Cindy Sherman: Multiple Interpretations

 

While reading about Williamson’s and Krauss’ interpretations of Cindy Sherman’s photographic work, it came to my attention that Sherman’s work perpetuates the ideology that the self-portrait can be changeable and does not necessarily contain one, true “essence” of the artist or “subject” in the photograph. In Sherman’s work, there are multiple layers of meaning that a viewer can interpret and, along the same lines as there not being one true essence of the artist, there is not one, true or right interpretation of Sherman’s work. I believe that all interpretations or readings of Sherman’s work are justifiable and, in fact, the interpretations help create the work itself.

I will first refer back to Amelia Jones’ text, “Beneath This Mask Another Mask.” Jones examines various self-portraits created by women who make work that correlates with this ideology of the self-portrait never fully capturing the one, true essence of the artist or subject or “character” represented within the photograph.

"Through an exaggerated performativity, which makes it clear that we can never “know” the subject behind or in the
image (and correlatively that we can never “know” the subject at all), these works expose the apparently seamless
conflation of intentionality with meaningful visible appearance in the self-portrait as an illusion." (Jones 44)

Jones indicates that by creating an “illusion” of the subject through the performativity of these specific self-portraits, the viewer can never “know” the subject in the photograph at all (as much as one could never fully “know” another person solely through an image). I find this to be an interesting parallel to Sherman’s self-portrait work. Because Sherman does not literally pronounce the meaning behind her self-portraits, the viewer must interpret their own essence of the subject in the photograph and create for themselves their own narrative behind the mask of the character displayed.

Judith Williamson states in her text, “A Piece of the Action: Images of “Woman” in the Photography of Cindy Sherman” that Sherman’s work pushes the viewer to interpret the work as having a certain kind of style or meaning that the viewer themselves defines through cultural knowledge.

"Because the viewer is forced into complicity with the way these “women” are constructed: you recognize the styles, the
“films,” the “stars,” and at that moment when you recognize the picture, your reading is the picture. In a way, “it” is
innocent: you are guilty, you supply the femininity simply through social and cultural knowledge." (Williamson 40)

In this way, what Williamson refers to as the “obsessive drive” of the viewer to find the identity within Sherman’s self-portraits is crucial to my point that Sherman’s photographs do not contain one, true meaning, but the work contains many different meanings. Since Sherman’s work elicits an inherently gendered response from the viewer and if the crux of the artwork hinges on that interpretation of the work from the viewer, then the overall meaning or content of the work cannot be pinned down to one meaning. Sherman’s photographs are interpreted by a large audience, and what one image means to one viewer could mean something completely different to another, especially if her work is exhibited internationally where “cultural knowledge” is different from one culture to another. These multiple meanings not only exist in this dialogue, but also help to create the work itself by engaging in the dialogue at all.

In Rosalind Krauss’ text, “Cindy Sherman: Untitled,” the concept of the “myth consumer” is introduced. A “myth consumer” is someone who views Sherman’s photographs on only one, conceptual level, thus deconstructing the complexity and deeper meaning of the work. Krauss presents two examples where a “myth consumption” has occurred in interpreting Sherman’s work. In her first example, Krauss examines Peter Schjeldahl’s writing, and she problematizes his claim that the artist is “becoming the vehicle through which the fullness of humanity might be both projected and embraced in all its aspects“ (Krauss 104). The myth consumption of Sherman’s work in this example would mean that Sherman is solely focused on representing herself as some sort of divine medium. In the second example, Krauss examines Arthur Danto’s writing which claims that the “character” within Sherman’s work is the static focal point (while the character herself changes roles from portrait to portrait). It seems as though Krauss finds these types of approaches to Sherman’s work limiting and reductive to the overall meaning of the self-portraits.

Although these two “myth consumers” may have only one, static reading of Sherman’s work, I think that their readings or interpretations are justifiable. They support my earlier point that Sherman’s photographs are complex because of these various interpretations. Williamson, Krauss, Schjeldahl and Danto’s theoretical discourse surrounding Sherman’s work is what perpetuates such complex dialogue about her self-portraits.


*Photograph is Untitled Film Still #3 by Cindy Sherman, taken from MoMA.org

Sarah Lucas: Crossing Wires

Carlson proposes in his article, “What is Performance,” that the act of performance has expanded from what was traditionally known as a theatrical manifestation to include a complex range of cultural, social, and intellectual concerns exhibited in and outside of the conventional theater, relating to the issues of race, gender, and power. I thought Carlson’s article of performance was an appropriate introduction to Jones’ article, “Beneath This Mask Another Mask,” for Jones exemplifies this “quest” of the postmodern artist that Carlson refers to by examining the work of several self-portrait photographs by predominantly female artists who are, indeed, addressing these various social and cultural concerns.

