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

[Arthurwg]

It is not all that unusual to encounter artists who, when they were starting, used inexpensive materials and relatively poor techniques, and as a result created work that deteriorates quickly.
It is a common enough story: the starving artist who labours for years, scraping together whatever they could afford to make their art, and making compromises along the way that result in art that is less permanent than it might be.

Too bad Jackson Pollack is no longer with us. He could repaint his pictures, made with cheap house paint, with Winsor & Newton.

 

[nikos79]

I'm of the larger world, I've done my time and learned my craft. I never heard of Cindy Sherman until yesterday. Might it be I'm younger than many members here and her work is unknown to my generation? It's most definitely irrelevant to me, I mean I can learn lessons in it, not in photography but in marketing.

Don't dismiss her like that. It is useful to get in touch also with bad photography to do your comparisons and learn to appreciate the good one.

 

[TJones]

I had friends who studied in Yale or London so I know. When they want to show work they always ask them before "What you want to say or accomplish with your work?"
Absurd.

If you’re pursuing a degree, you’d better be thinking every day about what you’re trying to accomplish with your work.

 

[koraks]

Maybe because the larger world hasn't been told what's good and the classics are classics for a reason.

To be clear, my remark about 'classic' referred to technique, in which I meant analog photography, mostly. I associated a preference for techniques in that domain with a more conservative taste in photography. That's a tricky generalization, I admit, so criticism along these lines would be fair.

However, the background of my remark is that I see that at least some people, also on this forum, voice their preference for more classic works (now I do refer to the actual photography) in such a way as to dismiss work they don't like. I find it painful whenever that happens, because I don't see any reason to dismiss things you don't like just because you don't like (or don't understand) them. In this case, it's Sherman's work - which, for the record, I'm familiar with in general terms, but have no very strong opinion on.

I think all of us are totally fine with the fact that we all prefer different things. Wouldn't it be nice if we then just kept our opinions limited to just that - our opinions? What's the need to discredit someone's work by arguing it's only about marketing, it's meaningless, it's bad photography etc? To me, such things say nothing about the work or its maker, but a lot about the person voicing the criticism.

 

[nikos79]

To be clear, my remark about 'classic' referred to technique, in which I meant analog photography, mostly. I associated a preference for techniques in that domain with a more conservative taste in photography. That's a tricky generalization, I admit, so criticism along these lines would be fair.

However, the background of my remark is that I see that at least some people, also on this forum, voice their preference for more classic works (now I do refer to the actual photography) in such a way as to dismiss work they don't like. I find it painful whenever that happens, because I don't see any reason to dismiss things you don't like just because you don't like (or don't understand) them. In this case, it's Sherman's work - which, for the record, I'm familiar with in general terms, but have no very strong opinion on.

I think all of us are totally fine with the fact that we all prefer different things. Wouldn't it be nice if we then just kept our opinions limited to just that - our opinions? What's the need to discredit someone's work by arguing it's only about marketing, it's meaningless, it's bad photography etc? To me, such things say nothing about the work or its maker, but a lot about the person voicing the criticism.

Well said, I have to admit very nice answer to the discussion. There is no objectivity in those things that is why we get so passionate about our discussions. Thanks for bringing the conversation to a much reasonable and calmer perspective

 

[koraks]

Thanks, much appreciated. Passion is one of those things that makes us human. That's gotta be worth something!

 

[warden]

I had friends who studied in Yale or London so I know. When they want to show work they always ask them before "What you want to say or accomplish with your work?"

That is an entirely appropriate question to ask a student of photography.

And... Yale? Their MFA admits ten students a year. Ten. A small, boutique program. (And a good one, for what they teach, but hardly indicative of the educational experiences of photographic students beyond, or the photo world in general.)

 

[nikos79]

That is an entirely appropriate question to ask a student of photography.

And... Yale? Their MFA admits ten students a year. Ten. A small, boutique program. (And a good one, for what they teach, but hardly indicative of the educational experiences of photographic students beyond, or the photo world in general.)

