in the style of Cindy Sherman - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

03/08/2016 09:27:30 PM · #10

Originally posted by tanguera:

I have my concept. Setting up my model. I am certain this will bomb as it's MY interpretation of Sherman's work, and not a replica of it.

Ha!! You already failed! You're using a model!

I'm also doing an interpretation and will probably fail. But it's fun wrapping my head around it now instead of floundering. I don't know when I'll get a chance to shoot it. But definitely working on a plan.

tanguera

Nikon D750

03/08/2016 09:04:21 PM · #11

I have my concept. Setting up my model. I am certain this will bomb as it's MY interpretation of Sherman's work, and not a replica of it.

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

03/08/2016 07:59:20 PM · #12

Originally posted by Mike:

is this a photography or a dress up challenge?

Yes. :)

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

03/08/2016 07:19:08 PM · #13

is this a photography or a dress up challenge?

03/08/2016 02:35:20 PM · #14

Ok -- thanks. Both of those responses help. Something I can wrap around.

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

03/08/2016 02:24:57 PM · #15

Originally posted by vawendy:

What I don't get, is for instance, the Gallery 8 photos. The first couple are from the clown series, which I get, the rest seem just tacky and doesn't seem to really say much. Gallery 8

(make sure you move to the right to see these, not the down arrow. Down arrow moves you to gallery 9).

I'm not complaining. I just try to get into the head of the person when I'm shooting an in the style of, because I think it's important to do what they're trying to accomplish, not just mimic a style. The film series is a lot easier to understand, but I'm looking at the others because of the indoor studio setup.

Point One: she likes dressing up as different people. she likes becoming different people. You can stop here and just say she's having fun with it.

Point Two: the flaws are to keep you from forgetting that she has become different people. If the illusion were total, you wouldn't notice it. In Untitled Film Stills, you see the illusion because you find out there is no actual movie. In her portraits, she has to reveal the illusion a different way, so something always seems "off."

Point Three: The reason you need to know it's an illusion, is because she's showing you that self is constructed. Whoever we present to the world each day is a creature we made up (and dressed up). If you look at a Cindy Sherman portrait and think "oh my God, nobody sees the real me," then suddenly the portrait becomes very poignant.

sfalice

Canon PowerShot SX60 HS

03/08/2016 02:24:30 PM · #16

Originally posted by vawendy:

[quote=sfalice] [quote=vawendy] [quote=sfalice] If you think of Cindy Sherman's work as social commentary on an era, rather than 'straight portraits'

I'm not complaining. I just try to get into the head of the person when I'm shooting an in the style of, because I think it's important to do what they're trying to accomplish, not just mimic a style. The film series is a lot easier to understand, but I'm looking at the others because of the indoor studio setup.

I see the images in that gallery as exaggerated stereotypical "types" of women. The Athlete, The Society Woman, The Diva, etc.
I think Sherman was making the point that women were/are being placed in a box. When the person is placed inside the box, the box defines the person.
That's my take on it, anyhow.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/08/2016 02:09:25 PM · #17

Originally posted by sfalice:

Originally posted by vawendy:

Originally posted by sfalice:
If you think of Cindy Sherman's work as social commentary on an era, rather than 'straight portraits'
then it may make more sense. In her series on the '50s she was not old enough to have known of the period in real time,
but nailed the essence of that society - as far as women were concerned.

Which series is that? That's why I'm having a hard time with this. Many of the things at which I'm looking seem to lack any social commentary. They seem to just be. Now the clown and the centerfold I understand more, but don't want to go there. Are you looking at a particular site? I'm trying to track down the individual series.

Wendy - I didn't remember this from the Internet. Some 20-25 years ago I was part of a study group that delved into what for lack of a better term might be called "modern art." Sherman's work just resonated - she was so good at interpreting the mores of the 50s that her photos were indelible in my mind from that point on. There were other series as well, one I remember had a pig's costume as part of the props.

In any event, when I plugged in "Cindy Sherman - 50s series" a number of references popped up, mostly from MOMA . here's one. Another link: This one includes eight galleries of her work.