I would like to extend this examination by investigating the work of the London-based artist Sarah Lucas in light of these two authors’ concepts of performance and the self-portrait. Sarah Lucas is widely known for her “aggressive” social commentary on the female (but perhaps not “feminine”) body, sexuality and the “economy of the readymade.” (Tate Online). I first encountered Lucas’ work while studying in London, where I saw her visual pun-inspired bed sculpture, Au Naturel , a provocative and humorous commentary on sex and the body.

Lucas has also created several self-portraits that comment on similar issues pertaining to the body and gender identification (two of which are posted above in this blog). In Self Portraits 1990-1998, Eating A Banana, Lucas stares directly at the camera, an androgynous persona taking a bite out of a banana, the most symbolically phallic fruit symbol. Referring to Wilke and Sherman’s photographs, Jones states that they  “…fatally cross the wires that conventionally power the male gaze, confusing the domains of spectatorial desire and authorial/female self assertion and so short-circuiting its effects.” (Jones 52). Lucas is certainly crossing these “wires” that conventionally empower the male gaze. By seducing the male with her seductive action, the male could feel threatened by an androgynous looking female by experiencing a homoerotic connection with the artist through this self-portrait. 

In another Lucas self-portrait (part of the same series entitled Self-Portraits 1990-1998), the viewer is confronted with Lucas, sitting in an armchair, legs splayed out with two fried eggs over her breasts. Again, Lucas represents an androgynous persona, who almost dares the male gaze to look at her body, if not directly at her breasts. In this aggressive way of confronting the viewer, Lucas again challenges or “crosses” the wires of the conventional male gaze, taking authority with her self-assertion.

I have always admired Sarah Lucas’ work. When I was looking back at her self-portrait series, I realized that I have always looked at her self-portraits with such a strong sense that she is not necessarily performing for the camera. Perhaps this is because I have read various texts about her personality, and her self-portraits seem to reflect her humor and “realness” so that I have not questioned the notion that she is, to some extent, performing for the camera.  Carlson mentions in his article that performance art practitioners “…do not base their work upon characters previously created by other artists, but upon their own bodies, their own autobiographies, their own specific experiences in a culture or in the world, made performative by their consciousness of them and the process of displaying them for audiences.” (Carlson 71). Lucas is not basing her work upon other characters created by someone else, but is creating her work from her own experiences as a woman in this world, as dynamically humorous and grotesque as it can be. And while I may or may not be justified in thinking that she is not performing directly for the camera, regardless, I do have to believe that Lucas’ work is made performative by her consciousness and display of herself for an audience to interpret.

Hershman and Newman: Staged Documentation

Lynn Hershman’s performance work reminded me of Hayley Newman’s “Connotations,” and while I was reading about Hershman’s 9 year performance project about Roberta Breitmore, I wondered if the two artists had ever collaborated. I assumed that they must, at least, know about each other’s work. While I couldn’t find any information about the two artists collaborating on any project, I thought about the similarities and differences between these two artists.

 

The most intriguing similarity that I find between Hershman and Newman’s work is that the staged nature of their photographs create an authentic subject. Hershman’s performance character, Roberta, was photographed many times, and as Glenn Kurtz mentioned in his text, “Roberta is “real” because these documents make her seem so” (Kurtz 117). Hershman goes into detail on her website revealing the construction of this fake character by having bank statements and identification all in Roberta’s name. Roberta put an advertisement in the newspaper for a roommate, went to a psychiatrist, and went on various “adventures.” As Kurtz mentions in his text, the photographs that “documented” Roberta’s life were staged, although Roberta did in fact perform these various live events.  “…the staging of Roberta Breitmore was unannounced. These images document real events that were – in a social sense – fictional” (Kurtz 117). In this fashion, Hershman complicates the distinction between the real and staged event.

 

Hayley Newman also draws this indistinct line in her work “Connotations,” by focusing on the performance of staged events. By bringing her unaccomplished performance ideas into existence, Newman stages her performances for the camera, “documenting” what appears to be a “true” performance. In staging and documenting these fake events, Newman is inherently creating a new performance of staged performance.

 

A physical, but perhaps not conceptual, difference between the two artists’ work is the final presentation of the photographs. Hershman manipulated the photos by painting and/or mixing various mediums directly onto the surface of the photograph. Kurtz suggests that, “the image here carries its response inherently in its presentation medium; photography has not been subordinated but incorporated in a mélange that complicates the representational space.” (Kurtz 118). Newman displays her photos along with text, but the text is not written directly onto the photos. Both artists’ images are created with a mixture of practices, including drawing, painting, written text, and, inherently, performance. This “mélange” does not lessen the images as photographs, but perhaps places the work of these two artists in what Kurtz calls a different “representational space,” a space that exceeds the traditional “boundaries” of photography to include these other practices.  

*Photos taken from the artists' website.