Please respond here to the Philip-Lorca DiCorcia show at LACMA, as well as the Cindy Sherman photos in the Broad building. Share your comments, questions, and critical interactions. (two brief paragraphs should be fine)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Okay, so I thought this was fabulous. Daring. Lucky 13 was definitely one of those shows where the idea behind it is very important. Without the statement about 911, they would have had significantly less affect on me. When I saw them and pictured bodies falling from buildings, they made me shudder. The Hustlers show also made me shudder. Not because of the occupation of the men, but more out of sadness for them. And the titles of these pieces with their prices listed (such low, low numbers) I thought was so powerful.
So with both shows, I wonder whether they would work as well without the intentional significance behind them. Lucky 13 might simply be sexual. Hustlers might simply be portraits. Knowing the signifance of both shows made them intriguing and gripping.
I forgot to comment on Cindy Sherman. I do not understand what is behind tha clowns! Her older work is wonderful -- the whole idea of a woman in many different roles, how we view them, how they want to be viewed. She did this a lot with some of her new work as well, mixing in the historical women (with the weird fake breasts, etc). I understand these. They are a little abstract, and still I apreciate the concept behind them very much. But I don't understand the clowns... or that extremely grotesqe piece that was on the wall the the right (brown face disguised in what looked like a mess of organs). I wonder, What was she saying about the image of a woman there? Or was she saying anything at all?
I would have to agree with Cherish that the DiCorcia show took guts. The work holds itself up for its technique. The lighting is atmospheric. The angles and cropping add in setting the tone and the color plays right along side. Yet it is the objective, rather the stories, behind the work that take interesting photos and give the meaning that causes deep emotion in any onlooker. The pieces turned into snapshots, a brief glimpse, into the situations and lives that will continue to be painful whither you continue to watch or not. DiCorcia's Hustlers project got to me most. Without the title and the background of the piece, the viewer may find it an interesting composition and continue on. I may have done this too if it were not for the eyes of these men. The utter disconnect in there eyes took held me there and caused me to linger in their story just a little longer.
As for the Cindy Sherman show, I was a little surprised at the work that awaited me. I have been exposed to Cindy through elegant photos of herself that breakdown barrier walls with their simplicity. What I found came off gaudy and sparked irritation in me. Given this could come from my absolute hatred towards clowns. I adore the black and white prints that Cindy is known for and was disinterested with this show. However, Kevin pointed out that she could not do those prints forever. In looking at it this way, I am impressed that she is continue to stretch herself through her work and push the norm.
with cindy sherman..her newer work on the wall did not attract me at all. however..the few images of her older work were beatiful (women in their different roles...). i am drawn to them because they are black and white and less gaudy...
dicorcia displayed something new to me with lucky 13. with the bodies of the women appearing so graceful and then thinking about the bodies falling from the buildings during 911 made it all seem very peaceful. im not sure if i would want to think of it like that. or are we honoring and dignifying the bodies falling from the buildings through this? or are we not..is the fact that these women are strippers de-dignifying (not sure if thats a word..lol) to the bodies falling?...
DiCorcia is so great. I wish his 1000 photo book wasn't 100$. But seriously, I loved his show. The pictures of the hustlers is such a haunting series. It's sad - when looking at the excellent composition and the beautiful lighting, you forget how real those men are. They are real men who seem so so lonely. It's heartbreaking to me. But DiCorcia acts as a redeemer: perfect lighting and composition allows the viewer to see the hustlers in a "redeemed" light. Awesome. Cindy Sherman has become predictable, and boring. I enjoy her older stuff... much more simple. Now she seems much more contrived. A pity.
When I was going through DiCorcia's gallery I was drawn to each image individually. I got a strange feeling of emptiness, sorrow, and loss from each in a different way. With the people walking the lighting was so limited to only the facial expression and I would try to guess what they were thinking the moment before the photo was taken. I could see a lot written into their faces: worry, hope, pride and other things. With the male prostitutes it was the same. Trying to figure out the way they portray themselves and what they were offering. One that really stood out was the man lying on the pavement looking just away from the camera because he was so exhausted and deprived. The women falling was beautiful in a formal way and captivating but it is so strange for the artist to take one second of this falling and present it in a way that was so pleasing to the eye. What is DiCorcia doing when he shows you these images? Using government funding he takes the most taboo in our society and flashes you an image, a portrait of each male, and a 'falling victim' presented through a stripper. Contrasted with a person, any person walking (could have been you) presenting his or her expressions only, for everyone to see in a gallery. With the falling victims looking at it we should be horrified and in the images it is presented so beautifully that it almost desensitizes you. Much like the rest of our world where something so harmful can be present so beautifully. There was a similar theme through out them all and it all relates back to our society. There is so much emptiness in the lives of these people; everyone is searching for hope and fulfillment of something not knowing what to fill it with or even how to. Why does DiCorcia show us these people and what is he trying to say by relating them? These are some questions I am trying to figure out. One thing was clear that they all gave me a bad vibe that came from this sense of emptiness and loss. There was something in the expressions of the faces and gestures of each that helped me to connect myself to those people. Maybe that is what DiCorcia was trying to do is to make it clear that we have all been robbed of our innocence and there has been tragedy in our lives. The room with all the Polaroid's was neat-o; it reminded me of the project I did and even the idea was similar. By presenting all the images or even keeping them gives them importance when they may not have been anything.
