Share Email Print RSS

Gilmore Strikes A Pose

Photographer Sally Mann has outraged Gov. Jim Gilmore. Actually, it was her photographic art that outraged the Governor. Well, in fact, it wasn't really her art itself, it was what he heard about her art by way of an anonymous tipster.

Sally Mann is a world-famous photographer who lives in Lexington. A show of her large, moody landscapes is on display at the Reynolds Gallery on West Main Street through Saturday. I saw the show. It's impressive and there's no doubt in my mind that Mann deserves to have her work displayed in galleries.

However, it isn't her landscapes that set the Governor off. It was pictures of naked human beings.

I've also seen some of her previous work that has caused controversy in the past. In some pictures, there are naked children. Thus her work has occasionally been cited by various critics over the years as pornographic. Since the Supreme Court, in all its wisdom, has never been able to clearly define obscenity, I won't attempt to in this space. But I will say that from what I've seen of Sally Mann's pictures, only a devout bluenose would stretch to call them obscene. And, as we all know, obscenity is in the eye of the beholder.

In his scathing letter to the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, addressed to interim director Richard Woodward, Gilmore said he had "learned of disturbing images that were displayed." He cited pictures of a naked female adult and children "standing on a rock and urinating."

What he didn't say was whether the pictures reminded him of a Norman Rockwell scene of rural Americana or kinky fetish material. I've seen both approaches to depicting urination, as many of us have. As a rule, I have no trouble separating one from the other. But if I had to rely on someone else's description of a picture, that might change how I think about it.

Furthermore, if I didn't even know the person doing the describing, I'd be completely lost in trying to categorize a given picture.

And there's my problem with what our new, self-appointed, state art critic has done. He relied on descriptions alone of the so-called questionable work.

So, I have to ask: Is The Governor worried about naked backsides in the museum, or is he trying to cover his own with respect to the right-wing fringe of his own party? Gilmore had to make some uncomfortable compromises recently over the proposed Confederacy Month. Some might even say he backed down from the NAACP.

If he was really interested in art instead of politics, Gilmore could have quietly inquired about Sally Mann's May 10 lecture. He could have worked behind the scenes to see to it that no presentations that are over the top occurred on his watch. But he didn't.

Instead, he lashed out in a fashion that makes New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani seem like a moderate. The infamous dung-decorated Madonna that Giuliani objected to last year was much more deliberately provocative than anything I've ever seen from Sally Mann.

Jim Gilmore can buy books of Sally Mann's pictures in any bookstore. Her work may not be for everybody, but it is hardly considered to be pornographic by mainstream publishers and other artists and photographers.

The folks at the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts are qualified experts on what constitutes art. They don't need some rube relying on hearsay telling them what to do -- even if he is the governor.

Furthermore, the display Gilmore flipped out over was a one-time thing.

The slides that are causing this contention weren't even a planned part of Mann's lecture, "A Life in Photography." She offered them for view to

curious attendees at the end of her lecture at the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts. So it isn't an ongoing exhibit that is grossing out citizens

and causing a big stir. So all Gilmore has accomplished is to strike a high-profile pose. He's sent a message. That message is clearly meant to have a chilling effect on what the people working at the museum do when deciding where to draw the line. They may smile dutifully and say, "We are developing guidelines." But what they're really doing is worrying.

They are worrying because their boss is saying to them that certain subjects - regardless of how tastefully or thoughtfully they are handled - are taboo. Well, folks, that's exactly what the Nazis in Germany did in the 1930s. Yes, and it's what the Communists in Russia did in the same era.

The governor could have -- and should have -- taken the time to see the actual pictures before he issued his proclamation about art guidelines. There was no reason that serves Virginia to rush to judgment on this matter.

Readers who take pride in having a first-class art museum in this town and those who cherish freedom of expression should let Jim Gilmore know how you feel about this fiasco. The opinions expressed here are the writer's own and do not necessarily reflect those of richmond.com or its management. What do you think? Are Gov. Gilmore's remarks appropriate?