# Sally Mann great photographer or glorified child pornographer?



## blackrose89

I've heard this both ways. Curious what people here think of her work.

Here is probably her most controversial work 

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en...urce=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=35MCT_-HLIro2QXw5pyeAg

From my experience it seems to be two extremes, people either love her work or find it offensive.


----------



## cgipson1

Nudity is not porn.. (except in the minds of some religious nuts).  Naked children presented in their daily lives, I have no problem with.. as long as it is done tastefully. 

I find something like the Jon Benet fiasco far more disgusting.. when a young girl is made up to look much older, and to act much older also.

Unfortunately in our society, we have enough sick people that prey on children.. that it makes the wisdom of either nudity or child beauty pageants questionable.


----------



## Natalie

I would say her photos definitely aren't pornography... The children aren't engaged in sexual activities or being portrayed in an overtly sexual manner, so she can't be called a pornographer any more than an artist working with non-sexual adult nudes could be. There is a definite double standard when it comes to gender with this sort of photography though; just imagine if a man was trying to do the same sort of thing, everyone would go completely nuts.


----------



## mwcfarms

Very accomplished photographer regardless. Some people's opinion may differ and thats ok.


----------



## ann

Many years ago, it was no big thing for children to be naked and have their picture taken. Lots of people would be in jail for babies on bear rugs:er:

Even Jock Sturges nudes on the beach in France are bland imho and he took a terrible hit about them.

These days people are "crazy"  and cameras are the new guns. 

Her work does seem to be very polarizing but I won't call it porn.  

I happened to like her work. 

The history of photography is full of polarizing people, art seems to do that far more than some realize.
We could list a whole slew of folks that many on this site and others like it don't understand, get or approve of the work. My feeling is that they aren't trained photographers, basically serious amateurs who have limited understanding of photography as an art form. This doesn't mean they shouldn't have an opinion, but many times that opinion is based on limited knowledge.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## ann

If you haven't seen it , rent What Remains from Netflex, very en lighting video about her, her family and the work.


----------



## cgipson1

ann said:


> If you haven't seen it , rent What Remains from Netflex, very en lighting video about her, her family and the work.



Ann.. thanks.. will check that out!


----------



## Trever1t

I saw a naked kid in the tub on America's Funniest Home Videos yesterday and I see no porn in this artist's port. I do see images designed to invoke emotion, well done at that!


----------



## jwbryson1

I may be the minority here, but nudity on a child from the waist up (bathtubs, beach, etc.), seems okay to me. These images that have nude young girls with full frontal nudity make me sick and I think are probably viewed more often by pedophiles than by "accepting" adults for their "artistic" content.   Just my $0.02.


----------



## ann

jwbryson1 said:


> I may be the minority here, but nudity on a child from the waist up (bathtubs, beach, etc.), seems okay to me. These images that have nude young girls with full frontal nudity make me sick and I think are probably viewed more often by pedophiles than by "accepting" adults for their "artistic" content.   Just my $0.02.



I do believe that pedophiles seek these images out, but that is not the fault or the intent of the photographer (at least not the ones I am talking about)

Different intent, different world.


----------



## paigew

I do not think that her work is pornography or anywhere close to it. Anyone who has a child knows kids love to be naked, and her photos just capture that. I am sure though as mentioned pedophiles do seek these images  There is no way to prevent sickos from getting off on what pleases them.


----------



## jwbryson1

ann said:


> I do believe that pedophiles seek these images out, but that is not the fault of the photographer



Sorry, I have to respectfully disagree.  That's like saying that a person who drives drunk and kills another motorist is not at fault for driving drunk because they didn't intend to hit the other person.  If you put these images out there, then you are de facto "at fault."  You may choose to disagree.

I could not view these images.  Sorry.  Not my cup of tea.


----------



## unpopular

I am not sure if pornography is the right word, but I don't know if the nudity is appropriate, either. 


Take for example these images:


fans of sally mann - susannacole: Big Burger by Sally Mann
http://www.theconveniencestore.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/prof_11_sally_mann_pose-775091.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MWiLOKJU3...lly-mann-immediate-family-3.jpg&#8232;&#8232;

Why are the children nude, why are they posed the way that they are, what does this say about childhood, what does this say about the subjects themselves? At a fairly young age, around six, children begin to have a sense of privacy. Even my three year old son doesn't particularly like having his private parts cleaned, he is beginning to develop a healthy sense of privacy.

A 10 year old girl would not normally sit at the table topless. An eight year old boy would not be seen "hanging out" with his nude sisters, a seven year old girl wouldn't normally play about half naked.

These are not family pictures brought out to embarrass the fiancé of our daughters, or looked over as our son builds his courage to meet his date before prom. They serve no purpose except to hold these kinds of discussions about pornography and art - perhaps not pornographic the children are not being exploited for primarily sexual motivations, but nonetheless, the children are being exploited.


----------



## cgipson1

unpopular said:


> At a fairly young age, around six, children begin to have a sense of privacy.
> .



The are emulating Mom and Dad, and friends, and teachers....  what they are being taught! 

In other cultures, that don't have the silly religion based bias's that we have in the US.. this is not the case. Nudity is accepted in some cultures for what it is.. just nudity.... but it takes the narrow minded to take something natural and beautiful, and make it dirty and "sinful"!


----------



## Proteus617

jwbryson1 said:


> Sorry, I have to respectfully disagree.  That's like saying that a person who drives drunk and kills another motorist is not at fault for driving drunk because they didn't intend to hit the other person.  If you put these images out there, then you are de facto "at fault."  You may choose to disagree.