Cindi Sherman had and interesting idea. There is not much more for me to say about her pictures than that. I suppose I like some of them but none stand out. I did like the film prints better. Some of the characters were portrayed better than the others. I think she may just have had a good idea that went too far. Maybe I am just over her idea now (which could even be a factor of it in the first place) but I was not impressed.
What happened to cindy sherman?!? I've looked at alot of her film stills and have always enjoyed them. Her giant new pictures were just disgusting. One of the things that I have always enjoyed about her older works is how they seem to grasp the time period so well... so what do her new pictures say of the world we live in today? It seems that she has become so corrupted, yet her use of prosthetic body parts was pretty interesting and somewhat unexpected when you look at the nature of her work as a whole. I thought it was pretty appropriate that Sherman's gross, yet kind of intriguing pictures were in a room next to a lamb floating in liquid. Both make you want to look, but at the same time you squint your eyes and try to look away as if they've taken away a little bit more of the world's innocence.
Interestingly enough, DiCorcia's work is conceptually much more sinful, but it was a relief to look at his images after the disappointment that was the Cindy Sherman exhibit. This is probably because I knew what was coming. I was expecting images of naked strippers, so I wasn't shocked like I was at the previous exhibit which was nothing like what I expected. I enjoyed the DiCorcia show, mostly for its strong conceptual background. I thought that the hustler's series was very well shot and so intriguing. Great lighting, great backgrounds, great portraiture.
Both artists make photos, which is always something I like to see. It shows creativity and maybe even a little more artistic talent then simply taking the pictures... but then again I have a lot more thinking to do on the subject of making/taking pictures.
-lauren heurkins
Allison:
There's a lot you could say about the Becher and Sander.
But the experience that was most memorable happened at the diCorcia exhibit.
There's something really amazing about being able to walk up to the huge print and look into the face of the 18 year old kid selling himself for 30 bucks.
You start noticing he looks like people you know, that he isn't much older or younger than you.
They're extremely humanizing.
I wasn't really sure I felt the same way about the Lucky13 series--though I have to admit, those dancers have to be ridiculously strong to do what they do.
Granted, because each photo was titled by the name of the girl in the photo, I felt they were definitely more aesthetic and personal than say "dancer 1" or "untitled" would've been. And really, while they were mostly topless, it wasn't explicit--I was honestly just left wondering "how the heck does she DO that?" not "wow, naked chick."
Unfortunately he LACMA show description didn't say anything vaguely helpful in understanding diCorcia's intentions for that series. Some blah-blah about "hidden meanings" and "initially controversial". Almost like they were embarrassed to admit they hadn't a clue what he was up to but they couldn't just say "It's boobs. That's all we looked at anyway."
--
Non-art thought:
Saddest thing I ever saw--this older couple walking through and looking at the photos.
The man seemed to be following this kind of routine:
1. Stomp loudly up to the photo
2. Read the title out loud
3. Glance briefly at the photo
4. Make sounds of incomprehension: "What the... Eh? Whatever..."
He managed to pass by all of the "Heads" series without even looking at the photos for longer than a few seconds, and seemed really upset that the only thing the description gave was "Number --"
I don't get what his problem was--I really just hope his blood sugar was low and he was having a bad day.
I mean, I can understand someone of his age being very upset by the naked ladies, or if he actually bothered to think about the content of the Hustlers, but Heads?
How could he not stop and contemplate Heads??
Very sad.
I spent the entire time looking at DiCorcia's Thousand series. I ran right past the Heads and Lucky 13, barely glanced at Cindy Sherman's work, and was captivated by the thousand Polaroids displayed in little lines along the wall.
