Cindy Sherman@ MoMA

[CGW]

Like her or not:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/arts/design/cindy-sherman-at-museum-of-modern-art.html?hp

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/a...se-cindy-shermans-new-and-old-characters.html

 

[Shawn Rahman]

How about "like her AND not"?

Love her untitled film stills. Don't like a lot of her other stuff.

 

[Neanderman]

I can't believe she's still (successfully!) milking the same old idea. The film stills was a great concept, but "all self-portraiture, all the time" should not a career make.

What if all Edward Weston shot his whole career was peppers? Enough is enough.

Ed

 

[clayne]

Geez. Those prints big enough?

 

[jp498]

Geez. Those prints big enough?

That's how you make them special and not-so-boring.

 

[Neanderman]

Geez. Those prints big enough?

If you can't make 'em good, make 'em big!

 

[Alan W]

Size counts.

 

[tomalophicon]

 

[SuzanneR]

God forbid a woman is successful at making BIG art. No one seems to be complaining about the big Gursky prints or the big Anelsm Kiefer paintings, why does Sherman's work generate such ridiculous criticism? I'd say her work is about the right size, and it's NOT actually self-portraits, but an exploration of women and their roles in general. Should be a show well worth seeing full of provocative work.

 

[CGW]

God forbid a woman is successful at making BIG art. No one seems to be complaining about the big Gursky prints or the big Anelsm Kiefer paintings, why does Sherman's work generate such ridiculous criticism? I'd say her work is about the right size, and it's NOT actually self-portraits, but an exploration of women and their roles in general. Should be a show well worth seeing full of provocative work.

Dunno. Sour grapes? Doubt anyone even read the NYT links I posted. Too troubling, I guess. Maybe even too challenging. No one said beans about the "lost" Robert Frank photos.

 

[brucemuir]

No one said beans about the "lost" Robert Frank photos.

I checked the Robert Frank link and even though i didn't say beans I appreciate the heads up

 

[Moopheus]

Should be a show well worth seeing full of provocative work.

But provocative within reason. The article seemed to be complaining that there's a limit to how provocative you can be at MOMA.

 

[jp498]

I read the article and I got out of it that praise was heaped on her because celebrities buy her overpriced work. No different than praising Peter Lik. There; it's not a gender thing because I lumper her in with Peter Lik, (and I love nature photography.)

Perhaps it's because I'm a guy, but her photography doesn't communicate to me as well as it does to women... Or is it the fame and success that women pick up on rather than something special in the photography? Women photographers hold her in higher regard. I do wish women fame and success as there are probably more women doing quality photography than men right now.

Her provocative stuff is another thing I don't understand as a guy. I'm thinking the extra bushy sculpture looking photos you'll see interspersed among google image search results of her name, assuming you have the safe browsing turned off. The trashiness overwhelms other description to me.

I understand that film stills are a valid form of excellent photography. However, people pretending to be in film stills which are based on actors/actresses pretending to be fictional people in fictional accounts is a little too far removed from reality for me to appreciate. Most photography, even non straight stuff or collages has meaning that correlates to some sort of reality. This solid connection to reality is why journalism/documentary/nature styles of photography succeed, and why reality TV succeeds (despite it's overwhelming faults). It's a superior source of inspiration and connection with the viewer.

 

[CGW]

Here work has always had multiple readings. I don't get how gender somehow determines relevance--i.e., "I'm a guy so it doesn't mean that much to me." Don't think that was Sherman's aim.

I'd agree with the point made in Vogel's NYT article that Sherman did help pry photography out of a deep rut and push it into the fine art realm almost 30 years ago.

 

[Dali]

Utterly boring. I never found Sherman's work attractive visually or emotionally. But maybe I am not sophisticated enough to enjoy "fine art".

 

[Alan Klein]

God forbid a woman is successful at making BIG art. No one seems to be complaining about the big Gursky prints ...

Just to be fair, although I'm not impressed by Sherman, I'm not impressed by Gursky either. I think it's just hype for both of them by "experts" creating buzz so they can make more money from what they sell.

 

[Alan Klein]

Suzanne: I looked at your site and found your pictures to be more beautiful, compelling and loving than what I've seen of Sherman's. Alan.