Ok -- that makes more sense. They're from the untitled film series. There's definitely more of a story and interest in those.

What I don't get, is for instance, the Gallery 8 photos. The first couple are from the clown series, which I get, the rest seem just tacky and doesn't seem to really say much. Gallery 8

(make sure you move to the right to see these, not the down arrow. Down arrow moves you to gallery 9).

I'm not complaining. I just try to get into the head of the person when I'm shooting an in the style of, because I think it's important to do what they're trying to accomplish, not just mimic a style. The film series is a lot easier to understand, but I'm looking at the others because of the indoor studio setup.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

03/08/2016 01:38:58 PM · #18

Originally posted by vawendy:

But I'm wanting to understand what people see in the portraits. They talk about the meticulous makeup, lighting, all the pieces, yet I find them all flawed ...

If you're talking about portraits of the "rich and famous" maybe that they're flawed is the point ...

jim29028

Olympus E-5

Olympus 12-60mm f/2.8-4.0 Zuiko

03/08/2016 01:17:15 PM · #19

I've tried shooting for this twice and didn't like anything I ended up with, not remotely her style. Trying to do this doing my own make-up, outfit, staging the room etc the way Cindy does, it's tough doing this, I'm a terrible model. Not sure that I'll come up with anything I like or that fits her style.

I've got an idea now but not sure that I can execute what I'm thinking, probably my last shot at getting something I like, a character I think I can become for the photo.

sfalice

Canon PowerShot SX60 HS

03/08/2016 10:39:42 AM · #20

Originally posted by vawendy:

Originally posted by sfalice:
If you think of Cindy Sherman's work as social commentary on an era, rather than 'straight portraits'
then it may make more sense. In her series on the '50s she was not old enough to have known of the period in real time,
but nailed the essence of that society - as far as women were concerned.

Which series is that? That's why I'm having a hard time with this. Many of the things at which I'm looking seem to lack any social commentary. They seem to just be. Now the clown and the centerfold I understand more, but don't want to go there. Are you looking at a particular site? I'm trying to track down the individual series.

Wendy - I didn't remember this from the Internet. Some 20-25 years ago I was part of a study group that delved into what for lack of a better term might be called "modern art." Sherman's work just resonated - she was so good at interpreting the mores of the 50s that her photos were indelible in my mind from that point on. There were other series as well, one I remember had a pig's costume as part of the props.

In any event, when I plugged in "Cindy Sherman - 50s series" a number of references popped up, mostly from MOMA . here's one. Another link: This one includes eight galleries of her work.

Message edited by author 2016-03-08 10:40:47.

03/08/2016 05:37:37 AM · #21

"I am always surprised at all the things people read into my photos, but it also amuse me. That may be because I have nothing specific in mind when I�m working. My intentions are neither feminist nor political. I try to put double or multiple meanings into my photos, which might give rise to a greater variety of interpretations."

Cindy Sherman

I'm struggling with this one. I feel like I'm in a modern poetry class. The movie stills I get and I should just go with those. But I'm wanting to understand what people see in the portraits. They talk about the meticulous makeup, lighting, all the pieces, yet I find them all flawed and not in an interesting way or a compelling way. What do you see in these? I'd love to hear people break down some of the portraits and let me know what you see. Maybe it's just because it's 5 in the morning, and I'm only awake to get the kid off to school...

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

03/08/2016 05:16:30 AM · #22

Originally posted by sfalice:

If you think of Cindy Sherman's work as social commentary on an era, rather than 'straight portraits'
then it may make more sense. In her series on the '50s she was not old enough to have known of the period in real time,
but nailed the essence of that society - as far as women were concerned.

Which series is that? That's why I'm having a hard time with this. Many of the things at which I'm looking seem to lack any social commentary. They seem to just be. Now the clown and the centerfold I understand more, but don't want to go there. Are you looking at a particular site? I'm trying to track down the individual series.

tanguera

Nikon D750

03/08/2016 01:04:21 AM · #23

That's exactly how I'm approaching this. More a social commentary than weird self-portraits.

sfalice

Canon PowerShot SX60 HS

03/08/2016 12:26:09 AM · #24