Sherman was all about politics. You had a vast number of women MFAs getting jobs as curators, art writers, gallery directors or owners, and Sherman's work was one they could project their own views on. To me her work is narcissistic, which also reflects a seeming fascination that women have with images of themselves and other women. But that doesn't make the images good.
Again back to my "tiny box", to me a successful image should be one that does not require ANY context, or any coincidence of timing and politics. You should be able to drop an image into any place, any culture, at any time, and those viewing it with nothing but the image itself to go by, will still be able to relate to it. Apply that to Sherman's work and see what you get.
[/QUOTE]
I am very grateful to Greg for his illumination of Ms. Sherman’s work and the image in question.
If we don’t know anything about rocks, they all look the same. If we don’t know anything about furniture, we just see old tables at the estate sale. We can be master stonemasons or master carpenters, but we’ll never experience the thrill of the geologist or the antique collector at the recognition of an outstanding specimen unless we permit ourselves to continue being ‘students’ even after we’ve become ‘masters.’
I have seen several APUG members assert a notion similar to the second paragraph of the quoted text above, and I don’t understand this. When you say “ . . . those viewing it . . .” do you mean every viewer, all viewers, all the time? When you say “ . . . be able to relate to it”, do you mean able to like or approve of the image, or have a prescribed emotional reaction? (I take it a politically-offended reaction does not qualify as ‘relating’ to an image). When you say a successful image does not require “ANY” context (emphasis in the original) when dropped into any culture, must an image of a gleaming espresso maker be meaningful and ‘relatable’ to an aboriginal or to a slum dweller in an undeveloped country? This is a hyperbolic example of course, the point being there are innumerable examples of great images for which the addition of at least some context greatly improves the viewer’s appreciation. You all come awfully close to suggesting that to be successful an image must appeal to the lowest common denominator among viewers and I can’t believe you mean that. That’s television. Certainly not everyone relates to or appreciates Italian opera, or Bach, or a Picasso or a Rothco. These are not successful works? They are not art?
Those who, like me, are reading this thread seeking an understanding of the art of photography and specifically the art of Cindy Sherman, should keep in mind Ansel Adams’ remark about there being two people in every photograph - the photographer and the viewer. Sometimes we have to try to understand what the photographer is really saying. Sometimes, when the viewer expresses an opinion, we have to try to understand what the viewer is really saying. Ms. Sherman’s work definitely intends to convey a ‘political’ view, and many of her critics, both those who approve and those who condemn, react at least in part depending upon their own political point of view. A lot of art criticism has a political foundation. In the ‘60s and ‘70s, critics on the left condemned landscapes and the art of "dead white men" as irrelevant. Today critics on the right condemn art which isn’t literal or idealistic, especially art which is ironic or questions certain values or promotes values like feminism. Those who insist that “art” must always be free of politics are almost always reacting to a piece of art which offends them politically. If you are inspired by photographers like Cindy Sherman, then you should not be at all troubled by criticism coming from those who reject feminist ideals. Her work is still art, and should still inspire.
Context is essential. Does anyone here today believe the images of Robert Frank are not ‘successful’? Yet his images collected in “The Americans” were widely condemned and dismissed as art here in the United States when they were first published, at a time when conservative and nationalistic values dominated our culture and his work was interpreted as critical of the American way of life. Today, I hope, his work is nearly universally recognized for the great art it is. The context and the culture have changed.
And about the $4M bid – Forbes lists 400 people in the United States alone who are worth at least $1 billion (and how many hundreds more are worth 0.8 and 0.9 billion dollars?). If one of these guys at the bottom of that list liquidated and put all that money into a basic bank account, he or she would still be earning at least 2 or 3 million dollars every month. How many German sports cars and Italian villas, and how much south Pacific island real estate do you need before you decide to drop some of your chump change on a work of art, especially if it means you can throw in an extra hundred grand to outbid one of your fellow billionaires? I agree with Suzanne R; when people see that much money spent on a photograph, they get interested in collecting photographs. That’s just got to be good for all of us.
Jim Ostgard, Minneapolis
) is beyond what anyone should pay for any art.
