Nudity And Death In Classical Art By Sally Mann

In the great tradition of classical art, nudity and death have been two main themes of the masters. Sally Mann’s photographs twist this tradition when the nudes are her prepubescent children and the corpses are real people. The issue is that her photographs are a lense into unfiltered actuality, and consumers question the morality of the images based on the fact that children and corpses are unable to give consent. Her work feels too personal and too private. Mainly, issues are brought up that question privacy and if Mann compromised her children’s safety, if Sally Mann’s photographs are even art, and the ethical meanings of consent and nudity explored in her art. Through careful examination it can easily be decided that Mann’s photographs
are undeniably ethical and beautiful works of art. Sally Mann’s career began with the murmur she started in the art community with her collection “At Twelve” about young women going through that particular developmental stage. These images caused a stir, but Mann really broke onto the scene with “Immediate Family.” What concerned some was how Sally Mann really delved into childhood and without hiding any of the dirty, painful moments. This transparency is shown when she captures her children’s “wet beds, insect bites, nap times, their aspirations toward adulthood and their innocent savagery,” says Richard Woodward of the New York Times. Here is the first reason why what Mann has created is art. Openness and honesty are her two main policies when it comes to creating new pieces. She followed these to the letter by not hiding behind the niceties that would ask for a parent to hide pictures of their nude children. Sally Mann really allowed for all to see what real, unadulterated childhood looks like through the eyes of a mother. Jessie, Emmett, and Virginia were shown in their purest and most honest forms. Other than the removal of the veil of privacy, what really boiled some blood was that a portion of the collection included multiple, fully nude images of her young children.
Many wondered how any mother could publish and distribute such intimate images of her children with the world. Their vulnerability was shown to all, and it appeared that Mann failed to protect her children from prying eyes. Here, “the shield of motherhood…[became] a sword when turned against her,” and what a piercing sword it was. She received endless hate mail and threats from people who wanted to take her children away. In the photos that had nudity, the images drew attention to the genital areas of the children. This was a statement that Mann was trying to make, but it did not go over well with much of the public: kids are sometimes little adults, and they fight, love, and get dirty within a realm without sensuality and without worry. One issue that increased outrage was that her images were accidentally released at about the same time as one of Robert Mapplethorpe’s collections. His images of nude children appeared along side homoerotic images and BDSM scenes. Woodward described how “[Mann’s] pictures dramatize burgeoning sexuality, while implying the more forbidden topics of incest and child abuse” to many viewers. Almost immediately, accusations of Sally Mann creating and distributing child pornography was a major discussion in the public and private art worlds. Concerned citizens accused her of exposing her children to those who wish to use or harm them. Sally Mann commented that “all too often, nudity, even that of children, is mistaken for sexuality, and images are mistaken for actions” because of the extreme revelatory nature of many of her images. Mann cannot be blamed for the reactions that are experienced by everyone who views or buys her innocent works of art. It is a mother’s right to share her proud moments of her children. It is extremely unfortunate that critics “exaggerated the intimacy of the photos at the expense of their artfulness” because there is no question that Mann did not intend for her photographs to provide pleasure or anything but artistic appreciation for viewers.
Note that “proud parents are not jailed for keeping images of their sweet children bathing together” and this is how Mann’s controversy should be viewed. A proud parent wants to capture and document every moment of their child’s life. Then, it is only natural to share those images with people because you are proud of your children. It is a race to capture their fleeting innocence before it is all gone. Sally Mann wants critics to know that “taking those pictures was an act separate from mothering” and that “these are not [her] children at all; these are children in a photograph.” In that moment, they are just figures on paper suspended in time.
Sally Mann learned the art of provocation from her father who was a doctor and a very unreserved man.
Woodward explains that “it was he who instilled a shameless attitude toward the flesh in his daughter, photographing her nude as a girl” which inspired her blithe disregard of nudity as a taboo at a later age. Nudity has been a natural thing in her life since she was born. Her father was a country doctor who saw a large amount of death and gore on a daily basis, and his children bore witness to this as well. He encouraged her to live as freely as she wanted on their large farm in the South. The South is an eccentric and free place, and her unhindered fascinations with death and nudity were allowed to blossom. Her father “gave her a camera when she was 17 and told her the only subjects worthy of art were love, death and whimsy,” and this was the point of no return for Sally Mann. The statement of her father is why she has captured her children, her husband, and the bodies of strangers in such vulnerable states. It is only natural to her. Nudity is beauty, and it is not something to be ashamed of. The point of Mann’s efforts are to illustrate that grotesqueness and bare skin can be whimsical and exemplary of beauty. All of these ideas that were instilled in Sally Mann in her childhood were instilled by her into her own children. The most important issue is how do the children at the center of this controversy feel about being so exposed? Surprisingly, they are completely supportive of it all due to the open mindedness given to them by their
mother.
“I have no objections, none,” said Mann’s daughter Jessie about the photographs of herself in the “Immediate Family” collection. These feelings were mirrored by the rest of the Mann children. Jessie, Emmett, and Virginia had no problem with their bodies being on display for the world, and Mann gave them complete control by allowing them to veto images. Sally Mann gave the pictures of the children to each child respectively, and they threw out any image that they did not want published. They rarely had any qualms, but once Emmett vetoed one of him with white socks on his arms because it made him “uncomfortable not because of the nudity but because he said those socks made him look like a dork. It was a question of dignity.” Most importantly, the kids would even help their mother out when she was doing a shoot. The children “know the kind of pictures their mother likes to take and have often pointed out photographic opportunities to her” Sarah Boxer of The Atlantic reveals from an interview with Mann. They support, and are fully comfortable with, being photographed for their mother’s line of work. For the children, the art process is fun and only natural to them. All three give their full consent for their nude bodies and childish antics to be displayed as art. Consent is an entire other story for the other half of the Sally Mann controversy.