click here to return to the Calico Cat homepage

Sally Mann: What Remains vs. terrorist beheadings

I was at the Corcoran Museum yesterady, and was surprised to discover that there was an entire exhibit devoted to macabre photographs of dead body parts, Sally Mann: What Remains.

Now the official description of the exhibit is glowing with artistic words, but in reality it's nothing about a bunch of photos of dead bodies and parts of dead bodies.

After seeing this, I couldn't help but think of the hypocrisy here. Images of beheaded Americans are censored from mainstream media publications because they are too grisly for the people to see. But the same people can walk into the Corcoran Museum, which is right across the street from the White House, and see dead body parts blown up big, but it's considered "art" because the photographer uses black and white film and--well who knows why her lousy photos are hanging in an art museum while more worthy photographers are getting zero recognition.

American's are only allowed to see dead body parts if they are divorced from any meaningful context. But seeing the remains of what terrorists have done to our servicemen (such as Wassef Ali Hassoun who was beheaded yesterday) would make Americans mad at our enemies, and god forbid that happens.

posted Sunday, July 04, 2004

7 Comments:

By Gretchen:

First off, to dismiss Sally Mann's photographs as "lousy" is rather ignorant. But how is it hypocritical that her photos are showing at the Corcoran? The folks keeping gruesome war footage off the news have nothing to do with what the curators over at the Corcoran choose to show. There's no shortage of body parts and gore shown in all kinds of contexts in this country, and almost none of them have to do with mainstream media.

posted at 7/04/2004 11:22 PM

By cloworm:

Who are you to judge someone else's artwork? Sally Mann is a brilliant artist who deserves much credit for her work. "Lousy?" Sally Mann's work is beautiful and unique, but never Lousy. Beheadings on TV are censored because that is not art. It's violent. They are showing a killing in the action. Sally Mann's photos are not of people dying, they are of the subject already dead. Huge difference. If you are walking into an art museum, you will be offended by some photos, but you walked in there freely. You have no control over what you see in the news. Before insulting a persons artwork, think about the artist and what he or she was trying to say or show through the picture.

posted at 12/23/2004 2:24 PM

By brandon:

let me guess......... Christian, Republican and unable to think on your own terms? The fact that it stirred such passion and emotion within you makes it more powerful than most art in the first place. Art is not always rose pedals and rainbows. Art is a physical manifestation of the artist inner struggles. . . . of one who attempts to simultaneously offer commentary on issues and to gain a greater understanding on ones self in time.

Sally Mann just gave you a greater understanding of the world we all share. You now have something to say.

posted at 4/26/2005 3:15 PM

By brandon:

posted at 4/26/2005 3:15 PM

By Tontar:

Come on, that critique was a personal opinion of Sally Mann's work. Are the only critiques some people give credit to the ones that rave positively about the works, or come with the proper art world speak? Some people love Mann's work, some don't, obviously. Demeaning someone's negative opinion does nothing to improve the work, and only narrows the possible range of art appreciation, or lack of appreciation. Art is personal expression, and appreciation of that expression is also personal. That said, I don't think that I would dismantle and string up my dead dog to take pictures of it.

posted at 11/04/2005 3:01 PM

By Tontar:

posted at 11/04/2005 3:01 PM

By affie:

I agree with the article critizing Sally Mann's "art" or what ever you want to call it. I find many of her photographs offensive.

posted at 2/17/2006 11:11 PM