Faulty reasoning there.  Check out Maxfield Parrish's Daybreak.  An image that includes a very young nude girl with a somewhat erotic subtext.  One could make the argument that it would appeal to a pedophile.  By your definition, Parrish was a pornographer and the painting and all subsequent prints are pornographic.  My grandmother had a very nice print of "Daybreak" that hung on her wall for 50 years.  According to Wikipedia, it's one of the most popular art prints of the 20th century and hung in an estimated 1 in 4 American homes.


----------



## unpopular

cgipson1 said:


> In other cultures, that don't have the silly religion based bias's that we have in the US.. this is not the case. Nudity is accepted in some cultures for what it is.. just nudity.... but it takes the narrow minded to take something natural and beautiful, and make it dirty and "sinful"!




Yep. And Mann is an American photographer photographing American children with American cultural values.

But these are not documenting culture, they're about questioning it and pushing societal boundaries in the most sophomoric means possible.

If she were from some other culture (which one is rarely discussed) where preteen children frolic about in the nude for no particular environmental reason that would be another issue. But she isn't, and she knows this. 

It's not porn, but it is cheap. It's shock rock art. It's Alice cooper biting heads off chickens. It's Marilyn Manson in Coma White.


----------



## blackrose89

I think this one is probably the most questionable. If she sees her children's nakedness as innocence, why are her nipples covered?http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_1xUdJ-1BnqE/R5HkE68Oi7I/AAAAAAAAAHE/rLag_o6LShA/s320/mann.jpg


----------



## ann

There are several things at play here. First her children have been photograph there whole lives, and in fact one of the girls is now a model and loves posing and she herself (meaning Sally) indicates the success of these images is the result of the power of their personalities.

Secondly they grew up on a farm and in a time when the culture was much different and it wasn't unusual for children be to naked. .  I serious doubt she (Sally) ever intended that these years would considered porno

There are other photographers who have created a lot more waves than Sally, consider Shelby Adams, Cindy Sherman and of course Diane Arbus.

For instance, I had an aunt who used to drive a tractor , plowing the fields with as little clothing on as possible, and this was as an adult. I mean topless.


----------



## c.cloudwalker

OMG!

If there is one thing I don't miss about the US *this* is it. Of all countries I've known, we are the only one that manages to mix extreme sexual obsession with extreme prudishness. We need to get right in our heads on the one side so that we have a chance to get right on the other.

I love Sally Mann as a photographer. Since I haven't watched the movie Ann mentions (not for the first time, btw) I don't know if SM was trying to push the envelope or was just a woman of her time. I can't find this movie here.

But I can tell you one thing for sure. I have been trying to push back the limits because I hate them just as much as any other kind of stupidity. This hate started some 25 years ago when a french friend came to spend the summer with her daughter.

We registered her daughter in a day camp for a few weeks so we could go and shoot during the day. Then came the swimming pool day and my friend took her daughter there, dropped her off with her bag and we went shooting.

You should have seen the uproar when we went and picked up this kid. "Your kid's swimming suit doesn't have a top!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

My friend was like: "She is 8 y.o., she has nothing on top. Why does she need a top?" Since I didn't get it either, I couldn't help. Let's just say we had to find another day camp after buying a suitable swimming suit 

Absolutely ridiculous.

And, to respond to some of the posts, yes, it is a cultural thing. But when there is something in my culture I don't like I fight it. And this is one thing I find ridiculous.


I'll leave you with two thoughts: 1/  In her book "C*nt" Inga Muscio mentions the fact that the more sexually repressed a country is and the more crimes are comitted against women. The US has the most crimes against women of any of the first world countries.

2/ I worry quite a lot about the people who have a problem with Sally Mann's photos. Do they have a problem with their own feelings?


----------



## tirediron

I have seen the movie Ann referred to, as well as another Sally Mann documentary.  She was a very skilled photographer, with a slightly unusual (for the US at least) outlook on life.  I don't see this images as pornographic at all; some are of questionable good taste IMO, but I think her real intent (and this is based mostly on "reading between the lines" from her bio documentary,  was simply to push people's buttons.  Seems to me, she did a good job!


----------



## unpopular

But many of these are _posed, _and posed in a very specific way.they are not candid photos of children being children who happen to be naked children.

They are not posed as _children _would pose and behave, these images do not instill innocence.



c.cloudwalker said:


> OMG!
> If there is one thing I don't miss about the US *this* is it. Of all countries I've known, we are the only one that manages to mix extreme sexual obsession with extreme prudishness. We need to get right in our heads on the one side so that we have a chance to get right on the other.


----------



## c.cloudwalker

Btw, our attitude in the US allowed me to make a few bucks with another ridiculous situation.

I had this album that someone offered me a good deal of money for. I started looking around wondering why. It turned out this particular version of the album was getting top dollars in the US because the cover had been banned there 

Guess what? Everytime I was in Europe I bought every copies I could get my hands on and sold them back in the US.

This is the album:

333 images (+111): Virgin Killer (album cover), Scorpions, 1976 The...

As you will notice, you can't even see the girl's sex. Pretty poor shot for a pervert. But the cheapest copy I sold went for $300.


----------



## ann

unpopular said:


> But many of these are _posed, _and posed in a very specific way.they are not candid photos of children being children who happen to be naked children.
> 
> They are not posed as _children _would pose and behave, these images do not instill innocence.
> 
> 
> 
> c.cloudwalker said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!
> If there is one thing I don't miss about the US *this* is it. Of all countries I've known, we are the only one that manages to mix extreme sexual obsession with extreme prudishness. We need to get right in our heads on the one side so that we have a chance to get right on the other.
Click to expand...


Who said they weren't posed? 