 

[Aristophanes]

God forbid a woman is successful at making BIG art. No one seems to be complaining about the big Gursky prints or the big Anelsm Kiefer paintings, why does Sherman's work generate such ridiculous criticism? I'd say her work is about the right size, and it's NOT actually self-portraits, but an exploration of women and their roles in general. Should be a show well worth seeing full of provocative work.

She constructs so we de-construct,

She generates controversy which in art has always been currency with added value and adding value.

She is provocative, by intent, less because she photographs, but because of her content and social contexts.

She is possibly one of the best visual riddle makers ever.

 

[36cm2]

Say whatever you like, but her work certainly evokes emotion. I went to see this exhibition today. Well, actually i went to see Atget. What a bizzare combination these two. Even if they exhibitions are on different floors and not billed at all together, the curators can't imagine people won't go see them both. Anyway, i was so excited to see Atget, but left a bit flat. On the other hand,i wasn't that excited about Sherman, but left disturbed. Walking out of the museum, i decided that disturbed was more impressive.

Don't chalk it up to just size. Many of her smaller prints are actually quite excellent. My favorite was the relatively conservative and normal-sized untitled 70. Even in the larger prints, it's a lot more about aggression, ruddy female carnality, and twisted moribund characters than it is sheer size. The later in her career, the more disturbed her prints seem. Is it my cup of tea? No, but there's definitely a strength and range of talent not to underestimated. Go see it.

Leo

 

[John NYC]

I read the article and I got out of it that praise was heaped on her because celebrities buy her overpriced work. No different than praising Peter Lik. There; it's not a gender thing because I lumper her in with Peter Lik, (and I love nature photography.)

Please. She is worlds beyond Peter Lik as an artist. Do you like any modern photographers that would be showing at the MOMA?

 

[SuzanneR]

Suzanne: I looked at your site and found your pictures to be more beautiful, compelling and loving than what I've seen of Sherman's. Alan.

Alan, thank you for your kind words about my work.

I'll confess that Sherman's constructed photographs aren't entirely to my taste as I've got me feet planted far more firmly in the world of photographing what's in front of me without setting it all up, but having said that, I've found her b/w untitled film series very compelling, and even some of the color work from the early 80's quite striking, and it makes me think and asks questions. There's plenty of her work, however, that doesn't work so well for me, but my frustration, I think, is that so many people heap criticism at her that seems to miss the point of her work, and swipes at how much people are paying for it... or that it's just too big, and then question why she has a show at MOMA without really addressing the substance.

Personally, I'm pleased to see a woman artist have a big retrospective at MOMA, far too few have, and I think she has earned it, even if I don't like all of her work or (as the linked article says) the show is flawed, and I have every intention of getting down to NYC this spring to see it.

 

[hoffy]

All I can say is I'm jealous. I have to admit that I am a Sherman fan (sounds like the only one here) and would really like to see some of these in person.

As was posted earlier in the thread ‘Haters gonna hate’…..

 

[jp498]

Please. She is worlds beyond Peter Lik as an artist. Do you like any modern photographers that would be showing at the MOMA?

I agree she is well beyond Lik as a creative artist. The comparison was about the NYT article as the OP chided us for not reading the article. The article described her celebrity fanbase as one of the reasons we should go to the show; Lik markets himself as celebrity approved also.

There is a variety of things that would interest me at MOMA, including some photography.

 

[Lowenburg]

I was in a group show with CS at the New Museum in 2000 (A nice large-format catalog of it is still in print I think:Picturing the Modern Amazon, Rizzoli). At that time she was working mainly in 3D, creating sculptures that are similar to some of the grotesque prosthetic pieces that can be seen in some of her photographs. Though I didn't like the 3D work, I think it would have been interesting if she had created more of it and allowed it to evolve. I haven't found the evolution of her photography to be too interesting except in the sense that it's totally American. Maybe that's what she'll be remembered for a century or two from now.

It's also possible that I can't appreciate her work or it's significance because I'm not a woman. I know she is important to many women artists -- who can't stand her work--because of what she's accomplished. Cindy, among others, has succeeded in getting the art world to take a woman artist seriously. We kind of take that for granted these days, but 30 years ago things were very different. So I believe it's important to recognize her for the inspiration she's provided to other women photographers.