You are exactly right only 10!
I mean I like the question "Why you photograph", I find it completely valid and always worth asking it ourselves too.
But sometimes as an artist you don't really want to show something with your photographs or if you want to show something usually it is mysterious only for you and you cannot even explain it with words. Is there a concept or a meaning behind Andre Kertesz photographs? Nothing, but still it manages to move many of us decades later. This is why I mentioned it, as I find it very restricting for a young artist to always conceptualise your art.

 

[nikos79]

Thanks, much appreciated. Passion is one of those things that makes us human. That's gotta be worth something!

Yes you always manage to amaze me with your answers
And passion is strong in that forum!

 

[Cholentpot]

To be clear, my remark about 'classic' referred to technique, in which I meant analog photography, mostly. I associated a preference for techniques in that domain with a more conservative taste in photography. That's a tricky generalization, I admit, so criticism along these lines would be fair.

However, the background of my remark is that I see that at least some people, also on this forum, voice their preference for more classic works (now I do refer to the actual photography) in such a way as to dismiss work they don't like. I find it painful whenever that happens, because I don't see any reason to dismiss things you don't like just because you don't like (or don't understand) them. In this case, it's Sherman's work - which, for the record, I'm familiar with in general terms, but have no very strong opinion on.

I think all of us are totally fine with the fact that we all prefer different things. Wouldn't it be nice if we then just kept our opinions limited to just that - our opinions? What's the need to discredit someone's work by arguing it's only about marketing, it's meaningless, it's bad photography etc? To me, such things say nothing about the work or its maker, but a lot about the person voicing the criticism.

We're a photography forum first and art second. You're going to bump into confused photographers here that can't quite make heads or tails off someone who to their own view is using the tools wrong and getting subpar results.

The same criticism that I'm flinging around can be applied to my work. Much of it can be deliberately sloppy, technical details left by the wayside using subpar techniques and bad process. However the subject generally transcends the lack of perceived care. It's deliberate and the effort put into the work is clear. Many darlings of the art world don't speak to me because the deliberation and effort seems to be lacking. I think many 'uneducated' folks see the same problem. The work comes across and schlocky and trite due to the lack of real input. True or not that's the impression many have.

 

[jeffreyg]

Since there are many opinions on the subject I’ll add mine. I’m neither for nor against her photography or what she is doing. I see it as being somewhat like the aging pop music stars selling their song books for millions. You get the hits but have to take the misses along with them. They probably make more than they did when they were originally released.
No one has to opt in. The value of “art”fluctuates. So as is said “you pays your money and takes your chances”.

 

[MattKing]

I don't know that there are many "photography" programs left in higher learning circles - given the bleak outlook in the commercial photography world.
But there are a few Fine Art programs left which admit those who seek to use photographic tools to make their Art.

 

[nikos79]

@koraks since you are Dutch I have to mention to you a Dutch photographer I discovered who I find really good: Kees Scherer
He encompasses all I admire in photography

P.S. Sorry for the off topic but it helps also to understand my personal preferences
P.S. Also Dutch-Hungarian Éva Besnyő and Ata Kando (former wife of Van Der Elskeer) same

 

[Peter Schrager]

Interestingly enough I was living in NYC when Cindy Sherman hit the scene. Being in the Zone VI; Ansel Adams school of thought I was shocked to see her work. Looking back I have come to appreciate her work and regret not buying her prints! worth way more than the 2 Bravo prints I just sold after owning them for over 30 years. lots of conceptual photography being done today. Don't get stuck in a box; there are always new ways of seeing.
As far as her redoing work fromthe past I guess it's up to her collectors to figure it out.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Oxoo ... nice try twisting my words completely beyond recognition. That's why I earlier implied, why even bother answering a simple-minded question. It's all about perceptual nuances, skilled or otherwise, not about what this or that groupie school one belongs too.

Having said that, I don't try to hide my disdain for "performance" photography, whether Sherman or Crewdsen. It's not the genre that bothers me, but how the magicians hand just shows too much, especially in the latter example.

