Update: This article and its title have been updated to include reported information about the seizure by police of works of art from the Diaries of Home exhibition. Read the full update at the bottom of this article.
According to articles published by ArtNews and The Dallas Express, a police report has been filed against the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth and a County Judge has called for an investigation of the museum regarding its display of photographs depicting nude children by artist Sally Mann.
The Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth
Though yesterday ArtNews covered the controversy, the story was first covered by The Dallas Express, a formerly Black-owned progressive newspaper that is now part of Metric Media News, a network of local news entities across the U.S., which the Columbia Journalism Review has reported has ties to founders of the Tea Party political movement. On December 23, 2024, Dallas Express reported that the Diaries of Home exhibition includes images of “naked children and LGBTQ+ content.”
Since that first article, The Dallas Express has published three other pieces about the exhibition. One of the articles notes that Tarrant County Judge Tim O’Hare and other elected officials have spoken out against the photographs and called for them to be taken down. Judge O’Hare has not responded to Glasstire’s requests for comment about how these works came to his attention, whether he has seen the works of art in person at the museum, or his concern about the images in question. Another article is about the Danbury Institute, an association of churches, individuals, and organizations that, according to its website “promot[es] Judeo-Christian values as the proper foundation for a free and prosperous republic,” which has written an open letter calling for the museum to remove the works. The Danbury Institute’s letter explicitly states, “This exhibit should be called what it is: child pornography.” The third story published by The Dallas Express calls into question the companies who have supported the museum financially.
A screenshot of a portion of a letter by the Danbury Institute
Since The Dallas Express first covered the exhibition, users have been commenting on the museum’s social media platforms, condemning the institution for including the photographs in the show, referring to the images as child pornography, and calling for the removal of the works and the prosecution of those involved in exhibiting the works. Recently, the museum has removed these comments and disabled further comments on posts related to the Diaries of Home exhibition. The museum has not responded to Glasstire’s requests for comment regarding the decision to include these works in the exhibition, the response the museum has received regarding the show, or if the institution will address the concerns.
Entry text for “Diaries of Home” on view at the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth
According to the checklist for the museum’s Diaries of Home exhibition, the photographs that depict child nudity — Popsicle Drips, The Perfect Tomato, The Wet Bed, Another Cracker, and Cereus — were taken between the years 1985 and 1994 and are courtesy of Gagosian, a gallery specializing in modern and contemporary art with 19 locations in the U.S., Europe, and Asia. While sexual acts are not depicted in the images, they do clearly show full frontal nudity of a young boy and young girls. The gallery did not respond to Glasstire’s request for comment about the claims that these images constitute child pornography.
Since the opening of the exhibition, the museum has had a sign posted at the entry of the show that reads, “This exhibition features mature themes that may be sensitive for some viewers.” Additionally, text available online and in the gallery briefly addresses the depiction of nudity. It reads in part, “In showing her children naked, moody, and in suggestive situations, Ms. Mann evokes an edgy, dark side of childhood that can be raw and unsettling… The artist’s photographs from Immediate Family became ensconced in the culture wars of the late 1980s and 1990s. In the media, some images were presented in isolation from the series, becoming touchstones for moral and political debates about art and censorship. Since then, the knee-jerk controversy has faded.”
For those unfamiliar with Sally Mann’s work, it is clear that these images may be surprising, however, others more rooted in the art world are aware of the controversy that has surrounded this body of work since the photos were first displayed in 1990. In 1992, Richard B. Woodward wrote an in-depth article for The New York Times about Ms. Mann’s photographs of her nude children. In the piece, he writes about Ms. Mann’s children and their comfort level with the body of work, even referencing a psychologist, Daniel Shybunko, who interviewed the children in 1991 to ensure their awareness of and consent regarding the images.
In 2015, Ms. Mann penned her own article in the paper’s magazine about the body of work and the subsequent book in which the images were published. She explained, “…the kids were visually sophisticated, involved in setting the scene, in producing the desired effects for the images and in editing them. When I was putting together Immediate Family, I gave each child the pictures of themselves and asked them to remove those they didn’t want published… Maintaining the dignity of my subjects has grown to be, over the years, an imperative in my work, both in the taking of the pictures and in their presentation.”
Fort Worth-based photographer and professor Dr. Diane Durant, who often depicts her daughter in her work, offered Glasstire her opinion about the complaints made by Tarrant County residents. She remarked, “Whoever is making these complaints is clearly projecting their own perversion onto the work — you see what you want to see, I guess — and doesn’t know much, if anything, about Sally Mann, her photographic oeuvre, or even what it’s like, as a parent-artist, to photograph your kids for public consumption.” Ms. Durant’s comments echo statements made by Ms. Mann, who has said, “All too often, nudity, even that of children, is mistaken for sexuality, and images are mistaken for actions.”
