Cindy Sherman is incredibly famous for her series 'Untitled Film Stills'; a series that is compiled of sixty nine images taken between 1977 and 1980.
I have decided to look into Sherman's work as it is a key example of using pre-defined characters as influences for self-portraits, much as I am doing with Goddesses. I believe her work to be influential, perhaps not in style but in concept n execution of using these highly sexualised figures to her own advantage.
Within these images, Sherman takes influence from 50's and 60's film culture to portray herself as various characters. She dresses and poses with influence from these movies, and creates the scene to look cinematic and as if it could have been a frame taken from a movie roll from an actual Hollywood movie.
"The scenes were narratives "without involving other people, just suggesting them outside the frame," she wrote in the preface to her book The Complete Untitled Film Stills." - (Smithonian.com)
Sherman's reasoning for taking these images are much like my own; a struggle with the self. Sherman, however, expanded on this and turns her work into a discussion on the issue of not just herself but a great variety of women. It captures stereotypes and then battles them within the same image. And yet this was not done entirely on purpose; she too experienced the need for escapism that we have already discussed, a subconscious need to release her thoughts and anger on issues that were not only affecting her but the society in which she lived in;
"I suppose unconsciously, or semi-consciously at best, I was wrestling with some sort of turmoil of my own about understanding women. The characters weren't dummies; they weren't just airhead actresses. They were women struggling with something but I didn't know what. The clothes make them seem a certain way, but then you look at their expression, however slight it may be, and wonder if maybe "they" are not what the clothes are communicating. I wasn't working with a raised "awareness," but I definitely felt that the characters are questioning something-perhaps being forced into a certain role. At the same time, those roles are in film: the women aren't being lifelike, they're acting. There are so many levels of artifice. I like that whole jumble of ambiguity". -Cindy Sherman from her book 'The Complete Untitled Film Stills.'
It's widely debated whether these film stills are truly self portraits. While of course she is taking images of her own body, is she defined by her body? Because these are characters she's made up from stereotypes in film, are they self portraits? As Campany (2008) put it; 'Does Sherman pose or act, or act as if posing, or pose as if acting? Does she pose for the camera or is she posed by it?' Sherman's presence in the frame is confusing, however I personally see them as women as a unity. Each frame represents a different life, a different personality and she is embracing this and letting the new identity take over. The combination of 69 different people allows her to connect with all these different types of woman. If Sherman's images are not to be deemed as self-portraits, then nor are mine. My images are self-portraits as myself as fictional characters, much like Sherman, and yet Sherman's feel much more in touch with reality and the modern day.
She talks about the levels of artifice and that's what interests me most. How real an image is, the ambiguity of the roles she takes on and her character's feelings.
Campany (2008) also noted that "After a successful take film actors are often asked to do things 'once more for stills', They convert their acting into into posing for a photographer" so it's also possible that that's what Sherman was doing; following the conventions of an actual film by creating these film stills.
"I didn’t want to title the photographs because it would spoil the ambiguity, so when Metro Pictures opened (started by Helene and her childhood friend Janelle Reiring), in 1980, the gallery assigned numbers. The numbering basically went by year, but then it got mixed up as it became totally arbitrary, applied purely for purposes of identification." - Cindy Sherman
The lack of name allows for the images to remain mysterious, giving us as the audience no clue as to the context of the image. The context only lives on within her, for us as the audience we must create our own that we feel fits the image she presents to us. It also reduces the chance of a viewer's take o the image being influenced by the title. A title is a powerful addition to the imagery that can change the way we see something. It seems that Sherman wanted the women to speak for themselves for a change.
"At first I wanted to do a group of imaginary stills all from the same actress’s career, so in those first six photographs the hair doesn’t change all that much—I think I made her a blond because that seemed very actressy and perhaps because I still had brown hair. I really didn’t know what I was doing at the time, I was playing. I tried to make her look older in some, more of an ingenue in others, and older-trying-hard-to-look-younger in others. I didn’t think about what each movie was about, I focused on the different ages and looks of the same character."
Sherman originally only wanted to portray one character and only after the 6th image moved on to more, again suggesting her need for escapism. She chose an actress that looked different to her, allowing her to embody somebody else. This then expanded to be a multitude of characters and women.
This is not dissimilar to my own work; I had initially wanted to do one final portrait of a made-up goddess of the universe, a character influenced by greek mythology. While mine would be fiction and hers exist as characters already, we both expanded on the idea and explored multiple personalities and bodies. We both wear masks of influential women, even if the outcome and the message are separate.
