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

[nikos79]

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

Touche again

 

[DREW WILEY]

Bingo. Talk about shallow stereotypes, Ox00.... You've sure got some of your own. Were Cindy and her clones like Judy Dater speaking tongue in cheek - undoubtedly. But it's still diztography as far as I'm concerned, equivalent to what the Monkees were to pop music, which 13 year-old girls once gravitated to.

Cholenpot - AA never printed huge quantities of any one image - the main exception being Moonrise, with around 350 of them.
Prints made by his assistants from his own negatives were marked differently, and still sell for comparatively little. Alan Ross still prints them darkroom-style on demand. Then there is the far greater volume of mechanical press prints offered by the AA trust, of relatively high quality, and affordable. And some big inkjet prints have been authorized, but nowhere remotely near as pricey as what even a flawed classic print by his own hand would command. Another category would be the large vintage "mural prints" (30x40 inch or 49X60) which were printed by a better equipped commercial lab under his own supervision. Those are quite rare. Then you've got lots and lots of commercial prints from AA worth very little - either routine projects or versions of his more famous images deliberately printed dull (lower contrast) for sake of pre-scanner offset reproduction. AA was nearly 80 before his "fine art" side became really profitable. It's his heirs who have benefitted the most.

 

[warden]

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.

You just don't like it and that's cool, no need to dig deeper, and it's pretty clear no critical writing on her work would move anyone off their position anyway. I don't like a lot of her work either btw - especially some of the modern grotesque work - but some of her work I do like and respect. Whatevs.

 

[0x001688936CA08]

Bingo. Talk about shallow stereotypes, Ox00.... You've sure got some of your own. Were Cindy and her clones like Judy Dater speaking tongue in cheek - undoubtedly. But it's still diztography as far as I'm concerned, equivalent to what the Monkees were to pop music, which 13 year-old girls once gravitated to.

Honestly I'm not sure what I've said that deserves such hostility. What shallow stereotypes of mine are you referring to exactly?

Deriding the work as "ditzography" seems pretty shallow, no? I'm not a fan of Cindy Sherman's work (or the cash-grab reissue project), but I can appreciate that others enjoy her work and see value in it, even 13 year old girls.

 

[nikos79]

Honestly I'm not sure what I've said that deserves such hostility. What shallow stereotypes of mine are you referring to exactly?

Deriding the work as "ditzography" seems pretty shallow, no? I'm not a fan of Cindy Sherman's work (or the cash-grab reissue project), but I can appreciate that others enjoy her work and see value in it, even 13 year old girls.

Let's put the question you asked back to you, what do you like?

 

[TJones]

Bingo. Talk about shallow stereotypes, Ox00.... You've sure got some of your own. Were Cindy and her clones like Judy Dater speaking tongue in cheek - undoubtedly. But it's still diztography as far as I'm concerned, equivalent to what the Monkees were to pop music, which 13 year-old girls once gravitated to.

Cholenpot - AA never printed huge quantities of any one image - the main exception being Moonrise, with around 350 of them.
Prints made by his assistants from his own negatives were marked differently, and still sell for comparatively little. Alan Ross still prints them darkroom-style on demand. Then there is the far greater volume of mechanical press prints offered by the AA trust, of relatively high quality, and affordable. And some big inkjet prints have been authorized, but nowhere remotely near as pricey as what even a flawed classic print by his own hand would command. Another category would be the large vintage "mural prints" (30x40 inch or 49X60) which were printed by a better equipped commercial lab under his own supervision. Those are quite rare. Then you've got lots and lots of commercial prints from AA worth very little - either routine projects or versions of his more famous images deliberately printed dull (lower contrast) for sake of pre-scanner offset reproduction. AA was nearly 80 before his "fine art" side became really profitable. It's his heirs who have benefitted the most.

Reading your replies to direct questions is like watching the opening scene from Blade Runner.

 

[0x001688936CA08]

Let's put the question you asked back to you, what do you like?

Great question. I'm not sure how off-topic we're allowed to get, but whatever, here're some artists whose work I enjoy for various reasons (and not necessarily everything they've ever done):

Alex Prager, Taryn Simon, Alec Soth, Jeff Wall, Gurksy, Petra Wunderlich, Todd Hido, Gregory Crewdson, Sugimoto, Sally Mann, Mark Power, Larry Sultan, Erwin Olaf, Winogrand, Burk Uzzle.

So much great work out there.

 

[nikos79]

Great question. I'm not sure how off-topic we're allowed to get, but whatever, here're some artists whose work I enjoy for various reasons (and not necessarily everything they've ever done):

Alex Prager, Taryn Simon, Alec Soth, Jeff Wall, Gurksy, Petra Wunderlich, Todd Hido, Gregory Crewdson, Sugimoto, Sally Mann, Mark Power, Larry Sultan, Erwin Olaf, Winogrand, Burk Uzzle.

So much great work out there.

Very diverse list indeed. Thanks for reply I was curious

 

[Cholentpot]

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.

I don't think it's unintelligible, I think it's plain unintelligent.

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.



