Alan, thank you for your kind words about my work.
Originally Posted by Alan Klein
I'll confess that Sherman's constructed photographs aren't entirely to my taste as I've got me feet planted far more firmly in the world of photographing what's in front of me without setting it all up, but having said that, I've found her b/w untitled film series very compelling, and even some of the color work from the early 80's quite striking, and it makes me think and asks questions. There's plenty of her work, however, that doesn't work so well for me, but my frustration, I think, is that so many people heap criticism at her that seems to miss the point of her work, and swipes at how much people are paying for it... or that it's just too big, and then question why she has a show at MOMA without really addressing the substance.
Personally, I'm pleased to see a woman artist have a big retrospective at MOMA, far too few have, and I think she has earned it, even if I don't like all of her work or (as the linked article says) the show is flawed, and I have every intention of getting down to NYC this spring to see it.
All I can say is I'm jealous. I have to admit that I am a Sherman fan (sounds like the only one here) and would really like to see some of these in person.
As was posted earlier in the thread ‘Haters gonna hate’…..
I agree she is well beyond Lik as a creative artist. The comparison was about the NYT article as the OP chided us for not reading the article. The article described her celebrity fanbase as one of the reasons we should go to the show; Lik markets himself as celebrity approved also.
Originally Posted by John NYC
There is a variety of things that would interest me at MOMA, including some photography.
I was in a group show with CS at the New Museum in 2000 (A nice large-format catalog of it is still in print I think:Picturing the Modern Amazon, Rizzoli). At that time she was working mainly in 3D, creating sculptures that are similar to some of the grotesque prosthetic pieces that can be seen in some of her photographs. Though I didn't like the 3D work, I think it would have been interesting if she had created more of it and allowed it to evolve. I haven't found the evolution of her photography to be too interesting except in the sense that it's totally American. Maybe that's what she'll be remembered for a century or two from now.
It's also possible that I can't appreciate her work or it's significance because I'm not a woman. I know she is important to many women artists -- who can't stand her work--because of what she's accomplished. Cindy, among others, has succeeded in getting the art world to take a woman artist seriously. We kind of take that for granted these days, but 30 years ago things were very different. So I believe it's important to recognize her for the inspiration she's provided to other women photographers.