Cindy Sherman’s work is concerned with the ‘construction of identity’. Playing with the visual and cultural codes of art, celebrity, gender, and photography. In the 1970s her work responded to the surrounding mass media landscape with both humour and criticism, appropriating images from advertising, film, television, and magazines for her art.
The work of Cindy Sherman is relevant for this project for a number of reasons. Her ‘Untitled Films Stills’ are borne out of what she experienced (as a female) in a big city (New York) when she moved there for school. The male gaze. The 70s Film Stills immediately became part of the conversation about feminism, postmodernism and representation, and they remain her best-known works.
Cindy Sherman. Untitled Film Still #48. 1979. Gelatin silver print. Acquired through the generosity of Jo Carole and Ronald S. Lauder in memory of Eugene M. Schwartz. © 2012 Cindy Sherman
Untitled Film Still #21 (1978), Cindy Sherman. Courtesy the artist and Metro Pictures, New York; © Cindy Sherman
The success of the series, it is said in a MoMA video is the ‘seemingly endless variation of female types that Sherman has shown us’. The absolute plethora, the multiplicity of the female stereotypes.
What peaked my interest in the series is the Briggitte Bardot type. I guess from Godards ‘Le Mépris’ (Contempt). Which I only suffered because of the location Casa Malaparte, as an architect. But had to suffer again in undergrad vis arts. I HATE Godard for his indulgent, narcissistic and ugly style of film making. This awful, awful film which is mostly ugly characters hurting each other. I’m pretty sure I remember domestic violence. Bardot spoke of how hard making this was, with Godard. Traumatic. The only thing good he ever made was ‘Sympathy for the Devil’. But not for the self indulgent, inane, boring and questionably political vignettes he bookends the studio footage with. But the studio footage itself. Documenting the Rolling Stones pretty much losing their shit, the whole scene in the USA and, you know, losing and have to replace Bryan Jones mid album. Brilliant!. Wait…is Godard dead yet?? Can I include him? Sadly, it appears not. Its ok, I’ll wait. He can be part of the book I envisage for this project. I digress. In her still, Sherman makes the Bardot character intellectual. Placing her in a library, reaching for a book. Now that, Mr Godard, is brilliance. Look and learn.
Cindy Sherman, “Untitled Film Still #13” (1978).Courtesy of the artist and Metro Pictures, New York
It’s Shermans use of humour alongside criticism that interests me. As well as her ‘performance’. Because they are all performances. I’ve seen a documentary on her where we just follow her around shopping. Inspecting clothing and accessories, commenting that they might for the character, naming them by name. Treating the character outside of herself. I shared her interest in embodying different characters or identities. Not because I want to be them. Because I need to, to say what I want to say.
In that same documentary I saw years ago she was in the gallery of an upcoming exhibition saying she wanted the photographs to be big. She wanted to ‘go big…because men go big’. Although laughing at the playful humour, I got the criticism.
She highlights the artificiality of her fabrications, a metaphor for the artificiality of all identity construction. Poorly blended or overly done make-up, a prosthetic peeling away, etc.
In her 1980’s her work such as the disasters (1986–89) and the sex pictures (1992) polarised audiences, critics and even her friends described that period as a dark one for her.
One video I watched of a few on her process shows how she sets up a ‘stand in’ head so she can focus then marks it, but still says it is ‘tricky’ to engage with the camera whilst not moving from the mark. I hear that. I actually use cable release auto focus, just because I have had so much difficulty. Yet you still have to throw it down and find position is a few seconds. I also learned she places a mirror in front of her, behind the camera. This is the luxury I had at my (rented) warehouse studio apartment last year, with wall to wall mirror wardrobe along a full 5m wall. It was so much easier to shoot there.
But sometimes this is what you get from research. Clearly, this project fits the community of practice I wish to position myself in, whether I am talking about my own life, or the larger society. But we also both struggle with using ourselves in our work. Performance. It’s just easier, knowing what you want. And, you know, lockdown. But the lockdown just taught me it’s easier to use myself. And for this project, it’s necessary. It won’t work if the letter comes from me and the visual component isn’t me.
By subverting the visual cues we use to sort the world around us, highlighting the artificiality and ambiguity of these stereotypes and undermining their reliability for understanding a much more complicated reality.
It’s so strange that I have rejected the word ‘Feminism’ for so long when EVERY artist this last few weeks pushes me to interrogate their work, with real enjoyment. And also, I am really enjoying making this work. Considering we are on our 1001st day of lockdown (hehe), that is something.
To be serious, I’d like to note Shermans most famous work was 8x10”s. And not technically perfect. A couple were even taken by a friend. As she emerged from a van they had been travelling in a lakeside location. In character. For a reason. Concept and work.
Comments