Some of the poses came from the children themselves. Have you never seen children play dress up  (or maybe they don't do that anymore )

I have had students print photos of their children, that are along the same lines and they would be shocked to think anyone would think they are making images that would be consider porno.


----------



## jwbryson1

Proteus617 said:


> *By your definition*, Parrish was a pornographer and the painting and all subsequent prints are pornographic.



Where did I say that this is pornography?  You have misquoted me.



Proteus617 said:


> My grandmother had a very nice print of "Daybreak" that hung on her wall for 50 years.  According to Wikipedia, it's one of the most popular art prints of the 20th century and hung in an estimated 1 in 4 American homes.



What does this have to do with anything?


----------



## unpopular

If they were not posed, then they were selected to push social boundaries. I whole heartedly disagree that they are pornographic, but they are tasteless, tactless and appeal only to question our social norms - in this way I feel these images do exploit children.

The exploitive quality is not sexual in nature, but exploitive none the less.


----------



## jwbryson1

unpopular said:


> But many of these are _posed, _and posed in a very specific way.they are not candid photos of children being children who happen to be naked children.
> 
> They are not posed as _children _would pose and behave, these images do not instill innocence.



I have to agree with this.


----------



## paigew

c.cloudwalker said:


> Btw, our attitude in the US allowed me to make a few bucks with another ridiculous situation.
> 
> I had this album that someone offered me a good deal of money for. I started looking around wondering why. It turned out this particular version of the album was getting top dollars in the US because the cover had been banned there
> 
> Guess what? Everytime I was in Europe I bought every copies I could get my hands on and sold them back in the US.
> 
> This is the album:
> 
> 333 images (+111): Virgin Killer (album cover), Scorpions, 1976 The...
> 
> As you will notice, you can't even see the girl's sex. Pretty poor shot for a pervert. But the cheapest copy I sold went for $300.



wow! that shot is pretty inappropriate. I wouldn't want my daughter posed that way, thats for sure. Looking at more of her photographs my opinion has changed a little. I do not think it is pornography, but yes, some photos are inappropriate. 

I am all for nakedness and being natural and I wouldn't think twice if I saw a kid at a pool naked...heck, it would probably be my kid . But yes, posing them in suggestive ways seems to be 'pushing the limit'. A limit that perhaps shouldn't be pushed with children.


----------



## jwbryson1

paigew said:


> I am all for nakedness and being natural and I wouldn't think twice if I saw a kid at a pool naked



I agree with Paige on this one.  It's not just the nudity that's an issue for me.  It's the nudity of the children, combined with the nude adults (at least on the one that blackrose posted).  But it's also the way these kids are posed with sultry gazes at the camera.  You can't convince me that's not done intentionally to sexualize the pose in some way.  Hypersexualized kids are not a good thing.  Period.  End of discussion.   Of course, the media and the "MTV Culture" in this country would prefer to have it otherwise because sex sells.  Hyperliberalization of this country will be our downfall.  The liberal mind is truly a mental disorder.


----------



## cgipson1

paigew said:


> c.cloudwalker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Btw, our attitude in the US allowed me to make a few bucks with another ridiculous situation.
> 
> I had this album that someone offered me a good deal of money for. I started looking around wondering why. It turned out this particular version of the album was getting top dollars in the US because the cover had been banned there
> 
> Guess what? Everytime I was in Europe I bought every copies I could get my hands on and sold them back in the US.
> 
> This is the album:
> 
> 333 images (+111): Virgin Killer (album cover), Scorpions, 1976 The...
> 
> As you will notice, you can't even see the girl's sex. Pretty poor shot for a pervert. But the cheapest copy I sold went for $300.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wow! that shot is pretty inappropriate. I wouldn't want my daughter posed that way, thats for sure. Looking at more of her photographs my opinion has changed a little. I do not think it is pornography, but yes, some photos are inappropriate.
> 
> I am all for nakedness and being natural and I wouldn't think twice if I saw a kid at a pool naked...heck, it would probably be my kid . But yes, posing them in suggestive ways seems to be 'pushing the limit'. A limit that perhaps shouldn't be pushed with children.
Click to expand...


Is it any worse than putting small girls in evening dresses... and putting heavy makeup on them, and teaching them to walk down a stage in an adult manner? Many pervs would find this more provocative than just nudity!


----------



## cgipson1

jwbryson1 said:


> ann said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe that pedophiles seek these images out, but that is not the fault of the photographer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I have to respectfully disagree.  That's like saying that a person who drives drunk and kills another motorist is not at fault for driving drunk because they didn't intend to hit the other person.  If you put these images out there, then you are de facto "at fault."  You may choose to disagree.
> 
> I could not view these images.  Sorry.  Not my cup of tea.
Click to expand...


So it is the artist's fault that there are PERVS out there? Is it the gun manufacturers fault, that their products are used by psychos to kill people ? Is is Ford's fault when some moron in an F250 run through a School Zone and kills someone?


----------



## paigew

cgipson1 said:


> paigew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> c.cloudwalker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Btw, our attitude in the US allowed me to make a few bucks with another ridiculous situation.
> 
> I had this album that someone offered me a good deal of money for. I started looking around wondering why. It turned out this particular version of the album was getting top dollars in the US because the cover had been banned there
> 
> Guess what? Everytime I was in Europe I bought every copies I could get my hands on and sold them back in the US.
> 
> This is the album:
> 
> 333 images (+111): Virgin Killer (album cover), Scorpions, 1976 The...
> 
> As you will notice, you can't even see the girl's sex. Pretty poor shot for a pervert. But the cheapest copy I sold went for $300.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wow! that shot is pretty inappropriate. I wouldn't want my daughter posed that way, thats for sure. Looking at more of her photographs my opinion has changed a little. I do not think it is pornography, but yes, some photos are inappropriate.
> 
> I am all for nakedness and being natural and I wouldn't think twice if I saw a kid at a pool naked...heck, it would probably be my kid . But yes, posing them in suggestive ways seems to be 'pushing the limit'. A limit that perhaps shouldn't be pushed with children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it any worse than putting small girls in evening dresses... and putting heavy makeup on them, and teaching them to walk down a stage in an adult manner? Many pervs would find this more provocative than just nudity!
Click to expand...


Funny you should say this, as I was thinking about responding on how 'pageants' sexualize young girls far more than the photos do.


----------



## cgipson1

paigew said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paigew said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow! that shot is pretty inappropriate. I wouldn't want my daughter posed that way, thats for sure. Looking at more of her photographs my opinion has changed a little. I do not think it is pornography, but yes, some photos are inappropriate.
> 
> I am all for nakedness and being natural and I wouldn't think twice if I saw a kid at a pool naked...heck, it would probably be my kid . But yes, posing them in suggestive ways seems to be 'pushing the limit'. A limit that perhaps shouldn't be pushed with children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it any worse than putting small girls in evening dresses... and putting heavy makeup on them, and teaching them to walk down a stage in an adult manner? Many pervs would find this more provocative than just nudity!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny you should say this, as I was thinking about responding on how 'pageants' sexualize young girls far more than the photos do.
Click to expand...


Great minds, and all that.. right?  lol!


----------



## c.cloudwalker

paigew said:


> wow! that shot is pretty inappropriate.



WHY?

When this album came out, I was seeing a lot more little sexes of children on the beaches of Europe than you see in this photo because a lot of the kids that age went around nude on the beaches. So, when I saw the cover, my reaction was "cool shot" and nothing more. 

Have you ever thought about the fact that your attitude may be part of the problem? By making such a big deal out of it you may very well make the pervs more interested. Do you know that more alcohol was consumed per person during the prohibition years than at any other time in the history of the US?

Make it illegal, more people want it. Make it taboo, more people want it.



For what it's worth: my last few years in the US I rode with a motorcycle club that provided security for abused kids going through the court system so, trust me, I don't have any love for perverts and other kids abusers.


----------



## unpopular

paigew said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paigew said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow! that shot is pretty inappropriate. I wouldn't want my daughter posed that way, thats for sure. Looking at more of her photographs my opinion has changed a little. I do not think it is pornography, but yes, some photos are inappropriate.
> 
> I am all for nakedness and being natural and I wouldn't think twice if I saw a kid at a pool naked...heck, it would probably be my kid . But yes, posing them in suggestive ways seems to be 'pushing the limit'. A limit that perhaps shouldn't be pushed with children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it any worse than putting small girls in evening dresses... and putting heavy makeup on them, and teaching them to walk down a stage in an adult manner? Many pervs would find this more provocative than just nudity!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny you should say this, as I was thinking about responding on how 'pageants' sexualize young girls far more than the photos do.
Click to expand...


I think pageants more dehumanize the girls than sexualize them, turning them into objects.


----------



## Natalie

Nah, those pageants definitely sexualize little girls (along with dehumanizing them). Putting fake boobs, gaudy makeup and skimpy/provocative clothing on small children is definitely sexualizing them.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vt0ABwgcs20/Tm4Ea9qv3hI/AAAAAAAAEVE/HJTds6Uey0E/s1600/ridiculous.png

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_r3b38fRVAtg/TS9uzrvr6hI/AAAAAAAAAZY/30xRQ6NHPYI/s1600/toddlers+tiaras.jpg

Still not pornography, but much more inappropriate than Sally Mann's nude photos.


----------



## ann

jwbryson1 said:


> paigew said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am all for nakedness and being natural and I wouldn't think twice if I saw a kid at a pool naked
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The liberal mind is truly a mental disorder.
Click to expand...


Surely you jest.


----------



## unpopular

wait. fake boobs??

that _is_ sick.


----------



## unpopular

jwbryson1 said:


> The liberal mind is truly a mental disorder.






jwbryson1 said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> But many of these are posed, and posed in a very specific way.they are not candid photos of children being children who happen to be naked children.
> 
> 
> They are not posed as children would pose and behave, these images do not instill innocence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to agree with this.
Click to expand...



HA! You agree with a communist!


----------



## Overread

unpopular said:


> wait. fake boobs??
> 
> that _is_ sick.



I recall reading or watching a short bit on the TV (it was around a year ago) about how with some of these child model/beauty competitions the most competative parents would actually have plastic surgery performed on their children in order to improve their scores and that this kind of medical adjustment (within those circles) was not considered abnormal. 
From what I recall it wasn't just nip/tucks but also heading toward adding silicone to certain areas (as far as I recall - I might be wrong on the specifics)


----------



## paigew

c.cloudwalker said:


> paigew said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow! that shot is pretty inappropriate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHY?
Click to expand...


You have to be kidding me; seriously, you can't see how this would/could be inappropriate? Lets pretend the broken glass or whatever isn't there...If it was a grown woman it would be x rated. That pose is a sexual pose. Just because its a child doesn't make it un-sexual. The photo was done to make a statement, push buttons, whatever.  Children weren't meant to be sexual.



> When this album came out, I was seeing a lot more little sexes of children on the beaches of Europe than you see in this photo because a lot of the kids that age went around nude on the beaches. So, when I saw the cover, my reaction was "cool shot" and nothing more.
> 
> Have you ever thought about the fact that your attitude may be part of the problem? By making such a big deal out of it you may very well make the pervs more interested. Do you know that more alcohol was consumed per person during the prohibition years than at any other time in the history of the US?
> 
> Make it illegal, more people want it. Make it taboo, more people want it.



