Cindy Sherman’s retrospective exhibition
at The Museum of Modern Art just closed. It consisted of over 170 works that spanned over 30
years and included rarely seen early pieces from 1974-5 when she was a mere
20-21 year old and also newer works from more recent years. The show is extensive, thorough and
very complete. There is not much
to say about the show really though, it is exactly what you think it
will/should be and meeting those expectations makes deep reflection seem beside
the point. There were exhibition
highlights for sure though, to be able to see the full suite of her seminal Untitled
Film Stills from
1977-1980 was very nice indeed and to see a very early piece from 1974 of her
transforming her be-speckled tomboy self to a kabuki silent movie starlet clown
was just fantastic. But overall
this show is not so much about a reveal or a revelation, but more about the
consistency of a practice and more importantly it makes one think why is Cindy
Sherman, “Cindy Sherman?” What
makes her photographs and her so essentially successful in both influence and
economies?
First, “commitment to a bit,” Sherman has
this down pat. This is not
meant to be disparaging but an assessment of how prolific and consistent she is
with her work. For those that do
not know Sherman’s work, it is essentially her taking photographs of herself,
(or objects as stand ins on some occasions) and she transforms/alters/disguises
herself to be a variety of characters (mostly female) to
reflect/highlight/throw back the vulgarity/humor/ archetypes of society. Although there is a traceable linage
from series to series, which is markedly emphasized in the show, this doesn’t
result in dullness. Sherman is too
clever by half and the ways in which she undertakes and presents her
transformations is an odd type of magic, a slight of hand that reveals the
seams but possesses an unknowable but distinct touch. The formula of how she works at first glance seems obvious
but there is such an intense rigor, a lack of shortcuts or flippancy that
ensures each image, each series, has weight and import.
Next, Sherman is a not/not feminist
artist. Anyone with half a brain
and one eye open can see that Sherman’s work is most certainly coming from feminist
lineage and investigative practices but what is brilliant/tragic about the
whole thing is that she is not a quote unquote ‘feminist artist.’ It’s all very confusing yes, but
basically anyone who is overt in saying/framing/discussing/pushing the idea
that their work is feminist is quickly ducked taped hand and feet, put into a
trunk and dumped into a far away art ghetto. Yes, things today are a bit better but the time when Sherman
started making her work, the less one had to say in this regard the better. Instead, Sherman became absent in these
dialogues and let the work speak for itself and didn’t throw in the towel or
argue in self-defense when others spoke on behalf of her or her work. This is something that will empower any
artist. Artists make the work,
it’s not their obligation to also unravel and historicize it as well. Leave this to the academics, writers
and everyone else who is a bad/failed/want-to-be artist. I have heard Sherman being
referred to as a cipher, like a black hole or a polite head-nodding mute. I think that is unfair, but it does
have a sting of truth. All women
are granted a certain type of power in the eyes of society when they say
nothing. Whether that is good or
bad is not to be dissected here, but how to manipulate this is key to Sherman’s
success both then and now.
Lastly, Sherman is a mimic. Sherman makes the most obvious sort of
work but the impulses and familiarity of those impulses makes them personalized
for all who see it. The device of
mimicry is a powerful tool and is still heavily used by contemporary female
artists today. She is also playing dress up in a contained and private way but she
also shares the mirrored gaze. The
idea of voyeurism is wiped out because of this. There is nothing real going on, it is all imagination, she
is a prop, and that in itself makes the role of the artist, the idea of ‘who is
Cindy Sherman?’ so fraught, so vague and so curious. We all mimic, it is a socializing tool that is overtly
practiced when we are children but the older, more socialized we become, the
more called out and discouraged this practice is. The mimic is not an authentic self and those that are not
behaving like their authentic selves are seen as weak, inferior or
deceitful. The mimic in truth
though has the power of possibility and of alteration. People who are actors or performers are
explicit in their intensions, they are letting you in on their actions and this
knowledge makes both the performer and the viewer safe in understanding what is
going on. The mimic on the other
hand does not tell or reveal what it is they are doing or for what purposes
they are doing it for. This leaves
an opening for things to get weird, feel uncomfortable and to challenge the
safety of expectations. Sherman’s
type of mimicry does this very thing, it is at times humorous, odd, aggressive,
sick, bizarre, but throughout it straddles the known and unknown and it makes a
mess of things and it makes you even more confused about what you think you are
seeing.
There are many more reasons why Sherman
is such a phenomenal success and influencer but love her or leave her she is
the most significant photographer in our contemporary age. This isn’t about besting, but the
reality of it is that what she is doing, and has been doing, with the medium of
photography is at once classicist and also extremely groundbreaking. Sherman is not redefining, challenging,
or usurping the medium but is using it as a tool that best works with her ideas
and this is turn clicks on the conversations of so many other ideas and
issues. Cindy Sherman is at times
frustrating in her normalcy, but it is this unexaggerated sense of intension
and practice that makes her so damn appealing and so very successful.
