That website is not Sherrie Levine's work, but rather Michael Mandiberg's photographs. The images were originally Walker Evans, but were then appropriated by Sherrie Levine, which nearly 20 years later her work was re-appopriated by Michael Mandiberg for a completely different reason than what Levine was experimenting with.

Here is a short bio on her and what she does- http://www.temple.edu/photo/photogra...rielevine.html

"...in doing so she raises questions about the originality and the nature of artistic authorship. Like all of Levine's work, this portfolio is a part of a tradition in the 20th century in which the context of the image is at least as important as the subject portrayed. When Levine appropriates a work she is paying a tribute to the ideas that the artist has contributed to our culture."

"JS: And this is why the someone else that you appropriate is always
male?
SL: A lot of what my work has been about since the beginning has been realizing the difficulties of situating myself in the art world as a woman, because the art world is so much an arena for the celebration of male desire."

"JS: What was your reaction to Gablik's analysis of your intentions and her conclusions? I quote: "Levine lays no claim to traditional notions of 'creativity.' By willfully refusing to acknowledge any difference between the originals and her own reproductions, she is addressing her work in a subversive way to the current mass cult for collecting photographs, and their absorption into the art market as one more expensive commodity. Obviously ideas like these are successful as a negation of commodity-oriented culture. Only until commodity culture succeeds in accommodating even these 'pirated' creations and turning them into yet another saleable item within the framework of institutionalized art-world distribution ... at which point they become more parasitic than critical, feeding on the very system they are meant to criticize."
SL: My works were never intended to be anything but commodities. It's taken a while for the work to sell but it has always been my hope that it would, and that it would wind up in collections and in museums. You know, money talks but it don't sing.
The work is in a dialectical relationship to the notion of originality. Originality was always something I was thinking about, but there's also the idea of ownership and property. Lawrence Weiner has this nice quote about wanting to make. a art that makes us think about our relationship to the material world. That's something that I feel very close to. It's not that I'm trying to deny that people own things. That isn't even the point. The point isthat people want to own things, which is more interesting to me. What does it mean to own something, and, stranger still, what does it mean to own n an image?"

A few pieces taken from this interview- http://www.artnotart.com/sherrielevine/arts.Su.85.html