It is sad that a photo of me breastfeeding my son can be flagged on fb for being inappropriate, yet a naked young girl (as in that album cover) sitting back in a sultry/sexual pose with only a crack covering her most private parts is seen as totally acceptable. I do not think my attitude is a problem. I am a hippie and totally into being natural. But that is not natural. I do not think bodies should be hidden or that nakedness is shameful. But asking a child to open his/her legs like that for the camera (POSING) is not appropriate. Naked kid photos should convey childlike feelings/innocence, not sex.

And what does prohibition have to do with naked children?


----------



## mwcfarms

This is a topic that falls under the politics, religion no-no in my opinion. Too many people with different opinions and strong minds leads to run around arguments. Get out there and shoot some pictures people!


----------



## unpopular

mwcfarms said:


> This is a topic that falls under the politics, religion no-no in my opinion. Too many people with different opinions and strong minds leads to run around arguments. Get out there and shoot some pictures people!



nope. these topics are the very fundamentals of contemporary art. if you're not thinking about art you're just making snapshots.


----------



## mwcfarms

I think you missed my point unpopular.


----------



## MTVision

Natalie said:
			
		

> Nah, those pageants definitely sexualize little girls (along with dehumanizing them). Putting fake boobs, gaudy makeup and skimpy/provocative clothing on small children is definitely sexualizing them.
> 
> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vt0ABwgcs20/Tm4Ea9qv3hI/AAAAAAAAEVE/HJTds6Uey0E/s1600/ridiculous.png
> 
> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_r3b38fRVAtg/TS9uzrvr6hI/AAAAAAAAAZY/30xRQ6NHPYI/s1600/toddlers%2Btiaras.jpg
> 
> Still not pornography, but much more inappropriate than Sally Mann's nude photos.



Like that TV show Toddlers and Tiaras! Don't think it's appropriate for young young girls to dress up like Daisy Duke or Julia Roberts hooker character in Pretty Women!


----------



## cgipson1

mwcfarms said:


> This is a topic that falls under the politics, religion no-no in my opinion. Too many people with different opinions and strong minds leads to run around arguments. Get out there and shoot some pictures people!



  Neither Nudity or ART should ever fall under either Religion or Politics.. that is the problem. Just as Religion should never be bedfellows with Politics.... 

as Cloudwalker and I pointed out.. the narrow minded outlook on Nudity is usually based on religious propaganda that seems be integrated into many American's from childhood on. It is almost strictly an American viewpoint.. although many Islamic countries have similar taboos.. again, based on religion, rather then logic and free thought. (Cloudwalker.. I apologize if that is not what you meant!)


----------



## unpopular

It is not the nudity that is the problem, it's how the nudity is being presented.

The *only* things which these images:

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=naked+baby+in+bathtub&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=gYADT4KpBqGgiALe6OmCDQ&biw=1081&bih=802&sei=hYADT5rmF4TYiALGxbytDg

and the majority of these images:

http://www.google.com/search?client...Q&biw=1081&bih=802&sei=ZYADT4CHJsOWiQK81ti-Dg

have in common is the fact that both contain nude children.


----------



## MTVision

cgipson1 said:
			
		

> Neither Nudity or ART should ever fall under either Religion or Politics.. that is the problem. Just as Religion should never be bedfellows with Politics....
> 
> as Cloudwalker and I pointed out.. the narrow minded outlook on Nudity is usually based on religious propaganda that seems be integrated into many American's from childhood on. It is almost strictly an American viewpoint.. although many Islamic countries have similar taboos.. again, based on religion, rather then logic and free thought. (Cloudwalker.. I apologize if that is not what you meant!)



Very true. My boyfriend tried to tell me that nude pictures of my 2yo is considered child pornography. It's sad. 

I worked at a photo lab in 1999 and some women was reported because she took picturess of her naked kids running through wildflowers. Some lady recently was reported by Walgreens for child pornography. Everything was eventually dropped but her kid was even removed from the home! How sad is it that we can't take pictures of our own children?

A pedophile is going to be attracted to kids no matter if they are naked or in clothes. 

Paige - the US still isn't comfortable with breastfeeding. Your photo probably got flagged because someone on your friends list reported it. I have pictures like that on my FB. People in the US also think its wrong/gross when you breastfeeding past 6 months. In every other country the recommended minimum amount of time for breastfeeding is 2years.


----------



## unpopular

MTVision said:


> Paige - the US still isn't comfortable with breastfeeding. Your photo probably got flagged because someone on your friends list reported it. I have pictures like that on my FB. People in the US also think its wrong/gross when you breastfeeding past 6 months. In every other country the recommended minimum amount of time for breastfeeding is 2years.



I think most americans are comfortable with breastfeeding, but those who are not are extremely obnoxious about it.

But maybe that's just my disturbed liberal brain talking again.


----------



## cgipson1

MTVision said:


> Paige - the US still isn't comfortable with breastfeeding. Your photo probably got flagged because someone on your friends list reported it. I have pictures like that on my FB. People in the US also think its wrong/gross when you breastfeeding past 6 months. In every other country the recommended minimum amount of time for breastfeeding is 2years.



Make for MUCH healthier and happy children!


----------



## cgipson1

unpopular said:


> MTVision said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paige - the US still isn't comfortable with breastfeeding. Your photo probably got flagged because someone on your friends list reported it. I have pictures like that on my FB. People in the US also think its wrong/gross when you breastfeeding past 6 months. In every other country the recommended minimum amount of time for breastfeeding is 2years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think most americans are comfortable with breastfeeding, but those who are not are extremely obnoxious about it.
> 
> But maybe that's just my disturbed liberal brain talking again.
Click to expand...


