Recently, there was quite the brouhaha over Sally Mann's photography (again) over at PetaPixel. There's one thing I really miss about the demise of photo-blogdom- the occasional deep dive discussion into a particular photo topic of interest, especially those involving ethics or aesthetics. This one had both, but considering this was PetaPixel- you're not always gonna attract your A list commenters from photography's elite and most knowledgeable. Which means things can rapidly go down the toilet of: opinion as fact, misinformation as quantifiable fact, and ad hominems as absolute, justifiable facts.
And while I like to think I'm above that, and try to live up to that expectation, when ya get in the mix, you can't always emerge unscathed. Although this is one highly charged topic (as well it should be), it be nice to be able to rationally consider and delineate as to what exactly is worth getting upset about- before raw emotion runs in like the wrecking ball that tears logic and sensibility asunder. One guy actually responded, "Well... like I said. I'm right." As if that's all the verifiable evidence needed! Yeah, that was verbatim- and was also followed by numerous proclamations attesting to his superior intellectual prowess. Hard to argue with that high an intellect.
So why bother? PP may not be the best venue for serious discussion, but it's one of few remaining in the public realm not under the auspices of a yet larger social media conglomerate. And public discourse can help define how one really feels about the topic at hand. It's frustrating when someone can only offer the vaguest of viewpoints or opinions as to why they believe what they do- it's even more frustrating when you can't. Discussing it, even arguing about it (hopefully without the rancor) can really help you understand: yourself, the topic at hand, and the thoughts, beliefs and motivations of others. That's particularly true when you have to write down your responses, having to manually articulate your thoughts into the written word.
I had thought the whole Sally Mann child pornography thing was safely in the backseat of art history. Apparently not, from the deluge (and sometime ferocity) of the comments. Photography does have its history of sex offenders: Terry Richardson, Thomas Roma, David Alan Harvey, Bruce Weber, Nicholas Nixon- and that's just a partial list, no doubt. And I am as deeply disgusted and appalled by child pornography as anyone else- it is truly abhorrent! I've only seen it in documentaries with the bars over the children's eyes- and that was bad enough. It's as sick as sick gets- Full Stop!
And it is plain and simple, nowhere near what Sally Mann does. So please, enough of this nonsense! If you see something perverse in her work, you either don't know what child pornography is, or are purposely choosing to pervert it for your own purpose. Her work has already been litigated enough, not that it needed it in the first place. Save your ire for actual pedophiles, or those in Q Anon, which said its very raison d'être was to save children from the sex trade- how many children have they rescued to date, how many predators have they captured? There's already more than enough of this sickness out in the world- let's not make a mockery of the real work that so desperately needs to be done.
