3/1

i was a bit disappointed in the Cindy Sherman show
the early work was interesting
but
it was early work
it would be kind of fascinating to see how she would do that today
how she would work with creating a moment
not a persona
maybe the centerfolds are the current version
but they didn't work for me

surprisingly
(i normally hate them)
i thought the clowns were the strongest work,
since they are already grotesque and unnatural in appearance
her emphasis of that aspect wasn't so visually jarring
or conceptually challenging
(and thereby alienating)
as when she portrays "fashion" for example.

when the subject's make up becomes too unnatural and formulaic,
i tend to get involved with analyzing the technicalities of the transformation
and i stop at the photograph's surface

with the clowns
and some of the more "natural" aging socialite portraits,
I was able to "feel" the work as well as "see" it
i could absorb the image as a whole
and enter into the frame
allowing me more psychological and visceral access.

and the treatment of the "historical" images was awful
half the room was hung way above eye level
and instead of being able to see any detail
one was blinded by the reflection of the lights off the glass
a salon style hanging might work with an exposed canvas
but it is not a solution for framed photos.

Sanja Iveković's Sweet Violence
(which i have to go back to and spend more time with)
was a much stronger show for me
it also deals with woman, stereotypes, culture, beauty, repression and the self
but for me,
in a much more emotive and powerful way.

i purposely didn't read any of the reviews of the Sherman show before seeing it
I am curious to see the response
(and to see if anyone else makes the comparison to Iveković)