Ms. Durant went on, talking about the process of taking a photograph: “An implicit contract is entered into between photographer, subject, and viewer that, when broken, betrays 150 years of trust in the mechanical reproduction of our daily lives and the shared experience of looking at pictures. Though her work has been viewed with controversy over the years, I still trust Sally Mann, and I hope viewers of my photographs still trust me.”
Carol Ivey, a Fort Worth still life and portrait painter, offered another thought, saying, “Sally Mann’s photos for me bring up questions about her specific fixations. They’re aesthetically beautiful photographs, but they only raise questions of her intentions and how the children were shaping or not shaping the story. And then how their collaborations have shaped their lives.”
This controversy at the Modern comes on the heels of similar issues regarding “mature content” in the Cowboy exhibition on view down the street from the museum at the Amon Carter Museum of American Art. Though the Carter’s exhibition does not feature child nudity, it includes an image of a bare-breasted woman, drawings depicting violence, and two fully-clothed men in western gear who are dancing and kissing. The museum did not specify which work of art was deemed “mature,” but in October of 2024, following some feedback, it temporarily closed the exhibition and then reopened it with a “mature content” sign. Additionally, the museum cancelled a slew of programs that were originally intended to be tied to the exhibition.
Artnet News has confirmed that an investigation is currently underway of Sally Mann’s photographs on display at the Modern. The U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division’s Citizen’s Guide to U.S. Federal Law on Child Pornography explains that the legal definition of child pornography does not require the subject to be engaged in sexual activity. Rather, it reads, “A picture of a naked child may constitute illegal child pornography if it is sufficiently sexually suggestive. Additionally, the age of consent for sexual activity in a given state is irrelevant; any depiction of a minor under 18 years of age engaging in sexually explicit conduct is illegal.”
Although Sally Mann’s photographs have faced similar allegations in the past, if charges are brought against the artist, the museum, or the organizers of the exhibition, the decision could have larger ramifications for artists and institutions looking to show work that challenges social and societal norms.
Diaries of Home is scheduled to be on view at the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth through February 2 .
The wall at center had previously displayed four photographs by Sally Mann. “Popsicle Drips,” along with other images depicting nude children, has been removed and the remaining works have been rehung to fill the space.
Update: January 7, 2025
The Dallas Express reported yesterday, January 6, that photographs from the Modern’s Diaries of Home exhibition have been “secured as potential evidence and will not be visible to the public” while the police investigation is pending. Glasstire has confirmed that Sally Mann’s photographs — Popsicle Drips, The Perfect Tomato, The Wet Bed, Another Cracker, and Cereus — and their accompanying wall labels have been removed from the exhibition. In the gallery adjacent to where Ms. Mann’s works were installed, Jess T. Dugan’s photograph Elinor at the cabin, which depicts a partially nude child, remains on view.
(Editor’s note: Along with news articles that are based in facts, such as this one, Glasstire also publishes editorial articles, including essays and exhibition reviews. In December of 2024, Jessica Fuentes wrote an exhibition review of the Modern’s Diaries of Home. As a member of Glasstire’s editorial staff, Ms. Fuentes authors both editorial articles and news reports.)
17 comments
This reminds me of the work by British photographer David Hamilton. In 1995 he published a beautiful photography book titled “The Age of Innocence “ which depicted young teen girls in the nude and semi-nude . The images were beautifully captured and very artistic in style. He published two additional books on the same subject.
I haven’t seen the work by this current photographer … but my greatest concern will be the long term effects of her children feeling at some point in their lives that they were exploited. Children don’t have the mental or emotional capacity to understand how they will process this as an adult. As a figurative painter I never used my own children as models in order to avoid any confusion.
Sally Mann created her Immediate Family series prior to 1992. Her youngest is about to turn 40. You can find interviews of them as adults where they look fondly onto the photos from that period and describe them as a creative depiction of their childhood, sharing memories of how the photos came to be. They grew up in a rural area of Virginia where they frequently played naked so Mann was literally capturing their childhood, filtered only by her stylized photography. Within the context of the series which is not only nudes, that concept comes across best. Out of context of the family’s lifestyle and photographic history, they are much more likely to garner controversy. I wonder if she ever imagined these photographs would be political once again more than three decades later.
Terri,
Sally’s children are adults now – Jesse is 43 and Virginia is 39. (Emmet, the oldest of the three died in 2016) In multiple interviews with the adult Mann children they have been unwavering in their approval of their mothers photographs of them and have never asked their mother not to exhibit the photographs (other than the fact that the children had a say in which images their mother selected for public presentation. They often asked for a specific image to be culled because they thought they looked “dorky”, but the images of them playing unclothed were not objected to). To this day they defend the work and their mothers right to show the work. Their general response to being the subjects of the photographs is to celebrate what that brought to their lives, both as children and adults.
They have been asked numerous times whether they felt exploited by their mother and they deny any such suggestions. They recognize – as adults – that they were active, creative participants in the work and have no regrets whatsoever.
This is really unfortunate. Museums already have so many challenges and grateful for Glasstire reporting.
Here’s a couple good reads that artists and readers might enjoy.
“Why has culture come to a standstill,” Jason Forago, The New York Times
“The One Word That Describes Art Now,” Ben Davis and Anna Kornbluh
It seems to me that this particular collection of Mann’s was designed to be purposefully provocative. While such things may have a place, as art, in challenging certain societal norms, the one question I have is: “what norms is she challenging here?” That kids are too clothed? I’m unconvinced that such images are, in and of themselves, indicative of artistic beauty. Young kids in their underwear could have a similar impact if its something along the lines of “the precociousness of youth,” etc., but other than that, it really just seems like an attempt to be provocative and controversial for the sake of stirring up attention for her work. Allen Ginsburg comes to mind with his rather disgustingly detailed “poems” that discuss sex acts with teenage boys. He tried, unsuccessfully, to challenge society’s fear of homosexuality by incidentally conflating same-sex attraction with pedophelia. Blurring the lines of art with sexuality and suggestion will most often find people attacking such things, rather than defending them. And really, can anyone be surprised at this reaction? Why a museum in Texas, of all damn places, would find this a good idea. This just might find Mann or the collections director in jail considering the currrent political climate we’re in.
If a photographer thinks they can overcome the current political climate by hiding behind artisitic integrity, then they’re going to learn the hard way. One more thing: the whole “if they don’t like it, it must mean they’re secretly attracted to children” is absolte bullshit and a totally chickenshit way to defend art.
Photography is an overrated medium of artistic expression, with some very rare exceptions.
Madonna Litta by Leonardo da Vinci
Virgin and Child Surrounded by Angels, Jean FOUQUET
All of the naked baby blonde Jesus paintings and sculptures, nativities
Rafael’s Cupid (a baby drawing an arrow, an instant Project 2025, and NRA endorsement)
While Cupid exists in a different realm than ours, devoted Christians believe that baby Jesus did exist. I don’t think there is a bible passage or verse that states his sacred image can be depicted in the nude. So remove them from all churches, museums, and homes. Let people learn the hard way.
Let’s not forget that our president-elect said he would date his daughter and wished his, at the time infant baby, would inherit her mother’s breasts. That’s neither indecent nor morbid. It didn’t deter 77,284,118 voters. Most think Jesus sent him to save us from artists like Sally Mann.
I have never seen a child pornography website or material, and I hope I never will. I doubt they thrive on images like Mann’s.
The above comment seems to dismiss the idea that almost all art is provocative. Of consideration, thought, emotion, reaction, among others. Also, a case could be made regarding the idea that art bears the burden of being merely beautiful or that the artist and museum weigh artist are “hiding” behind anything. The real issue, for me anyway, is that so many among us only read headlines, skimming for drama and working up a lather to make uneducated comments as part of a woefully unproductive narrative. It’s a shame that we aren’t willing to consider the value of deep thought and different perspectives and find opportunities to connect with others outside our small bubbles. And might I suggest that any of us bypass an exhibition, a book, a performance if we don’t think we can handle the content.
Stephen Miller said they would be going after culture as part of Project 2025. They have chosen a situation where the viewer must be physically present, with a ticket, and with a warning. Nevermind the traumatizing content children can experience online simply by accident. Nevermind that the returning First Lady has salacious, nude photos, first published in men’s magazines that she calls “art”, available online. The examples are endless. This is about brute power.
Celia Eberle is 100% correct. County Judge O’Hare is attempting to remake Tarrant County into his vision of cultural correctness.
The largest danger signal here is the comment about “Judeo-Christian values”, as if that is the sole fountain of common sense and decency. The chills I get is that “here it is- the Fort Worth war on art has found its cornerstone in the current religious fascism”. I agree the curator made a misstep here but we all need to insist on the arts organizations being given their own self-determination, since FW has zero interest in it unless there’s political gravy being passed around.
I have precious photos of my two granddaughters nude in a bubble bath and others of them playing with their panties on their heads sticking their butts out! The family has had fun seeing these as the girls have grown older, but to share them with the public would be exhibitionism. We won’t participate!
100% agree. The intentional for profit public display of nude photos of minor children incapable of giving informed consent, let alone imagining the potential deleterious impact on their adult lives, is frankly despicable. It doesn’t matter that the now adult children purportedly have no complaints. It happened when they were minor children (no loopholes or lawyers tricks accepted.)
I oppose censorship and the banning of adult pornography, which is hardly victimless. But in this case it seems more akin to an issue of child abuse and protection. She and the gallery can display all the nude, provocative or blasphemous photos of adults they like and I will defend them.
What next? A staged rape as “performance art”?
No. There are limits, and there is a need to protect minor children. Sadly this is a black eye intentionally self-inflicted as a provocation to create a profitable controversy.
1. This is an attack against freedom of speech and art that should be opposed… (That is my normal default position, but in this case it’s right on the edge. I could be persuaded that this woman is a child abuser, and that public display of naked photos of her children unable to give informed consent constitutes child abuse.)
2. She is undeniably a disgusting exploiter of her own children and their naked bodies, and an intentional provocateur whose “talent” is creating controversy in order to sell her exploitative “works” and make a career off of the naked bodies of her children.
Mann dishonestly stated in 2015:
“…the kids were visually sophisticated, involved in setting the scene, in producing the desired effects for the images and in editing them. When I was putting together Immediate Family, I gave each child the pictures of themselves and asked them to remove those they didn’t want published… Maintaining the dignity of my subjects has grown to be, over the years, an imperative in my work, both in the taking of the pictures and in their presentation.”
What an utterly untrue statement. Frankly it reads like a defense of pedophilia. Every pedophile claims that the ‘kids were sophisticated and freely consenting.’ “They wanted it…”
That is precisely why we have age of consent laws. No child that age is capable of informed consent, about anything at all. Not transgenderism, sex with adults, female genital mutilation, or public display of their nudity in photos. They have absolutely no idea what their publicly-displayed nude photos might imply to their future selves, nor the potential deleterious consequences later in their lives. While Mann’s children purportedly have no complaints as adults, they cannot speak for all children, which is precisely what laws are supposed to address.
This is not some parent that happened to take a photo of their children, who happened to be unclothed while at the beach or bathing, and the photos were for the family. This is the intentional display of her intentionally “staged” children’s nudity in order to profit from it. Period.
I think she is at best a borderline child abuser.
It’s one thing to defend the talentless Andrés Serrano and his “Piss Christ” that harmed no one other than his bladder, and religious sentiments.
Mann’s unfortunate display of her nude children for profit is yet another example of how these Woke postmodernist provocateurs can invariably be counted on to engage in reactionary and unnecessary provocations to provide easy openings to rightists, and weaken the defense of our democratic rights.
I oppose attempts to ban pornography because it is both ineffectual (as pornography is a symptom not a cause of women’s oppression) and most importantly an attack on freedom of speech (including disgusting exploitative speech, or images of consenting ADULTS).
I also am very aware of the abuse of “child pornography” and false “child abuse” claims by the government to railroad individuals. We know that all censorship is always a slippery slope. Give the censors an inch…
Yet there is no getting around the fact that child pornography is a heinous crime against children that should indeed be banned and punished by the capitalist state. As a socialist I do not oppose conviction in capitalist courts and incarceration in capitalist prisons of workers who murder or rape other workers.
All democratic rights have limits, even under capitalism. We call for the harsh conviction and sentencing of rapists, while rejecting any undermining of democratic rights to due process.
Mann has undercut democratic rights and freedom of expression by her undeniable abuse of her children. While this attack by the government is unfortunate, this is not merely some attack on prurient art, but also a question of the defense of children. Surely even defenders of freedom of speech and art are not indifferent to the need to protect children?
Seconding all of the above; and I hope Fort Worth officials will investigate the Fort Worth police’s priorities.
this is just makes me sick to my stomach. I read glasstire’s original article last week and immediately bought a ticket and planned a roadtrip in solidarity with the museum’s choice to NOT take the photos down. I must have misread or something happened between now and then. I wanted to go see these photos and make up my own damn mind. And if I thought they were not for me, I would then turn around and move on, and let other people do the same. It is a sad day for the Fort Worth Modern.
You may be thinking of another museum in Fort Worth, The Amon Carter, which recently came under fire for “indecent” content in their Cowboys exhibit. They did not take the content down, but did put up a warning for mature content.
It seems like the Modern here already had mature content warnings and contextualized the conflict around the Sally Mann photographs (as museums are encouraged to do with questionable material), but the photographs were *seized* as part of the investigation. So I guess we don’t really know if they would keep them up or take them down, because they were forcibly removed.
Anyway. As someone who grew up in Fort Worth, neither of these incidents/attempted censorships shock me. And that’s why I left.
I’d just like to clarify, fwiw, that I agree with most of the above but not all (I didn’t realize which comment mine would follow once published); I side with those opposing the censorship of Mann’s photos.