I read the article and I got out of it that praise was heaped on her because celebrities buy her overpriced work. No different than praising Peter Lik. There; it's not a gender thing because I lumper her in with Peter Lik, (and I love nature photography.)
Perhaps it's because I'm a guy, but her photography doesn't communicate to me as well as it does to women... Or is it the fame and success that women pick up on rather than something special in the photography? Women photographers hold her in higher regard. I do wish women fame and success as there are probably more women doing quality photography than men right now.
Her provocative stuff is another thing I don't understand as a guy. I'm thinking the extra bushy sculpture looking photos you'll see interspersed among google image search results of her name, assuming you have the safe browsing turned off. The trashiness overwhelms other description to me.
I understand that film stills are a valid form of excellent photography. However, people pretending to be in film stills which are based on actors/actresses pretending to be fictional people in fictional accounts is a little too far removed from reality for me to appreciate. Most photography, even non straight stuff or collages has meaning that correlates to some sort of reality. This solid connection to reality is why journalism/documentary/nature styles of photography succeed, and why reality TV succeeds (despite it's overwhelming faults). It's a superior source of inspiration and connection with the viewer.
Here work has always had multiple readings. I don't get how gender somehow determines relevance--i.e., "I'm a guy so it doesn't mean that much to me." Don't think that was Sherman's aim.
I'd agree with the point made in Vogel's NYT article that Sherman did help pry photography out of a deep rut and push it into the fine art realm almost 30 years ago.
Utterly boring. I never found Sherman's work attractive visually or emotionally. But maybe I am not sophisticated enough to enjoy "fine art".
God forbid a woman is successful at making BIG art. No one seems to be complaining about the big Gursky prints ...
Just to be fair, although I'm not impressed by Sherman, I'm not impressed by Gursky either. I think it's just hype for both of them by "experts" creating buzz so they can make more money from what they sell.
Suzanne: I looked at your site and found your pictures to be more beautiful, compelling and loving than what I've seen of Sherman's. Alan.
She generates controversy which in art has always been currency with added value and adding value.
She is provocative, by intent, less because she photographs, but because of her content and social contexts.
She is possibly one of the best visual riddle makers ever.
Say whatever you like, but her work certainly evokes emotion. I went to see this exhibition today. Well, actually i went to see Atget. What a bizzare combination these two. Even if they exhibitions are on different floors and not billed at all together, the curators can't imagine people won't go see them both. Anyway, i was so excited to see Atget, but left a bit flat. On the other hand,i wasn't that excited about Sherman, but left disturbed. Walking out of the museum, i decided that disturbed was more impressive.
Don't chalk it up to just size. Many of her smaller prints are actually quite excellent. My favorite was the relatively conservative and normal-sized untitled 70. Even in the larger prints, it's a lot more about aggression, ruddy female carnality, and twisted moribund characters than it is sheer size. The later in her career, the more disturbed her prints seem. Is it my cup of tea? No, but there's definitely a strength and range of talent not to underestimated. Go see it.