To help preserve her works, Cindy Sherman is offering to destroy and reprint old photographs

[koraks]

Being open-minded isn't a disorder, you know.

 

[warden]

Nowadays the majority of critics have nothing to do with photography, I doubt if they ever have lifted a camera, yet they have to invent exo-photographic terms to approach photography, such as concept, meaning, innovation.

Concept, meaning, and innovation, are not concepts that are limited to describing photography, they can be used to promote understanding of any art. And there’s no requirement whatsoever in the field of art criticism to be a practitioner of the craft one writes about. Such a requirement would entirely miss the point of art criticism in the first place.

Writing about art is an art form itself.

 

[warden]

Maybe, never say never. Although it comes to be that if I happen to appreciate both Walker Evans and Cindy Sherman I might have a bipolar disorder

I appreciate both.

 

[nikos79]

Concept, meaning, and innovation, are not concepts that are limited to describing photography, they can be used to promote understanding of any art. And there’s no requirement whatsoever in the field of art criticism to be a practitioner of the craft one writes about. Such a requirement would entirely miss the point of art criticism in the first place.

Writing about art is an art form itself.

Photography is special. I argue that someone HAS at least try to do Photography to understand how difficult it is

 

[warden]

Photography is special. I argue that someone HAS at least try to do Photography to understand how difficult it isi

You have missed the point of art criticism.

 

[Cholentpot]

I think we found on you the ignorant with the wisdom we have been looking for to finally proclaim that the king (or the queen in our case) is naked!

P.S. A bit off topic but curious to hear how you perceive Walker Evans
P.S. Also my photographic education is not formal in the sense of college, school etc. but through Internet, books, and mostly studying next to a very good independent teacher

From the little bit that I've seen he has a keen eye for the story, but also seems to be able to capture what feels like random interesting moments. Other than that his work is all over the place, which is something that I appreciate. He doesn't seem bound to a particular subject but his style comes through in the photos whether its a photo of a kitchen or a miner leaving work.

Or you just don't see it (yet). Apparently it happened to you with Evans. Maybe it can happen again. Not if you believe that your growth is complete of course. That one is definitely up to you.

I decided to look into her work a bit more and even read her captions. I gave up at untitled #96.

The photograph depicts the artist portraying a young teenager girl with short blonde hair, lying on a linoleum floor, wearing an orange sweater and a short skirt, as she clutches the scrap of a newspaper. Cindy Sherman explained about the composition: "I was thinking of a young girl who may have been cleaning the kitchen for her mother and who ripped something out of the newspaper, something asking 'Are you lonely?' or 'Do you want to be friends?' or 'Do you want to go on a vacation?' She's cleaning the floor, she rips this out and she's thinking about it"

Wow. Such deep. Amazing.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The art world frequently gets gamed with artificial commodities, just like today's meme bit coins. Some people collect rare bottle caps or beer cans. It's their money. But the whole game is ultimately only as good as its bluff. In this case, if I wanted to see theatrical examples of a women chewing their fingernails, etc, I'd just watch re-runs of Dr Phil for free.

 

[Milpool]

Photography is special. I argue that someone HAS at least try to do Photography to understand how difficult it is

What? Difficult how? From a technical perspective I think it's quite the opposite.

 

[0x001688936CA08]

The art world frequently gets gamed with artificial commodities, just like today's meme bit coins. Some people collect rare bottle caps or beer cans. It's their money. But the whole game is ultimately only as good as its bluff. In this case, if I wanted to see theatrical examples of a women chewing their fingernails, etc, I'd just watch re-runs of Dr Phil for free.

So, what do you like?

They're just pictures so it seems odd to get bent out of shape about it.

 

[Cholentpot]

So, what do you like?

They're just pictures so it seems odd to get bent out of shape about it.

Fans or followers of artist can at time put on airs and look down their nose at those that don't appreciate the subtilties and deepness of the work. And normies will point and say 'It's a banana, duct taped to a wall' to which we get told that we just aren't intelligent to understand the intent of the artist. It's also insulting to someone who views themselves as an accomplished photographer. I can't appreciate various artists, does that make me less of a photographer and artist? Is my eye that bad? Or am I calling it as I see it and that photograph is trash. I see thousands of photos every job and believe you me, these photos selling for x millions of dollars wouldn't get past my culling regiment.

Boiling it down.

We want to see intent AND effort in art. Slapping some kitschy stuff together and then making up some floof airheaded this is soooo deep statement about it is an insult to the general public who doesn't get it.

 

[nikos79]

What? Difficult how? From a technical perspective I think it's quite the opposite.

From a technical indeed. From a matter of seeing not

 

[0x001688936CA08]

Fans or followers of artist can at time put on airs and look down their nose at those that don't appreciate the subtilties and deepness of the work. And normies will point and say 'It's a banana, duct taped to a wall' to which we get told that we just aren't intelligent to understand the intent of the artist. It's also insulting to someone who views themselves as an accomplished photographer. I can't appreciate various artists, does that make me less of a photographer and artist? Is my eye that bad? Or am I calling it as I see it and that photograph is trash. I see thousands of photos every job and believe you me, these photos selling for x millions of dollars wouldn't get past my culling regiment.

Boiling it down.

We want to see intent AND effort in art. Slapping some kitschy stuff together and then making up some floof airheaded this is soooo deep statement about it is an insult to the general public who doesn't get it.

I'm simply asking what people appreciate if not Cindy Sherman, since it seems people think her work is so bad.

Responding to your comment directly. There are no absolutes, and it seems you're frustrated by the subjectivity of art. You're saying your standards would eliminate all these million dollar artworks. That doesn't actually say much except that you have a different view of things to in-crowd art snobs. It's all aloof bullshit that is obviously vacuous nonsense. Great, got it. Notice that no one is telling you that you and your photos suck because you don't like some popular artist's work, that seems to be something you're bringing to the discussion.

So what is not trash in your view as an accomplished photographer? Also, it might be interesting to know what those accomplishments are... I suspect they're eclipsed by Cindy Sherman's.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Why would I get "bent out of shape" about it? This is about marketing. Good products sell poorly due to weak marketing, and often worthless stuff sells in abundance strictly due to clever marketing. In this case, the alleged value is totally arbitrary. It was printed on a relatively fugitive medium to begin with, and there's certainly nothing special about the replacement product, which is apparently just ordinary inkjet, easily capable of mass reproduction with or without formal authorization.

I've seen a lot of great photography, and have run in that circle myself somewhat. Commoditization isn't generally the object at all, but one's love of image making, whether monetarily successful or not. Fame is an awfully shallow aspiration. A very few get rich (sometimes the worst photographers or painters in a self-marketed kitchy sense); but most struggle and have to support themselves by other means, even by commercial photography in many instances. Likewise, there have been a few really perceptive art/photo curators out there - I've had some at my own dinner table - but also a predictable swarm of windbag critics promoting the latest silly trend just to justify their verbose career momentum.

Collecting? Buy what you personally admire and enjoy looking at. Maybe something will retain or even increase in "value"; maybe it won't. But a lot of art "investment" schemes might be more appropriately termed "gambling".

 

[0x001688936CA08]

That's great Drew. You've run on those circles and had curators at your table. Congratulations. Thanks for the lesson about the art world.

Anyway, so what do you like? What's good in your eyes? Simple question.

 

[Milpool]

Why would I get "bent out of shape" about it? This is about marketing. Good products sell poorly due to weak marketing, and often worthless stuff sells in abundance strictly due to clever marketing. In this case, the alleged value is totally arbitrary. It was printed on a relatively fugitive medium to begin with, and there's certainly nothing special about the replacement product, which is apparently just ordinary inkjet, easily capable of mass reproduction with or without formal authorization.

I've seen a lot of great photography, and have run in that circle myself somewhat. Commoditization isn't generally the object at all, but one's love of image making, whether monetarily successful or not. Fame is an awfully shallow aspiration. A very few get rich (sometimes the worst photographers or painters in a self-marketed kitchy sense); but most struggle and have to support themselves by other means, even by commercial photography in many instances. Likewise, there have been a few really perceptive art/photo curators out there - I've had some at my own dinner table - but also a predictable swarm of windbag critics promoting the latest silly trend just to justify their verbose career momentum.

Collecting? Buy what you personally admire and enjoy looking at. Maybe something will retain or even increase in "value"; maybe it won't. But a lot of art "investment" schemes might be more appropriately termed "gambling".

Yup I'm hoping to eventually retire on my Petit's Mobil Station print lol.

 

[Cholentpot]

I'm simply asking what people appreciate if not Cindy Sherman, since it seems people think her work is so bad.

Responding to your comment directly. There are no absolutes, and it seems you're frustrated by the subjectivity of art. You're saying your standards would eliminate all these million dollar artworks. That doesn't actually say much except that you have a different view of things to in-crowd art snobs. It's all aloof bullshit that is obviously vacuous nonsense. Great, got it. Notice that no one is telling you that you and your photos suck because you don't like some popular artist's work, that seems to be something you're bringing to the discussion.

So what is not trash in your view as an accomplished photographer? Also, it might be interesting to know what those accomplishments are... I suspect they're eclipsed by Cindy Sherman's.

Right now I'm going through an Andreas Feininger phase. I was given his book Total Picture Control and have been going through his works. Again, it's a guy that's all over the place but is obviously a master of his craft. It makes me think though, are the Cindy Shermans of the world at their time a backlash to the Feiniger types? Was it a rebellion of sorts? I can see that angle for the times.

​

 

[Dali]

To Sherman's work, I prefer "Who is Cindy Sherman?" by Duane Michals.

 

[koraks]

I decided to look into her work a bit more and even read her captions. I gave up at untitled #96.

I think that shows that asking artists to explain their work often results in disappointing answers. I also realize that if Sherman would have been a writer, she would have chosen words to express herself. She chose photography. Hence, maybe there's something to the pictures themselves that's kind of essential to her work. Maybe.

