Sherman's juxtaposes the traditional values and ideology of self-portraiture, as Sherman models in her imagery as a self-portrait would, but Sherman's commentary is not of the self however she is the personification of the character she is playing. '[...] she assumes multiple roles of photographer, model, makeup[...] to create a myriad of intriguing tableaus and characters.' (Respini, 2012, pp.12) These characters frequently have little, if any, recognisable feature to Sherman's persona, eliminating prescribed narrative and preconception of personality. Figure1 and 2 embody the personification of movie stars in the 1950s/1960s: the opulent clothing, film like angle and blasé paparazzi style shots Sherman portrays, proffers the audience actuality in a purely fictitious scenario:
'Staged to resemble scenes from 1950s and ’60s Hollywood, film noir, B movies, and European art-house films, the printed images mimic in format, scale, and quality the often-staged “stills” used to promote films.' (MoMA, n.d.)
The personification Sherman demonstrates in her imagery enables the audience's imagination to piece together the imagery, leaving a somewhat ambiguous and open-mindedness to the scene. The Film Stills (1970s), fig. 1 and 2, epitomises this negotiation of narrative between photographer and viewer. Sherman uses herself as an alias which contribute an element of allure and mystery intriguing the viewer as the fictitious narratives Sherman creates reveals very little about her personally.
The falsification of scene acts as controlled environment similar to Duane Michaels sequential narratives fig. 3 and 4, presenting intriguing narrative and invigorating the viewer's imagination through the storybook stylistic. However, Michal's dictatorial scenario anchored by the written commentary to assist the viewer in the movement of narrative is not present in Sherman's work as she leaves the imagery ambiguous, even when considering the untitled photographs. Sherman's purposefulness of the absent prose supplementary galvanises the viewers imagination and need to create meaning.
The representation Sherman creates acts as a social commentary reflecting the ideological values of time as we follow a woman through manifold of characters, the paucity of elucidation construct speculation and a need for the viewer to append the photographic narrative. 'Paradoxically, it is because there is no explicit citation of theory in the work, [...] Sherman's work stays on the side of enigma.' (Mulvey, 1996, pp.65) The ambiguity Sherman tantalises her audience with validates the timeless of her imagery. Furthermore the ambiguity enables the an unrestricted denotation to be applied through theory, considering fig. 1 in conjunction with the feminist movement of the 1970s, Sherman weaves the work with elements of conspicuous irony of the female body through the exhibit of stereotype and the female form, fig. 1, or a disregard of feminist acts at the time. The liberation acts in the second-wave of feminism challenged the ideological views of femininity, 'They also threw bras, high heels and other trappings of femininity into a Freedom Trash Can.' (Dow, 2014, pp.1), Sherman's photographs epitomise the typical ideologies of femininity from previous decades, fig. 5 and 6, however without the further typology and explanation one cannot be sure of the specific meaning Sherman portrays.
Sherman's career has seen a magnitude of portraits, the series Clowns (2003), fig. 7 and 8, explores the idea of mask and masquerading, 'Sherman’s clown portraits would become a way of exploring the boundaries between clothing and costumery. Intrigued by the apparent dichotomy of the clowns’ persona and any sense of the interior, or real self, Sherman explores the society of difference in this subtly disparate group of facades.' (Sprüth Magers, 2005) Unremittingly, Sherman's embodies unorthodoxly characters whom act as another persona, Sherman again bypasses written prose avoiding delineation of narrative. Sherman's ambiguity spanning her career fabricates the mystery and enigma that is Sherman.
Considering Sherman's utilisation of persona and mask is an element which I want to take into my own practice. The characterisation portrayed through narrative is a quality which could align with my current project Cranium Captivity, the technique of creating portraits without relating to my own persona will be a challenge however using the masking element similar to Sherman should help with this presentation of character. Additionally, considering the masking element of my current practice, I am unsure of the mask, the avenue of makeup and special effects may be a secondary avenue to explore if the mask is not giving the desired effect.
Reference list:
Dow, B., 2014. Watching women's liberation, 1970. University of Illinois Press.
Hattenstone, S., 2011. Cindy Sherman: Me, myself and I. [online] the Guardian. Available at: <https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2011/jan/15/cindy-sherman-interview> [Accessed 1 July 2022].
MoMA. n.d. Cindy Sherman American, born 1954. [online] Available at: <https://www.moma.org/artists/5392> [Accessed 1 July 2022].
Mulvey, L., 1996. Fetishism and curiosity. Indiana University Press.
Respini, E., et al., 2012. Cindy Sherman. New York: Museum of Modern Art.
Sprüth Magers. 2005. Cindy Sherman - Clowns - Munich – Sprüth Magers. [online] Available at: <https://spruethmagers.com/exhibitions/cindy-sherman-clowns-munich/> [Accessed 1 July 2022].
Tate., n.d. Cindy Sherman. [online] Available at: <https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/cindy-sherman-1938> [Accessed 1 July 2022].
Image List:
Fig. 1 and 2 available on: https://www.moma.org/artists/5392
Fig. 3 and 4 available on: https://www.e-flux.com/announcements/124553/duane-michals/
Fig. 5 and 6 available on: https://www.moma.org/artists/5392
Fig. 7 and 8 available on: https://spruethmagers.com/exhibitions/cindy-sherman-clowns-munich/
Comments