art for herself, not to gain fame. Till this day through all the backlash and hate when Mann was asked if she would do it again she says ““Yes. Yes, and yes, resoundingly, absolutely.” (4) Overall in my personal opinion Sally Mann is an amazing artist. Her work is amazing to me, I find it so unique. She was an artist who didn't just hop onto a bandwagon of that time, she didn't create what the people wanted but what she wanted. Her photos were real and raw, no set-ups. This to me makes her art so much more beautiful ,because she was simply just capturing what she finds as the beauty in her life.

1. https://artrenewal.org/Article/Title/nudity-in-art-a-virtue-or-vice
2. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/model-family-76926283/
3. https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-sally-mann-s-photographs-children-viewers-uncomfortable
4. https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/my-critics-were-in-some-measure-correct-sally-mann-admits-in-memoir/2015/05/08/0b3738f2-f584-11e4-bcc4-e8141e5eb0c9_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.fedcb1e9d422

Mason Hartley - Sally Mann

     Sally Mann is a professional photographer from Lexington, Virginia.  Her style was highly criticized by the public.  Her works included photographs of her children being kids in their natural setting. However, in most of these pictures her kids were naked.  With some pictures more revealing than others, people thought that it was wrong for Sally Mann to publicly reveal images of her naked kids.
    
     I think that Sally Mann has the freedom to do her own art as she pleases.  I also think that as long as her kids give their consent to the publicity of the photos they are in she has every right to do so.  However, I don’t understand why you would want to publicize your kids in that way.  The world we live in, and even back then, is very sick and twisted and full of perverted people who don’t look at these photographs with innocence. 

     Sally man was not in the wrong, however, when it comes to legal issues.  Moral concepts, however, that’s when the discussion becomes more dynamic and complex.


                                                                       Works Cited:


“Sally Mann.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 5 Aug. 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Mann.

“Sally Mann.” Self-Portrait with Dog by Constantin Brancusi on Artnet, Sotheby's London, www.artnet.com/artists/sally-mann/.

“ABOUT.” Sally Mann, www.sallymann.com/new-page/.

Emma Kollmar - Sally Mann

I think Sally Mann was in the right when she took nude photos of her children. It is argued that these pictures are pornographic, but Mann was just documenting her children’s lives. In the summer they lived on a secluded farm where no one else could be found for five miles. This is where Mann did most of her photographing of her children. The children spent their days swimming in the lake so there was no reason for them to wear clothes. Mann was just taking pictures of her children as they were having fun and living their lives. These were not meant to be pornographic pictures. Children enjoying their summer without clothes on should not be turned into something sexual. There is nothing sexual about children, so photos of them naked shouldn’t be a

problem (npr).

Another issue some have with Mann’s Immediate Family photos is that she was exploiting her children by displaying these photos and letting the public view them. But, the children were fine with the pictures. Mann had her children’s consent when showing these pictures. She always made sure they were ok with it. The children didn’t mind nude photos of themselves being on display because that is their natural state. There is nothing sexual about these pictures. At galleries, the Mann children were unphased by people viewing photographs of them. Jessie happily answered curious people’s questions, while Emmett casually boasted about his expensive shoes (nytimes).

Mann explained what was really going on in some of her most controversial photos. In the photo “Virginia at Three” where her daughter Virginia is naked leaning against a bed with one hand on her hip and another on her nipple while her sister, Jessie, lays under the covers, was just a moment where Jessie was sick in bed and Virginia wanted to rub it in her face that she was healthy and powerful. It was just Virginia being a normal, pesky, little sister, not something sexual. Another one of her photos, “Rodney Plogger at 6:01” was controversial because a man who appears to not have pants on has his hands wrapped around Virginia’s bare stomach where she is standing between his legs. Mann took this picture because of the juxtaposition of their hands. The man, Rodney, had very large hands and Virginia’s were extremely small. Mann wanted to capture how Virginia was completely unphased by this. She still felt powerful (npr).

These are not sexual images and should not be seen as pornagraphic. Children’s bodies should not be seen as something sexual. This was not the intention of Mann when she made these photographs. Once her children hit puberty she didn’t photograph them nude anymore. She was not in the wrong when photographing her children nude. She was merely making images of her children playing and enjoying their summer by the lake (sdpb).

Works Cited

"The Disturbing Photography of Sally Mann." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia, 19 Jan. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2015/04/19/magazine/the-disturbing-photography-of-sally-mann.html.

"Making Art Out Of Bodies: Sally Mann Reflects On Life And Photography." NPR.org, 12 May 2015, www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=405937803?storyId=405937803.

"Making Art Out Of Bodies: Sally Mann Reflects On Life And Photography." SDPB Radio | Learn. Dream. Grow, 12 May 2015, listen.sdpb.org/post/making-art-out-bodies-sally-mann-reflects-life-and-photography.