While stylistically nothing alike, dressing up as characters to portray your own emotions (with Sherman it was confusion and understanding) and mental status is something both my own work and Sherman's have in common.
I have decided to look into Sherman's work as it is a key example of using pre-defined characters as influences for self-portraits, much as I am doing with Goddesses. I believe her work to be influential, perhaps not in style but in concept n execution of using these highly sexualised figures to her own advantage.
Within these images, Sherman takes influence from 50's and 60's film culture to portray herself as various characters. She dresses and poses with influence from these movies, and creates the scene to look cinematic and as if it could have been a frame taken from a movie roll from an actual Hollywood movie.
"The scenes were narratives "without involving other people, just suggesting them outside the frame," she wrote in the preface to her book The Complete Untitled Film Stills." - (Smithonian.com)
Sherman's reasoning for taking these images are much like my own; a struggle with the self. Sherman, however, expanded on this and turns her work into a discussion on the issue of not just herself but a great variety of women. It captures stereotypes and then battles them within the same image. And yet this was not done entirely on purpose; she too experienced the need for escapism that we have already discussed, a subconscious need to release her thoughts and anger on issues that were not only affecting her but the society in which she lived in;
"I suppose unconsciously, or semi-consciously at best, I was wrestling with some sort of turmoil of my own about understanding women. The characters weren't dummies; they weren't just airhead actresses. They were women struggling with something but I didn't know what. The clothes make them seem a certain way, but then you look at their expression, however slight it may be, and wonder if maybe "they" are not what the clothes are communicating. I wasn't working with a raised "awareness," but I definitely felt that the characters are questioning something-perhaps being forced into a certain role. At the same time, those roles are in film: the women aren't being lifelike, they're acting. There are so many levels of artifice. I like that whole jumble of ambiguity". -Cindy Sherman from her book 'The Complete Untitled Film Stills.'
It's widely debated whether these film stills are truly self portraits. While of course she is taking images of her own body, is she defined by her body? Because these are characters she's made up from stereotypes in film, are they self portraits? As Campany (2008) put it; 'Does Sherman pose or act, or act as if posing, or pose as if acting? Does she pose for the camera or is she posed by it?' Sherman's presence in the frame is confusing, however I personally see them as women as a unity. Each frame represents a different life, a different personality and she is embracing this and letting the new identity take over. The combination of 69 different people allows her to connect with all these different types of woman. If Sherman's images are not to be deemed as self-portraits, then nor are mine. My images are self-portraits as myself as fictional characters, much like Sherman, and yet Sherman's feel much more in touch with reality and the modern day.
She talks about the levels of artifice and that's what interests me most. How real an image is, the ambiguity of the roles she takes on and her character's feelings.
Campany (2008) also noted that "After a successful take film actors are often asked to do things 'once more for stills', They convert their acting into into posing for a photographer" so it's also possible that that's what Sherman was doing; following the conventions of an actual film by creating these film stills.
The lack of name allows for the images to remain mysterious, giving us as the audience no clue as to the context of the image. The context only lives on within her, for us as the audience we must create our own that we feel fits the image she presents to us. It also reduces the chance of a viewer's take o the image being influenced by the title. A title is a powerful addition to the imagery that can change the way we see something. It seems that Sherman wanted the women to speak for themselves for a change.
"At first I wanted to do a group of imaginary stills all from the same actress’s career, so in those first six photographs the hair doesn’t change all that much—I think I made her a blond because that seemed very actressy and perhaps because I still had brown hair. I really didn’t know what I was doing at the time, I was playing. I tried to make her look older in some, more of an ingenue in others, and older-trying-hard-to-look-younger in others. I didn’t think about what each movie was about, I focused on the different ages and looks of the same character."
Sherman originally only wanted to portray one character and only after the 6th image moved on to more, again suggesting her need for escapism. She chose an actress that looked different to her, allowing her to embody somebody else. This then expanded to be a multitude of characters and women.
This is not dissimilar to my own work; I had initially wanted to do one final portrait of a made-up goddess of the universe, a character influenced by greek mythology. While mine would be fiction and hers exist as characters already, we both expanded on the idea and explored multiple personalities and bodies. We both wear masks of influential women, even if the outcome and the message are separate.
While stylistically nothing alike, dressing up as characters to portray your own emotions (with Sherman it was confusion and understanding) and mental status is something both my own work and Sherman's have in common.
Cindy Sherman
Reviewed by BethCorbett
on
May 08, 2020
Rating:
Reviewed by BethCorbett
on
May 08, 2020
Rating:
No comments: