In Defense of Cindy Sherman.

Dear Eric,

Hi Seph, and thank’s for the dialogue.

I’m probably not going to agree with you, but your willingness to engage with commenters has won me over. I’m surprised anyone would bother, and I feel guilty for taking your time. Perhaps I will be able to admit being wrong, but it’s more likely I will make whatever arguments seem most reasonable, acknowledge different vantages, thank you for your patience, and throw in the towel.

You say you make claims but they are not absolute, because they are only yours. I can make my own absolute claim, whether or not it has any authority beyond me. If I state, “The Earth is flat”, that is an absolute claim. By “absolute” I mean level of conclusion and conviction. When you say Sherman’s work is a “racist aesthetic production” that is an absolute claim. You don’t say that it “appears” to be racist.

You think something worse could be said of an artist in today’s climate other than that they are a racist? Irrelevant is worse? I disagree. It is better to be a nobody than evil or ignorant or part of the problem. If you are a racist artist, you are irrelevant anyway, or about to be, because your worldview must be reactionary, which is the death-sentence of a contemporary artist.

You say your are perplexed that I don’t seem to appreciate the difference between analyzing an artist’s WORK and analyzing the artist herself. True, in many cases. If you were just to say her work is ugly, that wouldn’t be the same as saying she is ugly. But if you accuse that her work is “racist”, who but a racist creates “racist aesthetic productions”? You can’t say someone’s work is racist without implying its creator is as well. Can you? Generally you will only accuse someone of being something such as a neo-con, a white supremacist, a nationalist, or whatever based on something they say or communicate through other means such as art. I say William Kristol is a neo-con and an imperialist because of his “Project for a New American Century”. When people complain about sexist or homophobic lyrics in rap, do they suppose it doesn’t reflect on the musician’s actual beliefs? So, here I don’t see how you can say someone’s art is ethically atrocious without it reflecting very directly on the artist. I qualify that it may be unintentionally racist, but you do not.

You summed up, “You keep treating her work as if its merely an extension of her intention or will. Isn’t this widely known to be a bankrupt position?” If art isn’t an extension of ones will and intention, than what is? Is a manifesto expressive of one’s will and intention? Why wouldn’t art be? It is done deliberately and consciously. Artists are required to write manifestos in graduate school to justify what they are doing. I rather think it would be “bankrupt” to argue that artist’s work does not reflect their intent.

You wrote, “I don’t know what her intent was, nor can I possibly know, even if I were to ask her, because then I would be depending on her own account of her work”. This strikes me as illogical. You are presently arguing what your intent was in writing your article. Should I stop reading because I would be depending on your own account of your own article? One doesn’t necessarily have to agree or believe someone’s account of their own intent (I don’t really believe Damien Hirst’s assertion that his heart and hand are in every one of his dot paintings painted by others), but I would certainly want to know what that person had to say. Should the public consider what Andres Serrano or what Robert Mapplethorpe have to say about their own art, or should we leave it up to Jesse Helms? As an artist I’ve had people come up with wildly vicious attacks on my work, which reflect their own psychologies, agendas, and preconceptions. I’d hate to not have a say in what my own work was about.

I firmly disagree with your argument that “her intent is beside the point”. I insist it needs to be taken into consideration, and a refusal to do so strikes me as stubbornly insistent on imposing an interpretation. There was a lot of controversy around the photos Sally Mann took of her young children, and if one weren’t willing to listen to her perspective as their mother, she could have been jailed for her work.

You argue, “What makes the work deplorable is that it actively participates in and adds to a discourse, a social and aesthetic conversation that reduces the black body ONLY to the caricature.” Is this true? You’ve already conveniently ruled out intention, so that “active participation” can happen unwillingly and unconsciously, and even against ones will. Do you really think that it is the same discourse, and not another one which merely looks similar when spliced up and taken out of context? Does it change the “discourse” if the images are part of a series of 15 caricatures, and it is obvious that each personage is the same woman, in which case the caricatures are obviously a put on, and hence false? Might Sherman’s work have more in common with other fine art discourses, such as black artist, Adrien Piper’s “The Mythic Being” performance project from three years earlier, in which she went in the street impersonating a “third world, working class, overly hostile male” [see wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…]. Would you argue that Piper was necessarily substantiating harmful stereotypes without first investigating what her intent was?

In order to make your argument, you not only refuse to acknowledge the artist’s intent, or regard the photos in the context of her whole body of work, you don’t adequately take into consideration the other photos in the series, which the black portraits are inextricable from. If it is obvious in the photos that each person is a caricature, and the caricature must be a facade because it’s the same woman in each picture, how can you conclude the effect can only be to solidify the caricature as an essential and ineradicable type? Some would say it’s a critique of stereotypes imposed by the mass media. If the other characters can’t be taken seriously, why must only the black ones be taken at face value?

Some also think this series was the among the first art pieces to treat whiteness as a stereotype: “Cindy Sherman, in a series of early photographs, each depicting the artist masquerading as a bus passenger, depicts a range of racial and class “types” that include some of the earliest attempts by a visual artist to see whiteness as both a racial category and a stereotype (Bus Riders, 1976-2000) [http://bit.ly/1N2e8xX]. If we were to give this view any credence at all, would it be possible to say that she showed whiteness as a stereotype, but conversely and simultaneously showed blackness as an essential type?

You said, “Your critical perspective seems overmuch influenced by the notion of individual agency overcoming or being separate from larger social practices.” Yes indeed it does. It is the goal of many an artist, intellectual, philosopher, or scientist to do just that, to liberate themselves from narratives, and consensual reality as much as possible, while being well aware of the difficulty or near impossibility of doing so, and being critically aware of the influence of culture, belief systems, infrastructures, and broad narratives. You say this is “another deep flaw in your contention” and I say it is a strength. The artist is not necessarily, and shouldn’t be, a mere cipher for dominant culture.

You say, “offensive is not the same as deplorable or atrocious.” It is not the same, but something which is deplorable and atrocious will also generally be offensive.

I don’t say her photos unequivocally traffic in offensive on l stereotypes, and some may treat their subjects with “nuanced and idiosyncratic traits that make them unique”. However, I maintain many are two-dimensional characters that look so ridiculous they would be clandestinely photographed and put in compilations on-line if they ventured into Walmart. For example:

Do you really find the images above to exhibit nuanced and idiosyncratic traits signaling the uniqueness of the dignified subjects? I’m shocked. These are ridiculous caricatures of white women.

You wrote: “I am not taking her portrayals of whites in the bus rider series at face value. They seem to me to be done with more attention to detail and personality, than her treatment of black characters.” I’m willing to give that to you, but the white ones are also cheesy caricatures. Know a lot of white people that look like this, do you?

Most white people look like they fell out of an episode of Leave It To Beaver:

All white girls look like Goldilocks, so, it’s not a caricature.

To me, they are in the same boat. How about the bus driver? Let’s take a look at him.

Is he white? What is he? I dunno’, but I think it’s Charlie Chaplin.

C’mon. You think those are subtle or flattering or accurate depictions of white people? Again, I’ll let you say how you feel about the depictions of black people, but from my perspective, those white people are ridiculous caricatures.

You said, “I don’t think she is deconstructing whiteness.” Others do, as quoted above.

You wrote, “I think my piece was more concerned with how one assays an appropriate response to this work and the conversation around it”.

That’s fine, and I feel the same way. We just have a different idea of what an appropriate response is. Mine involves finding out what the artist has to say, looking at other examples of her work, researching articles on her, and not coming to snap conclusions that involve shaming her publicly as a racist. What is appropriate for one person is anathema to another.

You wrote: “And by the by, John Howard Griffin making himself look black to carry out sociological research is not the same, not even in the same stadium as an artist making images of herself dressed as black characters.” Ah, but I never said that. I used him as an example of someone impersonating a black person and it not being “blackface”, just to ask whether or not this was even possible. Apparently you are answering my question in the affirmative.

You wrote, “You seem to not understand that these disciplines are NOT interchangeable, nor have the same effect or resonance.” Of course I understand that they are different, that’s why I brought it up as a different example, to help triangulate different instances of whites mimicking blacks and see how they compare.

You wrote: “As we have lately, post-Civil-Rights-Movement become more sensitized to the politics of race, it seems the work looks increasingly dated and ignorant.” When I was doing my grad work in the 90’s, this stuff was our curriculum. We were reading Bell Hooks and Audre Lorde in graduate seminars. Identity politics, marginalization theory, feminism, queer studies, and a healthy dose of the political spectrum of Postmodernism were our Bible. The very popular resurgence of these perspectives is only new if one wasn’t thoroughly immersed in them decades ago.

I agree entirely that from today’s perspective the work appears “dated and ignorant”, but that’s also a reflection on the perspective of today, which looks for people like Cindy Sherman to shame, and is not fond of delving into matters deeply or looking at the broad perspective. How many people using the hashtag #cindygate are going much beyond hunting for things to smear her with? Cindy Sherman has become the Bernie Sanders of the art world: a soft target who is already fighting for your cause.

You argued: “many Americans have trouble understanding and accepting, that one doesn’t have to intend to be racist to make work that demeans other people.” That’s perfectly understandable, and you will find that I already articulated that myself. Shall I quote myself on that? “it is still possible that her work is nevertheless problematic in relation to things like “blackface”, and could be unintentionally racist. People probably feel it was too presumptuous of her to think she could occupy black skin, and know what it’s like to be a black person in America.”

So, why superimpose this trouble understanding something on me, again, when I’ve already shown I understand it?

I maintain my position that Sherman did not intent do be racist, thought she was doing something socially progressive, but because of the history of blackface and institutional racism, nevertheless could have inadvertently played into the same tradition, and her work could be easily seen as racist. But I’d prefer to look at the bigger picture, acknowledge her successes in undermining ideas of fixed identities, essentialism, and social constructs which are the foundation of racism, sexism, and homophobia, and look at those images from more than one vantage point.

If you have nothing left to say, and won’t be commenting, that’s fine. I am not convinced by your arguments. But, of course I have not dismissed them, I respect them, and having considered them rather carefully will not forget them. Maybe I’ll wake up tomorrow and agree with you wholeheartedly, but it just seems like you are refusing to look at the big picture. Personally, I like to be wrong. It’s a little embarrassing at first, but as soon as you admit you are wrong you aren’t wrong anymore, and then I’ve got a better perspective and understanding, and can look back at my previously narrow or misguided view.

Thanks again for bothering to debate with an irrelevant artist.

Oh, and it might be worth watching this very good discussion of her work, with pics and all if one isn’t already overly familiar with her:

Cheers.

On reflection:

I’m still ambivalent about this work. I think that Seph and Margo Jefferson are correct that the black portraits are too black, and too consistently black, and thus too much resemble traditional “blackface”. But I’m also sure that wasn’t the intent of the artist, and insisting that the photos unequivocally ARE “blackface” refuses to acknowledge the stated and implied context and objectives of the work. I think everyone would agree that Cindy Sherman didn’t sit down and think, “Why don’t I do blackface?” However, looking back to nearly forty years ago when this series was made, it’s obvious now that she was too naive, didn’t think about the politics of race and identity thoroughly enough, and didn’t realize how easily her images could insult and offend black people. Clearly, people are taking issue with the portraits, so there’s no question of the reaction. However, this response in its insistence that the work is racist, deplorable, and ethically atrocious, doesn’t allow us to take the images other than at face value, when it’s obvious they were not intended to be seen as such.

I’m a little reminded of the controversy surrounding the character of “Jim” in Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn, where Twain’s obvious critique of racism can be mistaken for flagrant racism itself, and yet he also incorporates stereotypes which despite his intent can still reaffirm racism. It would be a mistake to call Twain a racist, and at the same time it would be presumptuous to the point of racism to presume that a white man at the time could truly delve into the heart of a black slave. Of course, Sherman’s work wasn’t attempting anything so ambitious.

Maybe the people behind #cindygate are right in that Sherman’s bus series seems to have been conceived and executed without consideration with how it would stand in relation to blackface, and that if one is familiar with blackface, how degrading it really is.

If one watches the little shocking gem of a racist video below, and then looks at her series, it’s difficult, at least for me, to not see some connection, and any connection, no matter how unintentional it may be, is not going to be a good thing.

Finally, there may be some middle ground where we can’t quite label the work one thing or another, and need to consider disparate but overlapping and shifting perspectives. We can see where the work is shortsighted to the point of undermining its greater purpose, but can also recognize what the artist was trying to achieve, and did achieve in her later works.

Note: I felt I should acknowledge having come to see the author’s point more clearly, and conceding at least some of his argument:

Eric Wayne to Seph • 6 minutes ago

I did some research on blackface, and came across some particularly egregious examples. After watching them, and then looking at Sherman’s photos, it is indeed difficult to entirely separate the two, regardless of her intent or subsequent work.

She must not have been aware either concretely of the tradition of blackface, or have had access to samples of it. It does appear the work was conceived and executed in blissful unawareness of how her work would relate to, and resemble, traditional blackface, and you are right that in 2015 only the most clueless artist would consider making such a production.

I think there’s more to the discussion than that, and it’s not the full picture, but I have to concede her work does resemble blackface, and it’s definitely worth examining the implications of that.

It will be interesting to see what others have to say on the issue, if they dare comment. I have a feeling many are cowed to do so. I look forward to returning to these images and reconsidering them at a later date, after I’ve had more time to digest, and get a little distance from them.