Emma Kollmar - Final Lynda

 https://www.lynda.com/Photoshop-tutorials/Next-steps-final-selects/500663/572243-4.html?org=psu.edu

Eli Yudt Sally Mann

Sally Mann

Personally, I feel that Sally Mann was in the right by making the photographs and by publishing them the way she did. Some people say that her photos are ‘porn’ and she should have never photographed her children in the way she did, but I disagree with that. Merriam Webster defines pornography as “the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement”. Therefore, for something to classify as porn it has to intentionally be erotic and sexual, but that is clearly not the case in Sally Mann’s photos. Her images depict little girls doing kid things, dancing around, playing in the yard, or eating candy cigarettes. She also photographed her kids with nose bleeds and black eyes, documenting them as they experienced things all kids do. The images neither depict erotic behavior or are intended to be sexually appealing and therefore cannot be considered porn.  Her pictures are art because although some of them include nudity of prepubescent girls, they are only for aesthetic appeal. This makes her work hardly any different from roman art with nude boys or renaissance era art with nude women. Sally Mann used her own children in her photographs, as many mothers have naked pictures of their kids from when they were little. Also, she never forced it onto her kids and only photographed them if they were okay with it. The difference between her and most parents is that she actually published the photos she took of her children whereas most do not. Her town is in  a rural area with a unique culture. By publishing her photos she is sharing her culture in a way that can only be done by photographs. The only way publishing her work would not be okay is if her children did not want it to be done. They had no problem with it, however, and after the work was published they made a small fortune off of the prints that were ordered. In the end, her photographs were artwork and did not deserve the controversy that they received. All of the children were fine with the pictures being taken and everybody benefited from the publications Sally Mann made.

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/27/magazine/the-disturbing-photography-of-sally-mann.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/features/art-or-abuse-a-lament-for-lost-innocence-2078397.html

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pornography

Alexis Bucha- Sally Mann

In my opinion Sally Mann was in the wrong for photography her kids nude. Although her kids gave her consent and would not participate if they didn't want to. But taking pictures of kids naked is wrong. " The work is deliberately provocative, its aim is to question sexualized advertising images."
(Art or Abuse) She's not just taking pictures of her kids being kids, she is taking pictures of them naked and showing the word. Thats not right, kids naked should not be in a art gallery for the world to see. "The nudity of the children has caused many problems for many publications, including this one." (The Disturbing Photos of Sally Mann) The New York Times how hard times publications Manns work because of the reviews that people were giving it. People don't like to look at children that are naked, we like to look at kids having fun with cloths on. I get the fact that her kids ran around the house naked because they lived far away from people, but that doesn't give her the right to photograph them and publish them. Mann believes that it is her job to project her kids from all harm. (New York Times) Then why would she publish nude photos of her kids. That would bring so much harm to them. They will have to live with the fact that everyone has seen them naked. "Detractors who could not get past the fact that the children had little to no cloths on." (Bengal) People that would look at her photos would not get the messages that she was trying to tell, all they saw was photos of naked kids that looked sad. I don't believe in what Mann did. I think that if I was a mother I would not be able to take pictures of kids naked and published and be okay about it. There is a message behind all of her photos, but we tend to miss it because of what is going on in the photo. I believe that if Mann would just photographed her kids while clothed, more people would've go the message and not been so unhappy with her work.

































Work Cited:

“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.

“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.

Bengal, Rebecca. “After Sally Mann's Memoir, a New Look at Her Most Famous Photographs.” Vogue, Vogue, 1 Feb. 2017, www.vogue.com/article/sally-mann-immediate-family-reissue-memoir-hold-still.

Dan Kelly - Final Lynda

Sally Mann-Michael Ayi

Sally Mann is a very well-known female photographer in our modern era. She is known for her photographs of her family. In one of her recent projects, Immediate Family, Mann photographed pictures of her children, some of which her children were nude and doing obscene activities. Her children volunteered to pose for the pictures and she would not use any photos that the children did not want. Even with these standards, Mann received a lot of backlash for this photoshoot. Her photos were deemed pornographic. In my opinion, I felt like her work was to show the innocence of children and life in rural Virginia. Although her phots of her children were graphic, I feel she had the right to take these photos and present them.

The pictures of the children were done at the Mann’s farm. Living in that rural setting, being naked is very common and not frowned upon at all. Mann photographed her children in different poses in her farm. Many people argue that these photos were deemed “pornographic”. Although the children are nude, I do not believe that Mann’s intent or message was to show her children’s naked bodies for the pleasure of the viewers at all. I believe her main message was to show life on a farm as a young child. I also feel that she sees herself in her daughters as she takes these photos, as if it is her that is posing these pictures.

Some people say that Mann’s children did not have consent. People argue that years later that the children will face consequences of these photos or face extreme embarrassment. I think this is utter crap. These children are under Mann’s parental control. I think there are even laws that say what parents can do with photos of their children. People act like Mann was selling “nudes” of her children for money. I want to reiterate that I don’t believe her intent was to her children as “sexy” or meant to arouse sexual desire.