Dont get me started! (lol... about the obnoxious nosy people... not your disturbed brain!)


----------



## unpopular

I know you're a communist sympathizer, gipson. no need for clarification.


----------



## cgipson1

unpopular said:


> I know you're a communist sympathizer, gipson. no need for clarification.



hahaha... NOT! I think Unpopular will laugh his butt off at this! Merely an agnostic free thinker...

Edit.. Oops.. I goofed! I thought someone else posted that... not our local Anarchist!


----------



## jowensphoto

jwbryson1 said:


> ann said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe that pedophiles seek these images out, but that is not the fault of the photographer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I have to respectfully disagree.  That's like saying that a person who drives drunk and kills another motorist is not at fault for driving drunk because they didn't intend to hit the other person.  If you put these images out there, then you are de facto "at fault."  You may choose to disagree.
> 
> I could not view these images.  Sorry.  Not my cup of tea.
Click to expand...


I agree with what you're getting at; it's enabling. As a mother would not want completely nude photos of my daughter on the internet or printed.


----------



## TMuhammad

I will admit that they are very edgy and border on indecent, but they do invoke intense debate and emotions and isn't that what all of us photographers hope to achieve with our photos? Or is it just basic shock value that has us talking about it? I'm sure that that is part of it, but I think that there is more to it than that. But to each his own....I'm interested in what parents think about them

And if you look at her other works(body farm especially) you'll see that she has a portrays a dark view of the world


----------



## paigew

TMuhammad said:


> I will admit that they are very edgy and border on indecent, but they do invoke intense debate and emotions and isn't that what all of us photographers hope to achieve with our photos? Or is it just basic shock value that has us talking about it? I'm sure that that is part of it, but I think that there is more to it than that. But to each his own....I'm interested in what parents think about them
> 
> And if you look at her other works(body farm especially) you'll see that she has a portrays a dark view of the world



Thats all fine and dandy about wanting to make statement, invoking emotions, or creating a 'shock value' by the use of photography. What it comes down to is, is it appropriate to use minors/children to do so? And at what cost to the children? As mothers/fathers our job is to protect our children, not to use their naked bodies to make a statement.


----------



## unpopular

> to use their naked bodies to make a statement.



You've hit this right on the nose. Children do not have the ability to _consent_ to the thematic content of these images - to use a child's body to convey a political or social agenda to which they are not capable of understanding is inherently immoral. I would go even as far to say a parent who consents on the child's behalf is acting equally immoral; parents ought to side on caution when using their children to promote even remotely controversial ideas.

Every time I am offered a release to allow my child to be used in promotional purposes, I always decline or add "non-commercial purposes only". This is not because I have a problem with his speech therapy clinic using his image on their facebook page, but rather because I have a responsibility to protect _his_ privacy.


----------



## rexbobcat

The images are very good, regardless of ethics or morality.

It's too tasteful to be pornography in my opinion. Her images were not created for the sole purpose of giving visual, erotic pleasure to the audience (or at least that's what I assume).


----------



## rexbobcat

unpopular said:


> to use their naked bodies to make a statement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You've hit this right on the nose. Children do not have the ability to consent to the thematic content of these images - to use a child's body to convey a political or social agenda to which they are not capable of understanding is inherently immoral. I would go even as far to say a parent who consents on the child's behalf is acting equally immoral; parents ought to side on caution when using their children to promote even remotely controversial ideas.
> *
> Every time I am offered a release to allow my child to be used in promotional purposes, I always decline or add "non-commercial purposes only". This is not because I have a problem with his speech therapy clinic using his image on their facebook page, but rather because I have a responsibility to protect _his_ privacy.
Click to expand...


I'm sure National Geographic totally agrees with this view.


----------



## Dominantly

Am I now on some list for having clicked a couple of those links?


----------



## unpopular

rexbobcat said:


> I'm sure National Geographic totally agrees with this view.



Oh come on, photographing nude children within their environment where cultural norms accept it is not at all the same thing. I've already discussed this.




rexbobcat said:


> It's too tasteful to be pornography




So what about met-art?

Beautiful Naked Women And High Quality Erotic Images: MetArt Erotic Photography


----------



## Iron Flatline

Anyone looking at those images would notice an element of sexuality. That is the point of the images. But that in no way means they are pornographic, or in some ways abusive to the children. They simply reference those elements. They also reference Romance photography. That does not make me want to fall in love with children like I might with a grown-up person, just like the sexual reference does not make me actually want to have sex with them. The point is to tweak those elements. But of course the American Taliban will be first to yell Child Porn, because in the US there are so many people who can't WAIT to tell other people how to live their lives, and what they think is wrong. You are asking a cultural question. And this is an American forum. American culture is based on a Christian Calvinist basis, and one of the tenets is "Forgive me Father, I had bad Thoughts." This is not the case in other cultures. As a Jew, we define ourselves (in part) as the difference between what we think, and what we actually do. There are no impure thoughts. 

I would take my kids out of school for two weeks and travel half-way around the world if my kids could be part of a Sally Mann project. She has a wonderful, gentle eye, and sees how kids emulate grown-ups. It's why I try (and fail) to watch my language around my three kids, because they will say things at school that make the normies blush.


----------



## HeatherClemons

Sally Mann is one of my all-time idols. I think her photography is breathtaking, insightful, and a fantastic insight into the_ life of a mother in absolute wonder of what she has created_. I have her books, and study them constantly. In my eyes, she can do no wrong, but that being said....