I am interested in his break from creating a thematically-specific body of work, and putting his photographic sketches on display. What made him decide to throw his light-explorations in front of his viewers? Why did he want to let us in on his internal thought-process? I wonder if this collection of Polaroids is DiCorcia's way of equalling the playing field. In the next room is his Lucky 13, Heads and Hustlers... all large, provocative images that are kind of overwhelming and intense. I love his pairing of those photos with his little polaroids...that he claims are purely formal. His ideas are fluid and almost mundane or underwhelming in his polaroids. The fact that DiCorcia is giving us two sides of himself is encouraging--- I like seeing the process behind his photos, and I like that he make his process into a series of its own. He seems to be saying LOOK AT THESE! THESE MATTER TOO!
DiCorcia, from my perspective, had a much stronger show with regards to content and the idea behind his work. I truly enjoyed getting to see the images of the prostitutes in person knowing before hand what he was trying to communicate. I don't know why but I really enjoyed looking at the images from the Heads series that he had there. Perhaps it was because all the heads were much larger than normal heads or that they we lit so well or maybe it was the emotion communicated through the facial expression or lack there of. Regardless, an interesting set of images.
The Sherman show was also interesting but I can't say that I understand it entirely. I understand her earlier work portraying herself in all the different roles but what role is she playing now?
After listening to DiCorcia lecture this summer, I found his photos to be tainted by a pretentious beast looming in the background. What an odd association to find oneself thinking of strippers and 9/11 in relation to each other. Does this mean DiCorcia had been frequenting strip clubs at the time? Shady man. There is an interesting mixture of technical excellence and dirty subject matter in both the Hustlers series as well as Lucky 13. Where the technical quality of these, with the lighting and large flawless scale, lend toward high fashion or fine art, the subject matter returns to those that society scorns and does not want to interact with. I do not know how I feel about that.
Cindy Sherman is a freaky chick. He work continues to explore areas in which no one else desires to go, yet they are so intriguing. He tanned soccer mom series is fabulous, mocking the very culture that lives just south of us. Her body series suggest a sexually aggressive individual, though is this a natural progression, or were these fed by traumatic events in life?
I agree with Shannon that I was very intrigued by the DiCorcia Thousand series. I can't say, however, that I walked right past the Lucky 13 or Hustler pictures. The shock of the subject matter of these series makes you curious and I found myself respecting DiCorcia for dignifying the humanity of groups of people whose humanity is anything but dignified by their careers.
In the thousand series I liked the rawness of the not perfectly set up, but still beautiful and unique pictures. And then seeing them all together displayed in such a random order is wonderful. The pictures bring value and significants to otherwise rather typical moments, places and people in life. I loved it.
The Cindy Sherman gallery was not really what I was expecting to see since the only work of hers that I have previously seen is her older work. Her pictures make me wonder what in the world is going in her mind. I guess she typically does things that are out of the standard so I have to give her credit for her ability to continually explore new areas, but I don't know if I can say honestly that i liked it.
As I reflect back at my LACMA Cindy Sherman and Philip-Lorca DiCorcia experience, I am swayed to focus more on the Philip-Lorca Dicorcia show. This because, through my experience walking around the show I was more intrigued and interested with his idea of projects. I am interested in his philosophy, whatever it might really be. The way he presents his work and the way I viewed his work naturally set me in a more mature and serious mood. What he was giving me as a viewer was real and wanted to in return respond in a very real way. His head project brought a whole different respect to him and his work or skill. He evidently has great composition and amazing light understanding with the physical face. Because he is so skilled in this way, his work brings a higher level of aesthetics and capture between the photo and the viewer. The actual project of capturing heads is on the effy side, I don’t know whether I think it to be impressive or not but what does impress me indeed is his light understanding and ability to capture it.
On the Cindy Sherman side, I thought it was interesting what she was trying to do. It was on a lighter note than DiCorica’s show and much more of a humor between her work and the viewers. To me its an neat idea to become a character and become as that character actually is and capture that into a self portrait. I thought she was skilled in her ability to dress up as these intense and flamboyant characters and yet drop her own personality to fit the parts. She is an actress really, and she is showing the viewers her acting ability? I think, something like that. Anyways, her show was crazy and I was just there to take it in and try to understand it. I don’t know if I like it though.
I can't say that I like the Cindy Sherman show by any means. Not only were her images creepy and a little unsettling, but also just compositionally unpleasant. They just didn't make sense to me and didn't seem like this would be an idea of hers. Yes, I know she cannot do "movie stills" forever, but clowns and whatever the heck else that stuff was? No thanks. However, I did like how they displayed her old photos. I think they are timeless and beautiful, and being a fan of old films and a photographer, it was great to see them in person!
