Monthly Archives: January 2009

Cindy Sherman: One Trick Pony?

Posted on by

That glorious thing, a MacArthur ‘genius’ grant, was awarded to photographer Cindy Sherman in 2005. As it’s only the beginning of 2009 now, she has this year to still enjoy the substantial prize money. But what does she do with it?

What’s she did before she won: dress up and photograph herself as other people, often women fulfilling cultural roles. Allow me to say, I like her body of work in general. She creates series of portraits as I described, as well as ‘film stills’ that aren’t film stills so much as portraits she shoots of herself. Sherman has dabbled in other projects as well, like video direction, but her art is mainly clever identity and gender politics photographs that are well-shot and fascinating. All the more intriguing when you recognize her face behind the makeup and costume.

Yet not endlessly intriguing. After years of portraits of herself as others, Sherman hasn’t really strayed, much less innovated. Some jokes aren’t as funny the tenth time around, some shticks get old. Sherman, who constantly reinvents herself in her work, has failed to reinvent the work itself. It makes me wonder if she didn’t merely happen on a successful trick of playing dress up and now can’t come up with (or is afraid to try) something new.

It’s easy to start out a genius, and it’s certainly possible to develop into a great artist bit by bit over a career of 30 years. It’s not always so easy to stay a genius.

American Populists: Andrew Wyeth and Norman Rockwell

Posted on by
Andrew Wyeth, Benny’s Scarecrow

The painter Andrew Wyeth died last Friday. In a way, he was a most unpopular populist. As the New York Times describes here, his main value to most art historians was that he provided an alternative to Modernism in the 1940s and 50s. Not quite high praise. The American public, the part that didn’t go in for Modernism, tended to be much fonder of Wyeth’s realistic images.

His form of realism seems to be what endears him to the common man, placing him in the class of Americana with Norman Rockwell. A spiritual opposite of Norman Rockwell, however, his negativity and earthiness depict another side of America’s identity. His subject matter is rural and humble; his style accessible, that is to say, it looks like real objects. His excellently composed scenes have an almost magical realism, but ultimately, I find them a little dull.

Andrew Wyeth, Christina’s Field

His most famous painting, above, is of a woman in his community who was crippled and pulled herself through fields rather than use a wheelchair. Wyeth admired her independence and determination. In this and much of his work, he overlays the American landscape with foreboding atmosphere and Puritanical ethos. Whereas Wyeth seems like the last of the Puritans, Rockwell’s work shows a New American optimism.

Norman Rockwell, The Roadblock

Is it fair to say Wyeth represents an older, Puritan ethos and Rockwell represents the exuberant America coming out of WWII?

Who is more American?

Reflections of Mylar

Posted on by

Here we have me, Iphone photo taker extraordinaire, taking photo of Josephine Meckseper’s photograph on view at MoMA, with reflection of other huge print on facing wall.

Call me conceited, but I think it does more justice to the size and quality of her work than the MoMA’s exhibition images. She prints on mylar, which gives a viewer/viewee quality in its reflections of dull images of consumerism from a typical 1970s German catalog. Her work seems a little dated to me, both in the images she choose (quite purposefully dated on that account) and in the themes of consumerism, societal construct, and advertising effects on how we view ourselves.

MoMA is showcasing her work along with another photographers as noteworthy of 2008. Ah how quickly we pick favorites from the old year and move in. And I’m not over 2007 yet.