 

[mshchem]

Interesting, Ansel Adams offered up prints from nearly any of his negatives, it was sometime in the 80's. These were printed on Ilford paper, using the most archival techniques. Didn't need to own an original, just put your money down and get "an original " AA print. Was a big hit.

I don't think it hurt the value of AA's original portfolio prints.

Maybe CS should have done this.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Simple question... ? You want a simple answer, Ox 00 ...or a real answer you probably wouldn't understand anyway?

 

[0x001688936CA08]

Ouch. Seems someone has had their feelings hurt.

Yes, I'm sure your answer would be way above my head Drew.

 

[Cholentpot]

Interesting, Ansel Adams offered up prints from nearly any of his negatives, it was sometime in the 80's. These were printed on Ilford paper, using the most archival techniques. Didn't need to own an original, just put your money down and get "an original " AA print. Was a big hit.

I don't think it hurt the value of AA's original portfolio prints.

Maybe CS should have done this.

I've seen these anywhere from hanging in a living room to an ice cream shop. And it's no less valuable in my mind. It'd be pretty cool to have one.

I think that shows that asking artists to explain their work often results in disappointing answers. I also realize that if Sherman would have been a writer, she would have chosen words to express herself. She chose photography. Hence, maybe there's something to the pictures themselves that's kind of essential to her work. Maybe.

But unexplained the photo is just a poorly franed photo of a girl laying on the floor. The explanation doesn't help. I feel like I'm missing some sort of cultural touchstone or reasoning. Was this a 'punk' attitude or a reaction to the mainstream of the time? I wasn't around in '81 yet.

 

[0x001688936CA08]

I feel like I'm missing some sort of cultural touchstone or reasoning.

Indeed.

One way to think about it is that Cindy Sherman is speaking a language that you don't understand. It is simply unintelligible to you.

Artists like Ansel Adams are easier to understand because it's a language of technical mastery, focused on the photograph as object.

 

[nikos79]

From the little bit that I've seen he has a keen eye for the story, but also seems to be able to capture what feels like random interesting moments. Other than that his work is all over the place, which is something that I appreciate. He doesn't seem bound to a particular subject but his style comes through in the photos whether its a photo of a kitchen or a miner leaving work.

Yes he worked both instinctively and also didn't limit his subjects to a particular field, which is a trait I also like in photographers.
He tried also a lot to elevate the mundane, he always stayed faithful to reality and absolute description but managed to transform the reality using photography as a mean. His photos of the poor people of the American Farm Association were full of dignity and pride, he didn't want to portray them as miserable. This was the reason he got fired from the initiative. His photos were too "artistic" to use them to gain sympathy for the poor America.

I decided to look into her work a bit more and even read her captions. I gave up at untitled #96.

The photograph depicts the artist portraying a young teenager girl with short blonde hair, lying on a linoleum floor, wearing an orange sweater and a short skirt, as she clutches the scrap of a newspaper. Cindy Sherman explained about the composition: "I was thinking of a young girl who may have been cleaning the kitchen for her mother and who ripped something out of the newspaper, something asking 'Are you lonely?' or 'Do you want to be friends?' or 'Do you want to go on a vacation?' She's cleaning the floor, she rips this out and she's thinking about it"

Wow. Such deep. Amazing.

Everything in this photograph is bad. From the wrong framing, to the posed fake expression, to the vibrant annoying colours is a visual cacophony that doesn't even give at least the information of time or space, it could very well be a collage of tiled floor background, dreamy-posed woman, orange checked skirt, all stuck together

 

[nikos79]

Indeed.

One way to think about it is that Cindy Sherman is speaking a language that you don't understand. It is simply unintelligible to you.

Artists like Ansel Adams are easier to understand because it's a language of technical mastery, focused on the photograph as object.

Ansel Adams, whom I consider a very talented but mediocre/bad photographer is at least very honest in his approach. He chose the road to glorify the grandiose of the nature through the technical mastery. Apart from that all is shallow like a calendar of photo prints. But again I say he is at least honest. Cindy Shermann is not, she is underestimating the audience and she found a way to sell which repeats to the infinite. I find her bad, really bad. It is not a lack of understanding, I understood her concept the first 5 minutes I saw her work, enough to never look at it again
Ansel Adams at least speaks the language of photography at its mastery, although he often fails to transcend the obvious (the grandiose of the nature) thus his works remain at a shallow level.
Cindy Sherman speaks the language of concept and cheap impression. She is trying to impress not with photography but with the concept, stories, etc.
Imagine if Ansel Adams was telling a story like that behind his photos how ridiculous it would sound like for example in his "Snake River" photo:

"This river isn’t just flowing like a simple river, it’s fighting back. It pushes against old-school, male-dominated 'ol American terrains. The mountains in the back? Big, rocky symbols of masculine power trying to steal the show but the river just keeps doing its own thing. Nature here isn’t neutral. It’s feminist."