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
No comments:
Post a Comment