Generally, I liked Mann’s pictures since everything that she shows is simply a regular familiar life held in a picture, even the pictures that for some people look sensual. Probably most people disagree with the pictures about her private life and her family, but the work that she wants to do is exactly that, a common life.
Absolutely, I think she is not trying to provoke us at all, and instead she is sharing her family customs by pictures doing that as a part of art. Also, she mixes her family pictures with gorgeous landscapes that make everything looks perfect.
Any artist shouldn’t be censured, even Mann. Because we have to do the censure ourselves, I mean, we see that we want to see, and we consider art that we want to consider art. It doesn’t mean we have got to private other people to see it by censoring. If someone doesn’t want to see pictures since he thinks is nasty or sensual or simply inappropriate, just leave it away.
As a conclusion, each artist should show their job exactly as they did it, nor as a couple of people consider it should be showed. If the a part of the art, in this case a picture, is censored, now it is not art since the artist doesn’t want to show that, but the original picture.
Hey Ivan!
ReplyDeleteGreat post--I like how you suggest that Mann is simply portraying a kind of life, and that was the life that her family had been living. I wonder if part of what upset people was how different everything looked, how unusual it was, rather than the fact that the children were naked. The pictures are magical in many ways.