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

Look, if there's a market for that kind of work, bad framing, cheap look etc, go for it. But pretending that it's a major statement and that she's some sort of guru for photography I think rankles me. Maybe I should see it as she is an artist first and photographer last. The opposite of AA. He's foremost a photographer. I can respect either position if they're honest with themselves about it.

Would I take a photography course with Ansel? Most defiantly yes. Cindy? No. But I would go for a marketing course, she'd be able to teach me a thing or two.

Bingo. Talk about shallow stereotypes, Ox00.... You've sure got some of your own. Were Cindy and her clones like Judy Dater speaking tongue in cheek - undoubtedly. But it's still diztography as far as I'm concerned, equivalent to what the Monkees were to pop music, which 13 year-old girls once gravitated to.

Cholenpot - AA never printed huge quantities of any one image - the main exception being Moonrise, with around 350 of them.
Prints made by his assistants from his own negatives were marked differently, and still sell for comparatively little. Alan Ross still prints them darkroom-style on demand. Then there is the far greater volume of mechanical press prints offered by the AA trust, of relatively high quality, and affordable. And some big inkjet prints have been authorized, but nowhere remotely near as pricey as what even a flawed classic print by his own hand would command. Another category would be the large vintage "mural prints" (30x40 inch or 49X60) which were printed by a better equipped commercial lab under his own supervision. Those are quite rare. Then you've got lots and lots of commercial prints from AA worth very little - either routine projects or versions of his more famous images deliberately printed dull (lower contrast) for sake of pre-scanner offset reproduction. AA was nearly 80 before his "fine art" side became really profitable. It's his heirs who have benefitted the most.

I'd agree about the Monkees, they were able to put out some top notch tunes but other than that they were just for the paycheck and fun times.

You just don't like it and that's cool, no need to dig deeper, and it's pretty clear no critical writing on her work would move anyone off their position anyway. I don't like a lot of her work either btw - especially some of the modern grotesque work - but some of her work I do like and respect. Whatevs.

I'm sure some of her work is fine. Annie Lebovitz comes to mind as someone who's early work is right up my ally and her later stuff is absolutely worthless to my eye. She stopped selling art and started selling Annie.

 

[nikos79]

The opposite of AA. He's foremost a photographer. I can respect either position if they're honest with themselves about it.

Exactly! Even my nephew could frame better. In my view she doesn't know anything about photography. But I am fine to call her a conceptual visual artist or a symbol for feminism who cares.

Would I take a photography course with Ansel? Most defiantly yes. Cindy? No. But I would go for a marketing course, she'd be able to teach me a thing or two.

Hahaha I would for sure take a course with her on marketing!

I'm sure some of her work is fine. Annie Lebovitz comes to mind as someone who's early work is right up my ally and her later stuff is absolutely worthless to my eye. She stopped selling art and started selling Annie

Yes many examples like that. Have you seen the early Robert Mapplethorpe photos before he became famous? So good. And later he was selling himself and making really bad photography.

 

[Don_ih]

So much petty weirdness here.

 

[pentaxuser]

So much petty weirdness here.

It's everywhere now, is it not? Aren't we just part of the problem?

pentaxuser

 

[warden]

Would I take a photography course with Ansel? Most defiantly yes. Cindy? No. But I would go for a marketing course, she'd be able to teach me a thing or two.

Maybe you could reach out to her and offer a barter arrangement: you can teach her photography and she can teach you marketing. How could she refuse?

 

[nikos79]

Maybe you could reach out to her and offer a barter arrangement: you can teach her photography and she can teach you marketing. How could she refuse?

Only problem is that if she becomes good in photography very few would understand her as opposed to now

 

[Maris]

Consider the possibility that the art of Cindy Sherman is not the art of photography.
Cindy is more certainly a performance artist. She gathers props, costumes, and locations to act out curious, theatrical, or evocative tableaux.

The camera is not central in this art. It is a passive recording device providing a "permanent" record that the great act has been done and the great thought has been thunk.
A copy photograph, provided it is a true copy, does what the original photograph does: that is to merely re-confirm the existence of a much applauded moment of Cindy Sherman posturing.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Performance art is a better way of describing it. And I'm not against a sense of humor or irony, or even cynicism. But even William Wegman's posed dogs did it better. Per Cindy, there's more "thud" than "thunk".

 

[0x001688936CA08]

Consider the possibility that the art of Cindy Sherman is not the art of photography.
Cindy is more certainly a performance artist. She gathers props, costumes, and locations to act out curious, theatrical, or evocative tableaux.

The camera is not central in this art. It is a passive recording device providing a "permanent" record that the great act has been done and the great thought has been thunk.
A copy photograph, provided it is a true copy, does what the original photograph does: that is to merely re-confirm the existence of a much applauded moment of Cindy Sherman posturing.

Cindy Sherman has been making and selling photographs as art for over forty years. If that doesn't make her a photographer, I have no idea what does.

It's pretty weird how keen people are to point out what "real photography" is.