Works Cited

“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.

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.

     

Garrett Hollowell - Sally Mann

I think people rage way too much about Sally Mann's work. She was a mom who photographed her kids being kids and let them decide whether she could use the photos or not. It doesn't seem like she was exploiting her kids like critics say, she was involving them in her work, and what kid doesn't like to help out their parents and have fun at the same time. When she took pictures of her kids bruises, it's not like she was bruising them and photographing it, they'd just get hurt like farm kids tend to. So when people judge her and say that she shouldn't photograph hurt kids since they think it glorifies child abuse or some outlandish stretch like that, they seem to not understand that kids get hurt and she's just showing it. What really grinds my gears though is all these articles and critics saying that her work is pornographic and overly sexual and whatnot. She was a mom photographing her kids. The intimacy in the photos isn't sexual just cause they're nude, the intimacy is that between mother and child. Mann brought those kids into this world nude, so what if she wants some to make some innocent photos of them nude. It shows the connection and trust between family, not Sally exploiting her naked kids for fame. That isn't to say she gained nothing out of the photos, however. In 2001, she was awarded "America’s Best Photographer" by Time magazine. With this fame came even more backlash, but as time's marched on it seems as if more and more are accepting Mann's work. I think it has a lot to do with the progressive nature that the nation is moving in. And if what Eric said in class is true, which is that many art gallery goers were more conservative leaning back in the 90's, then it makes sense that as art has become more widespread and easy access more and more progressive thinkers would have something to say about Mann's photography. Honestly though, I think the perception of Mann's photos comes less down to the progressiveness of the viewer, and more so on just the overall maturity of the viewer. Unlike what people were saying when the photos first came out, where they believed that if you were ok with them than you were a pedo, I think it's pretty much the opposite. If you can handle simply seeing nudity without immediately sexualizing the subject, you're clearly much more mature than someone who sees a nipple and screams bloody murder. All in all, I think Sally Mann didn't cross any boundaries and that those who say otherwise need to grow up.

Citations

Cohen, Alina. “Why Sally Mann's Photographs of Her Children Can Still Make Viewers Uncomfortable.” Artsy, Artsy, 4 Jan. 2018, www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-sally-mann-s-photographs-children-viewers-uncomfortable.

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.

Ghorashi, Hannah. “'I Was Blinded By The Controversy': Sally Mann Publishes An Excerpt From Her Forthcoming Memoir -.” ARTnews, 17 Apr. 2015, www.artnews.com/2015/04/17/i-was-blinded-by-the-controversy-sally-mann-publishes-an-excerpt-from-her-forthcoming-memoir/.

Mason Hartley - Lynda

Creative Photography Techniques Tutorial Certificate:

 

Liz Skinner - Sally Mann

Sally Mann is a woman who created her own story through photographs that depict her children growing up from the years of 1984-1991 within a title called Immediate Family. Mann created these photos of her children as they grew up on their family farm. The shocking thing about this group of photos is that in most of them her children are naked or are involved risque events. Many people are split right down the middle to if  they believe her photos are good or bad depictions for her children.

Mann would take photos of her children just playing and going throughout their day. Some of the photos Mann took would present the children getting down and dirty like normal kids would do and others would depict the children acting as adults like the one photos of Mann's daughter holding a candy cigarette and standing with her arms crossed.

I believe Sally Mann was in the right for photographing her own kids and when they are naked. I believe this because Mann was doing so on her families privately owned farm that the kids ran around naked anyways. This is okay because the kids were already running around naked not like Mann would let them do it public or like she asked them to take their clothes off. I also believe she was in the right because she would not take the photos if the kids did not want her to. She respects their privacy and I think that’s one of the biggest reasons as to why Mann was okay for taking the children’s photos when nude because she would respect and would not take them if the children did not agree. I also believe this because when Sally’s work was postered in the Houk Friedman Gallery, her kids joined along to view the beautiful masterpieces and were not showing any signs of feeling uncomfortable with the photos. As the New York Times says, “All three seemed unconcerned by the fact that on the surrounding white walls they could be examined, up close, totally nude.” As the quote says, all of the children went about the exhibit without showing signs of not being okay with the photos.

As another magazine Vogue says “Did I wish I could snatch them back and bundle them back into the film boxes and never have put them out? Not really.” Looking at Immediate Family again now, I am glad. Not because that means I have pictures of her children, but because that means I have a picture of myself.” Mann creates her work for herself and her children, she creates these pieces for the family to look back and remember the memories and also depict a time of life as they grew up

Overall, in my own believing i think that since the children have not spoken bad, were able to say not to photograph themselves and was on private property I believe that Mann is in the right for have taken these risque photographs of her children.

Works cited

“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.

Bengal, Rebecca. “After Sally Mann's Memoir, a New Look at Her Most Famous Photographs.” Vogue, Vogue, 1 Feb. 2017, www.vogue.com/article/sally-mann-immediate-family-reissue-memoir-hold-still.