 

[Arthurwg]

Having said that, I don't try to hide my disdain for "performance" photography, whether Sherman or Crewdsen. It's not the genre that bothers me, but how the magicians hand just shows too much, especially in the latter example.

Every now and then DW and I can agree.

 

[DREW WILEY]

"New ways of seeing things"? Kinda like referring to Disco music as new, as far as Cindy and these other routine photo commodities go. Just plain tedious at this point, like seeing a McDonald's franchise at every intersection. Underfunded museums get desperate to draw an audience, so either fall back on a handful of follow-the-herd names, or resort to shock value, which has itself gotten so predictable as to become downright boring.

Then the term "art" itself has been prostituted to the point of meaninglessness. If everything is art, then nothing is art. Around here, everyone with green hair and a nose ring thinks they're an artiste, not to mention the aerosol spray paint vandalism crowd.

 

[0x001688936CA08]

Oxoo ... nice try twisting my words completely beyond recognition. That's why I earlier implied, why even bother answering a simple-minded question. It's all about perceptual nuances, skilled or otherwise, not about what this or that groupie school one belongs too.

Having said that, I don't try to hide my disdain for "performance" photography, whether Sherman or Crewdsen. It's not the genre that bothers me, but how the magicians hand just shows too much, especially in the latter example.

It unfortunate you don't have more fulfilling things to do with your time; crusading all day on Photrio seems to be all you've got Drew.

Best of luck.

 

[DREW WILEY]

These posts are just little intermittent breaks between various involved chores and projects. What's your justification? I really don't care all that much about it. It's just the topic of the day, perhaps worth stirring the pot, perhaps not. One person's sacred cow is potentially another person's hamburger. That's just the way it works.

 

[Cholentpot]

These posts are just little intermittent breaks between various involved chores and projects. What's your justification? I really don't care all that much about it. It's just the topic of the day, perhaps worth stirring the pot, perhaps not. One person's sacred cow is potentially another person's hamburger. That's just the way it works.

Hey! I'm the cesspool stirrer here. You can be vice stirrer if you'd like.

Also happy Holiday to all the Americans on here.

 

[Don_ih]

You people need to learn to stop worrying and love the bomb....

 

[koraks]

You people need to learn to stop worrying and love the bomb....

Moderator note: I agree with @Don_ih here.
Guys - some more peace, love and understanding, please. Thanks, and please carry on - in the friendly spirit that stems from the knowledge we're all playing on the same team here.

 

[Cholentpot]

Moderator note: I agree with @Don_ih here.
Guys - some more peace, love and understanding, please. Thanks, and please carry on - in the friendly spirit that stems from the knowledge we're all playing on the same team here.

Just having a discussion. People aren't debating my works but we're debating Cindy's. Any publicity is good publicity in this case.

 

[nikos79]

@koraks since you are Dutch I have to mention to you a Dutch photographer I discovered who I find really good: Kees Scherer
He encompasses all I admire in photography

P.S. Sorry for the off topic but it helps also to understand my personal preferences
P.S. Also Dutch-Hungarian Éva Besnyő and Ata Kando (former wife of Van Der Elsken) same

Also regarding Ata Kandó:
"As a teacher and mentor, Ata Kando also played a significant role for younger generations of Dutch photographers at the Enschede Academy of Visual Arts (AKI) and elsewhere. Among her pupils were later luminaries such as Koen Wessing and Ad van Denderen, the latter of whom, together with Leo Erken, made the selection for her retrospective book Ata Kando Photographer."

 

[koraks]

Thanks for the suggestions. I find at this point I'm not drawn to that style of photography (e.g. Scherer). Historically relevant and sort of interesting, but photographically not what I'd presently go out of my way to view. I saw a Kandó show a few years ago; it didn't leave much of an impression with me. It's just not the sort of thing that grabs my attention, although I can enjoy specific works from anyone if they somehow appeal to me. Frankly I'm also generally not very interested in names or name-dropping and admit that usually I forget the names even if I remember the images. Whenever I'm pressed for names I find myself having to dig up when/where I saw something and then try to figure out who it was.