 

[warden]

Cindy Sherman in

Art21 is the world’s leading source to learn directly from the artists of our time. The mission of Art21 is to educate and expand access to contemporary art through the production of documentary films, resources, and public programs.

art21.org

 

[MattKing]

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

This tells me that Ms. Sherman was completely successful with her Art - which is about a number of things, but in particular about the highlighting of the incongruities in many "norms".
I get the impression that you wouldn't be a fan of Surrealism, or of Theatre of the Absurd.

 

[MTGseattle]

I wonder what the auction house take on $500k is?

 

[DREW WILEY]

What on earth does that have in common with surrealism, Matt? Those guys might have been drug-induced kooks, but could also be incredibly skilled painters. It wasn't all bluff.

The local art academy championed Warhol, Avedon, and Cindy S. No wonder it went broke. Three stuck records to choose form, played over and over and over again, ad nauseum. Who needs more of the same?

 

[MattKing]

What on earth does that have in common with surrealism, Matt? Those guys might have been drug-induced kooks, but could also be incredibly skilled painters. It wasn't all bluff and posturing.

Surrealism is more than painting Drew.
And much of Cindy Sherman's photography uses photography to communicate - not unlike a large group of more traditional photographers. Ansel Adams' Sierra Club work is an example of that, but so was the highly staged work of Edward Curtis.
One measure in my opinion of success in some photography is whether the work makes you think of things outside the boundaries of the photographic artifact itself.
Just as a measure of success can be found in photographs that draw you in to the photographs themselves, because of an appreciation of how well they represent themselves.
This Jane Bown photo is, IMHO, a great photo within itself, and great in how it makes one think of what its subject represents - so it is multi-faceted, and appeals to more than one interest:

But if I were to attempt to make a photograph that sought to make an allegoric refence to, e.g., "Waiting For Godot", would that by definition be less "Art" than Jane Bown's work.
It's fine to not like allegory, or symbolism, or subtle but indirect irony, but does that mean it can't have value.
FWIW, the major photographic show that featured some of Cindy Sherman's work (among several others) that I was able to see a few years ago was impressive and well worth attending, and Ms. Sherman's work was as strong as any other work there.
And given when the earliest work was made, it was innovative as well.

 

[Cholentpot]

Maybe you could reach out to her and offer a barter arrangement: you can teach her photography and she can teach you marketing. How could she refuse?

I can name about 4 million reasons why she would refuse.

Consider the possibility that the art of Cindy Sherman is not the art of photography.
Cindy is more certainly a performance artist. She gathers props, costumes, and locations to act out curious, theatrical, or evocative tableaux.

The camera is not central in this art. It is a passive recording device providing a "permanent" record that the great act has been done and the great thought has been thunk.
A copy photograph, provided it is a true copy, does what the original photograph does: that is to merely re-confirm the existence of a much applauded moment of Cindy Sherman posturing.

Well put. I wouldn't describe her as a photographer. If she started her career now she'd use a camera phone. Not that there's anything wrong with that, the camera phone gets out of the way so the artist can concentrate on the intent more than the technical.

Reminds me of an interview with Paul McCartney, they asked him what kind of strings he used 'Dunno, kinda long and shiny'

And artist like Paul didn't focus on the details, his bass guitar was a means to an end. I, possibly being not so talented in the creative realm fall to relying on technical knowledge rather than artistic notions.

 

[mshchem]

Wow, I think her work is terrific. Not sure what the big deal is. If you have a messed up faded Cibachrome print and want something new cool. If you have her original prints you're not poor. Museums will not be charged if, they want to make a swap.

Paintings are conserved constantly.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Gosh, you must think I'm uneducated, Matt. I've seen my share of vintage Surrealist photography too. Just because I get annoyed at certain genre doesn't mean I don't get the point. I just don't want the same predictable commodities dumped on me over and over and over again every time I visit another "modern art" museum which apparently can't think for itself. When I consider the De Chirico painting of the Pink Tower, or inspect one of Dali's paintings, it screams with genius and remarkable technique. But when I look at a Cindy print, I yawn and roll my eyes.

As far a Curtis is concerned, I have the best modern book on his work ever published, and as lovely as it is, a lot of the dress is faux, brought along with him on his travels, with little respect for authentic local tribal dress, much like a John Wayne movie. If you have a copy of Almost Ancestors, the Sierra Club book on early Calif Indian photos, I personally knew three individuals in that - photos of them when they were children, but aged when I was growing up. I went to school with their own kids. Our family collection contains tintypes and ambrotypes of an even earlier generation, back when the typical hot weather dress was zero.
My own babysitter as an infant was the first white woman ever in Yosemite, when she was 7.

Yes, that's an interesting Jane Brown photo. I sure wouldn't want to cross the guy.

Ansel didn't get a whole lot of shooting in on those Sierra Club outings. He was in charge of much of it, so had to be up awfully early to get in a few personal shots. Most of them were taken on other occasions. We locals resented all the trash those big S. Club horse convoys left behind, and all the damage to the meadows. Big groups like that are no longer permitted in the high country.

I grew up in that Sierra light, so have a far better idea of AA's sensitivity to it than most people. Also his poetic feel. No, his printmaking skills didn't impress me as much as the work of both Edward and Brett Weston, and I never even saw a real AA print until I was given my own exhibitions in his own neighborhood.