Cindy Sherman

[Arthurwg]

Woke up this morning to a Cindy Sherman feature in the New York Times, "The Ugly Beauty of Cindy Sherman's Instagram Selfies." Just wondering if others find these pictures as utterly repugnant as I do. Yes, they are truly "Ugly," but I can find nothing "beautiful" or redeeming about them. Indeed, I place them in the same category as Peter Witkin's pictures. I often wonder if there is something immoral about "artists" who bring something as disgusting as these pictures into the world, and get rewarded for it.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I have not seen the article/photos you refer to, but I've never been a fan of ms Sherman.

 

[macfred]

Here we go ... https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/05/magazine/instagram-cindy-sherman-ugly-beauty.html
Strange stuff - though fascinating ...

 

[trendland]

Woke up this morning to a Cindy Sherman feature in the New York Times, "The Ugly Beauty of Cindy Sherman's Instagram Selfies." Just wondering if others find these pictures as utterly repugnant as I do. Yes, they are truly "Ugly," but I can find nothing "beautiful" or redeeming about them. Indeed, I place them in the same category as Peter Witkin's pictures. I often wonder if there is something immoral about "artists" who bring something as disgusting as these pictures into the world, and get rewarded for it.

Well - Cindy Sherman is registered at the MomA! So if we're talking about the same person. May be her today's Art is a little strange.I haven't seen it actually. But she indeed is a real artist without any doubt about. The work I know is a transcription of hollywoods 70th Film aesthtics.
She is also related to some well known scenes of Alfred Hitchcock and that isn't too bad I saw.

with regards

PS : The much so nice fine Art photography isn't the soup photographers come into real business.

 

[trendland]

Here we go ... https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/05/magazine/instagram-cindy-sherman-ugly-beauty.html
Strange stuff - though fascinating ...

Aha - that's kind of you.So we're soon up to date. The first LOOK I did (tablet has bad wifi so i have to wait a bit till all sides are opened - so the first I saw I wouldn't buy for less because it is in every way too expensive to me.And I would not to have a LOOK on that at home every day. But who cares about. MomA may have a LOOK on it. The work of her I am interested in ISN'T afordable too - so I make my own Art.
But it is a general inspiration.

with regards

 

[ic-racer]

Wow those are great. I have always been a fan of Sherman and this latest digital work is the best digital work I have seen. I guess if you don't get it, you don't get it.

 

[MattKing]

These make her "beautiful" self portraits more interesting - at least to me.

 

[Wayne]

I think they are weird and unsettling and dont leave me wanting more, but nowhere near as repugnant as that other photographer

 

[removed account4]

Wow those are great. I have always been a fan of Sherman and this latest digital work is the best digital work I have seen. I guess if you don't get it, you don't get it.

couldn't agree more !

 

[Jim Jones]

Perhaps Cindy Sherman's photography is best appreciated by us with several decades of watching her evolution. Individual photos are less intriguing.

 

[jim10219]

I think these are amazing! The current trend on Instagram is to apply filters to make people more physically attractive in the traditional sense, often using poor lighting and backgrounds. She uses the same platform and concepts to make people more ugly, yet makes the photographs themselves more beautiful with beautiful lighting and backgrounds. I’m also glad she didn’t just exploit people with physical deformities to do this. It’s a wonderful commentary on the superficiality of our society and the lie of the selfie.

What I hate are portraits of pretty people in traditional lighting schemes and traditional poses. I’ve seen a million of them, and don’t care to see any more. They rely solely on your loins for consideration and offer nothing for your mind. Taking a beautiful portrait of a gorgeous person isn’t hard. And it doesn’t make you a good photographer to have a portfolio full of them.

 

[Mark Minard]

I think they are weird and unsettling and dont leave me wanting more, but nowhere near as repugnant as that other photographer

Mapplethorpe?

 

[trendland]

Wow those are great. I have always been a fan of Sherman and this latest digital work is the best digital work I have seen. I guess if you don't get it, you don't get it.

Exacly - you metioned it. The first possible case is : People like it , the other case is : They don't like it.
So we all might remember the folowing : The task of Art have never been to create what People mostly like. If you reduce Art in that way you get a nice definition of what (in most cases) isn't Art.

Sure there must be a way of Art from what most People like. Because the opposite from that isn't also a Definition.

To think :"That is most ugly so it MUST BE Art " isn't a right way too.....

To come to a definition of Art from interpretation is a possible way - but (sorry to say) that is also no way.

Art is mostly that what People feel as Art. For me the discussed selfies are Art for sure but it does nothing to say to me - but that must be no problem.

Others (so as here) feel the opposite. This selfies told them EVERYTHING !
Quite clear is the interpretation of Cindy for her it has a lot to say. But to her this LOOK is possible total different to each single Interpretation of all others. That is Art !

with regards

 

[trendland]

These make her "beautiful" self portraits more interesting - at least to me.

Fine logic....Matt....

Beautiful (in normal live) is allways "interesting" isn't it?

with regards

PS : If someone is interested (in normal live situation) I am perhaps not allowed to state it more clear
because to avoid moderators came on plan.........so if someone is more interested in "ugly" someone himself isn't normal. So in short : beatiful is allways better...

 

[Bob Carnie]

Wow those are great. I have always been a fan of Sherman and this latest digital work is the best digital work I have seen. I guess if you don't get it, you don't get it.

I agree they are quite lovely ,,, not sure what the OP is ranting about, I also like JPW work so go figure.

 

[Doc W]

couldn't agree more !

I get it. I just don't really care for it. That's allowed, you know, lol.

 

[removed account4]

I get it. I just don't really care for it. That's allowed, you know, lol.

its allowed

 

[Sebastiaan Hoornaert]

Hilarious, if anything. Stop taking everything so serious.

 

[macfred]

Mapplethorpe?

Did someone say 'Jehova' ... ?

 

[trendland]

Did someone say 'Jehova' ... ?

Just you mentioned this? Should we be concerned about you now macfred ?

with regards

 

[macfred]

Just you mentioned this? Should we be concerned about you now ...

I wrote that -probably ambiguous- because I expected some to mob Mapplethorpe now.
I did not mean to offend you or someone else. Sorry!

 

[Vaughn]

...I often wonder if there is something immoral about "artists" who bring something as disgusting as these pictures into the world, and get rewarded for it.

I don't wonder much about it at all. Morality does not enter into it.
Her work is in no way disgusting. That is something the viewer brings of him/herself to the images.

 

[ann]

Wonderful sarcasm (imho). I hve=followed her work for=years an it is fascinating to see the changes

My mind does not think this way but at times I wish it did, the thing about art it should create emotions good bad anything but indifference which is a killer to an artist

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I found the filter on my camera too. Now I'm waiting for the NY Times to call me too.

 

[Vaughn]

I never do. You are correct. Sherman's ability to bring out such strong feelings from such as the OP's, shows how important and strong of an artist she is. The work reached him and pulled a reaction out of him. What more can an artist ask?!