I believe her work is classified under "artistic nude" - and clearly has a respect and awe toward the beauty of life and the freedom of childhood. I know that "a sense of privacy" has been mentioned, but consider that everyone's is different. In Mann's family, being nude was completely normal and not frowned upon as immodest. Everyone is born that way - and we all should have respect for that, and for each other. Pornography, by definition - implicates exploitation and a disrespect for human dignity and a focus on the physical/sexual appeal of a subject. Her work, in my opinion, does not do any of that. But how "the line" is defined between artistic nudity and pornography is so different for so many different people, and many are afraid to actually draw that line. 

Honestly though - Sally says it best. If you haven't watched her documentary called "What Remains" - you really really should. She talks about the controversy surrounding her work and why she approached things the way she did, and I honestly respect her for that. Even if you don't like her work, hearing her explanation is interesting. Here's part one: 






Anyway, that's just my input, but this is a great question to ask - so I'm glad it was brought up! 

Heather Clemons~
Save the Artist - a creative community
heather@savetheartist.net


----------



## KristerP

I don't consider her work pornography or sexual at all. 

Then again , cultural background of the viewer matters. Me being of Scandinavian background vs Americans.


----------



## HeatherClemons

KristerP said:


> I don't consider her work pornography or sexual at all.
> 
> Then again , cultural background of the viewer matters. Me being of Scandinavian background vs Americans.



Exactly. Americans are super touchy about nudity and sexuality sometimes (and that's coming from one).  If you grew up in a family that respects the human body as a beautiful thing, I think you'd have trouble finding problems with Mann's work. Clearly, there are far worse representations to which this cannot be compared.


----------



## c.cloudwalker

cgipson1 said:


> (Cloudwalker.. I apologize if that is not what you meant!)



No apology needed. It is only a part of what I meant but the biggest one. The second part to that would be that the religious propaganda gets to people who are not otherwise religious. The third part is that one can be religious or spiritual (although not christian, I am) and not be twisted about it.

I am always astounded by anyone saying that nudity is not natural. What could be more natural? That's the way we were born. And clothes were invented not to hide ourselves from each others but because it was cold.

I am always astounded by anyone who hasn't understood that the more you forbid something, the more people want it.

I am always astounded by anyone who says that children are out of the sex world. Do they have children? Young children play with themselves, young children are sexual beings even if they don't know it.


And, yes, I find beauty pageant much more obscene than the cover of the Scorpions' album.


----------



## jwbryson1

Let me ask this question -- let's assume that Sally Mann was not a woman, but instead was a man.  Would that change your opinion of these images?  Why?


----------



## KristerP

No.



jwbryson1 said:


> Let me ask this question -- let's assume that Sally Mann was not a woman, but instead was a man.  Would that change your opinion of these images?  Why?


----------



## c.cloudwalker

jwbryson1 said:


> Let me ask this question -- let's assume that Sally Mann was not a woman, but instead was a man.  Would that change your opinion of these images?  Why?



No. I've done similar stuff. Not good enough to be shown but in the same vein. And with kids of friends of mine who I have no intention of foo*ing. Get your head on straight.


----------



## jwbryson1

c.cloudwalker said:


> No. I've done similar stuff.



I'm not surprised.



c.cloudwalker said:


> Get  your head on straight.



I beg your pardon?  Get my head on straight?  WTF is that supposed to mean?  I asked how this would change things which is an honest question.  Where is your head, dude?   Get MY head on straight?  You're the one taking images of nude children. Where are your morals?  Lost in European society it seems.


----------



## KristerP

???




> Where are your morals?  Lost in European society it seems.


----------



## c.cloudwalker

jwbryson1 said:


> I beg your pardon?  Get my head on straight?  WTF is that supposed to mean?  I asked how this would change things which is an honest question.  Where is your head, dude?   Get MY head on straight?  You're the one taking images of nude children. Where are your morals?  Lost in European society it seems.



It means get your head on straight which you sure as hell don't seem to have.

And your twisted response tells me your question was anything but honest.

If you have a problem with nudity, deal with it and don't try and imposeyour twisted views on me.


----------



## cgipson1

jwbryson1 said:


> Where are your morals?



What are you basing this question on???? Your MORALS? Do you really think you have the right to judge another based on what you believe? Whatever happened to "judge not, lest thou be judged"?  (since I am assuming this is coming from some sort of "Christian" background).


----------



## MTVision

jwbryson1 said:
			
		

> I'm not surprised.
> 
> I beg your pardon?  Get my head on straight?  WTF is that supposed to mean?  I asked how this would change things which is an honest question.  Where is your head, dude?   Get MY head on straight?  You're the one taking images of nude children. Where are your morals?  Lost in European society it seems.



Wow!


----------



## HeatherClemons

jwbryson1 said:


> I beg your pardon?  Get my head on straight?  WTF is that supposed to mean?  I asked how this would change things which is an honest question.  Where is your head, dude?   Get MY head on straight?  You're the one taking images of nude children. Where are your morals?  Lost in European society it seems.



There's nothing wrong with being European. 

This is an issue everyone will approach differently based on their cultural views and ideas. Backbiting isn't going to make anyone change their mind, and insults waste time and don't get us anywhere.

I'm going to make a humble request that we respect each other's views - no matter what we happen to think of them. The point is to have a civil discussion and present thought-out and intelligent commentary. Once we divert into angry yelling, it's no fun. 

Heather Clemons~
Save the Artist - a creative community
heather@savetheartist.net


----------



## cgipson1

HeatherClemons said:


> There's nothing wrong with being European.