On the contrary, DiCorcia's work was really captivating and beautiful, even if there are so many negative connotations that come with that profession. The photos challenged me to look at each individual and question why they were doing this; what had happened to them that made this the career path they chose? And also, as a Christian, though I can't agree with it, I can only pity them instead of judge them. The graceful, strong, figures flow gracefully across their frames, in elaborate poses and wardrobe. It's a beautiful scene and show, and the "uncomfortable-ness" of it all is what made me linger, it forced me to look at the images and people instead of running to the next exhibit of something nicely painted like flowers or a safe bust of Plato. The technical qualities of both the strippers and the male prositutes is pristine and perfect, and I love the way they all have this active quality to them, as if they are a movie still, shot during the middle of a take.
I also loved the polariod exhibit. Polaroids, with their low-quality and square composition, will always be my favorite type of photo. The rawness of the polariod, and the interesting subject matters in their stark contrast to the strippers and hustlers shows the versatility of this artist. He calls attention to the strippers by their mere appearance, the prostitutes by their name and price, and these photos in just the vast expanse of prints. Cindy Sherman, not so much, DiCorcia? Yes please!
Cindy Sherman gallery was a little too over the top for me, I’m not sure if it was intentional or not but she definitely created a shock affect. The size and the content of the images were all a bit overwhelming. Since I had seen her earlier work I had higher expectations. Although, I do want to give her credit for trying something new and being so daring! Specifically, the image that struck me the most was the one that looked like a face made up of different organs. After starring at it long enough, I realized that it was created with caramel, chocolates, and a mixture of gooey sweets. It was creative but not aesthetically pleasing.
DiCorcia’s gallery was very impressive and a relief from Sherman’s photos. The Hustler and Lucky 13 series were both conceptually deeper and more intensifying. It was difficult to see the images objectively, especially knowing that DiCorcia used real prostitutes and is giving us a small glimpse of their painful story. It was hard not to give each individual photo equal attention without feeling guilty. However, I was even more impressed to see upside-down strippers create such a beautiful art form with the positioning of their bodies. They were displayed with so much elegance and grace, that it almost caused one to forget the stigma this profession carries. Also, I do not think I would have ever connected this with the falling bodies of 911 if I were not told beforehand. Altogether, I really enjoyed his show and admire the technical details and the meaning he puts behind his work.
The Dicorcia show was interesting. I like the large scale and theatrical lighting he uses. I liked the "Heads" series the best because they way he captured them was really intriguing to me. He basically just illuminated and photographed strangers on the street without them having knowledge of it. As for the "Hustler" series, there was interesting lighting, and yes it was somewhat conceptually interesting, but not all of the subjects were indeed "hustlers". He took photos of some actual male prostitutes and some people that he just felt looked like they could be. The price listed was however much he paid them to pose in the photo. In those regards I feel that it was a little deceptive, so my heart didn't immediately go out to these "lost souls". As for the "Lucky 13" series, something about it rubbed me the wrong way. Of course they were visually graceful and intriguing because the female form is also those things. However, those girls are suppose to look pretty and elegant sliding down a pole- that's why they're strippers. I don't think I saw any statement in the gallery that mentioned 9/11, but perhaps I overlooked it. Even knowing that these images are suppose to evoke what he related them to I found them to be pretentious. Really? Are you trying to be ironic and satirical and make a statement about sex trade or America? A little too soon buddy.
I was kind of overwhelmed by the large format of Cindy Sherman's most recent work. I love her older work and think that her new work is still interesting even though it is exploring different avenues. As for the clowns, they didn't weird me out, and I think I kind of see where she was going with that. There are so many different types of ways to portray woman, all these different personalities and stereotypes. Think of how many different ways you can portray a clown, just change the make-up and the wig and you have a whole different clown- and that's what she does when she portrays the different women, she just changes her hair and make-up. The only thing that particularly disturbed me was the gore portrait. That had to be one of nastiest things of seen in my life- could you imagine that hanging over you're dining room table? I'll admit I'm not sure where she was going with that and frankly I would appreciate if she never did it again. I think that it is interesting that within her body of work- her self-portraits- she has explored so many different areas. I think I've heard recently that now she's branching into fashion, so I guess we'll just have to see where her work goes in the future. I think what she does is really fun though, I would love to play dress-up all day and make a fortune off of it- and I don't mean that in a sarcastic way.
-Jessica Chapman
Post a Comment