Agreed



HeatherClemons said:


> This is an issue everyone will approach differently based on their cultural views and ideas. Backbiting isn't going to make anyone change their mind, and insults waste time and don't get us anywhere.
> I'm going to make a humble request that we respect each other's views -  no matter what we happen to think of them. The point is to have a civil  discussion and present thought-out and intelligent commentary.



Agreed.. I just hate it when someone pushes an agenda or opinions based on something that has nothing to do with the real issue!



HeatherClemons said:


> Once we divert into angry yelling, it's no fun.



Sorry.. can't agree with this... someone has to enlighten the "heathen"!


----------



## HeatherClemons

cgipson1 said:


> Sorry.. can't agree with this... someone has to enlighten the "heathen"!



Let me rephrase - feel free to argue. If you're passionate about your opinions that's awesome - just don't be petty and divert into name-calling. THAT'S just tiring. 

Better?


----------



## jwbryson1

HeatherClemons said:


> There's nothing wrong with being European.



I completely agree, and you won't find any place in my comment where I suggested otherwise despite how some would like to spin my comments.  My point was simple--that European countries tend to be more liberal in their beliefs than the US.   Case in point, you won't find legalized prostitution or "smoking bars" in the US.  This is an example of our congress legislating morality.[/QUOTE]

It's very interesting and completely hypocritical of the members of this forum who cast judgment on me when I raise a very honest, simple question about a woman versus man photographer taking these images, and yet they berate me and tell me not to be judgmental of them.  Look in the mirror folks.  If you look at my comment, I asked a simple question -- ASKED A QUESTION.  I didn't offer my opinions on this issue.  I didn't tell others what to think.  I didn't suggest what the "right" answer was.  I just put the issue out there for discussion and I'm told to get my head on straight?  Really?  So, just by asking the question, you know what my personal beliefs and value systems are?  I find that amazing.


----------



## jwbryson1

HeatherClemons said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry.. can't agree with this... someone has to enlighten the "heathen"!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me rephrase - feel free to argue. If you're passionate about your opinions that's awesome - just don't be petty and divert into name-calling. THAT'S just tiring.
> 
> Better?
Click to expand...


That's the typical response from the liberal left.


----------



## cgipson1

jwbryson1 said:


> you won't find  legalized prostitution or  "smoking bars" in the US.  This is an example of our congress legislating morality.



I think the "smoking ban" is based more on health reasons.. not morality! And legalized prostitution??? Hmmm.. that is more of a moral issue.. and it does bother me that laws are passed based on "someone else's" religous views.... rather than on common sense and truth!

Just as it bothers me when somebody passes judgement on another person because they have a different "lifestyle" or some such nonsense! Countries that lack the prudishness and narrow minded morality that is prevalent in this country usually are healthier mentally.. far less crime.. and far less sex crimes.


----------



## jwbryson1

cgipson1 said:


> I think the "smoking ban" is based more on health reasons.. not morality!



You may be right, Charlie.  Congress passes laws all the time based on their personal code of conduct and for other reasons such as health concerns.  I'm just saying that morality is legislated all the time.  I haven't done the research, but I would suspect that in certain communities these images may be considered illegal by statute which is based on the legislators' personal moral code.



cgipson1 said:


> And legalized prostitution??? Hmmm.. that is more of a moral issue.. and it does bother me that laws are passed based on "someone else's" religous views.... rather than on common sense and truth!



Again, I don't disagree.  I don't think we should be arguing about it on an internet forum however.  I respect everybody's opinions and I appreciate when my opinions are respected too.  When I am attacked personally, however, I come out fighting.  That's just who I am and how I've been trained.

Peace!  :thumbup:


----------



## cgipson1

jwbryson1 said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the "smoking ban" is based more on health reasons.. not morality!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may be right, Charlie.  Congress passes laws all the time based on their personal code of conduct and for other reasons such as health concerns.  I'm just saying that morality is legislated all the time.  I haven't done the research, but I would suspect that in certain communities these images may be considered illegal by statute which is based on the legislators' personal moral code.
> 
> 
> 
> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And legalized prostitution??? Hmmm.. that is more of a moral issue.. and it does bother me that laws are passed based on "someone else's" religous views.... rather than on common sense and truth!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I don't disagree.  I don't think we should be arguing about it on an internet forum however.  I respect everybody's opinions and I appreciate when my opinions are respected too.  When I am attacked personally, however, I come out fighting.  That's just who I am and how I've been trained.
> 
> Peace!  :thumbup:
Click to expand...


Same here, bro!  Peace!


----------



## MTVision

jwbryson1 said:
			
		

> I completely agree, and you won't find any place in my comment where I suggested otherwise despite how some would like to spin my comments.  My point was simple--that European countries tend to be more liberal in their beliefs than the US.   Case in point, you won't find legalized prostitution or "smoking bars" in the US.  This is an example of our congress legislating morality.



It's very interesting and completely hypocritical of the members of this forum who cast judgment on me when I raise a very honest, simple question about a woman versus man photographer taking these images, and yet they berate me and tell me not to be judgmental of them.  Look in the mirror folks.  If you look at my comment, I asked a simple question -- ASKED A QUESTION.  I didn't offer my opinions on this issue.  I didn't tell others what to think.  I didn't suggest what the "right" answer was.  I just put the issue out there for discussion and I'm told to get my head on straight?  Really?  So, just by asking the question, you know what my personal beliefs and value systems are?  I find that amazing.[/QUOTE]

Actually you will find legal prostitution in the US. What about the Bunny Ranch in Nevada (think its Nevada)?


----------



## jake337

As Joe Rogan says in "The Union", LET'S NERF THE WORLD!


So sad.  So sad.


Looks like some beautifull photography to me.........


----------

