Cindy Sherman’s History Portraits: Playing with Art History – A Lecture
(🛎️ Class bell rings. You hear the shuffle of feet, the rustle of notebooks, and the general murmur of eager anticipation… or maybe it’s just the sound of people trying to find their seats after a particularly strong latte.)
Alright, settle down, settle down! Good morning, art aficionados! Welcome to "Art History Hijinks with Cindy Sherman," or, as the syllabus calls it, "Cindy Sherman’s History Portraits: Playing with Art History."
(👓 Adjusts imaginary glasses. Clears throat dramatically.)
Today, we’re diving headfirst into the wonderfully weird and wickedly clever world of Cindy Sherman’s History Portraits. Get ready to question everything you thought you knew about art history, identity, and the transformative power of a really, really good wig.
(🤔 A student raises their hand.)
Yes?
**(👩🎓 Student): Is there going to be a quiz?
(😬 I sigh dramatically.)
That’s the spirit! Always thinking of the important things! No, no quiz. But be warned: you will be judged on your ability to appreciate the sheer brilliance of a woman who can turn herself into anything from a Renaissance Duchess to a Byzantine Madonna using nothing but thrift store finds and a whole lot of chutzpah.
(😊 A collective sigh of relief washes over the room.)
Let’s begin!
I. The Sherman Spectacle: Introducing the Master of Disguise
Who is Cindy Sherman? That, my friends, is the million-dollar question. Because the answer, as with most things in art, is wonderfully complicated. Sherman is a photographer, a conceptual artist, and a master of disguise. She’s not just taking photographs; she’s creating them. And she’s almost always the subject.
(🖼️ Image on screen: A selection of diverse Cindy Sherman portraits from various series – Untitled Film Stills, Centerfolds, Disasters, History Portraits.)
But here’s the catch: Sherman doesn’t consider her work self-portraits. She’s not revealing her "true self" or documenting her life. Instead, she’s exploring constructed identities, cultural stereotypes, and the way images shape our perception of the world.
Think of her as a chameleon 🦎, constantly shifting her appearance to embody different roles and personas. She’s a walking, talking (well, posing) commentary on the performative nature of identity.
II. Deconstructing the Canon: What are the History Portraits?
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Sherman embarked on a series that would become known as the History Portraits. This series sees her taking on the guise of figures from famous historical portraits, from the Renaissance to the Rococo period.
(🖼️ Image on screen: A side-by-side comparison of a historical painting (e.g., Caravaggio’s Sick Bacchus) and Sherman’s version.)
These aren’t just simple recreations, though. Sherman isn’t aiming for perfect imitation. Instead, she’s offering a playful, often irreverent, and always thought-provoking reinterpretation of these iconic images.
She uses costumes, makeup, prosthetics, and props to mimic the styles and eras represented in the original paintings. But she also adds her own distinct touch, often emphasizing the artificiality of the image and highlighting the constructed nature of historical representation.
Think of it as art history fan fiction. ✍️
III. The Tools of Transformation: Sherman’s Costume Kit
Sherman’s studio isn’t a pristine white cube; it’s more like a theatrical prop room meets a vintage clothing store. It’s filled with wigs, costumes, makeup, prosthetics, and all sorts of bizarre objects that she uses to transform herself.
(🖼️ Image on screen: A behind-the-scenes look at Cindy Sherman’s studio, showing the chaos and abundance of costumes, wigs, and props.)
Let’s break down the key elements of her transformation toolkit:
| Tool | Description | Purpose | Example in History Portraits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wigs | From elaborate powdered wigs to simple head coverings, wigs are essential for achieving the hairstyles of different historical periods. | To instantly alter her appearance and embody the hairstyle of the original portrait. | In her version of La Fornarina by Raphael, the elaborate braids and head covering are crucial. |
| Costumes | Often sourced from thrift stores or made from inexpensive materials, the costumes evoke the clothing of the original paintings. | To create the visual impression of the historical period and the social status of the subject. | The richly textured and layered clothing in her versions of portraits by Caravaggio. |
| Makeup | Used to create specific skin tones, facial features, and expressions, mimicking the aesthetic conventions of different eras. | To enhance the illusion of the historical character and to create a specific emotional effect. | The pale skin and exaggerated features in her take on portraits of Renaissance Madonnas. |
| Prosthetics | Artificial noses, chins, and other facial features are used to alter her physical appearance. | To more closely resemble the features of the original subject and to emphasize the artificiality of the image. | The exaggerated nose in her Sick Bacchus recreation. |
| Props | Objects like jewelry, books, and other accessories are used to enhance the realism and historical accuracy of the portraits. | To provide context and to add details that help to construct the narrative of the image. | The chalice and grapes in her Sick Bacchus recreation, mimicking the original painting. |
| Lighting | Carefully controlled lighting is used to create specific moods and to mimic the chiaroscuro effects of historical paintings. | To enhance the drama and to create the illusion of depth and texture. | The dramatic lighting and shadows in her versions of portraits by Rembrandt. |
Sherman’s resourcefulness is key here. She doesn’t have access to the same materials or resources as the original artists, so she has to improvise. This adds to the sense of artifice and highlights the constructed nature of both her own images and the historical portraits they reference.
IV. More Than Just a Pretty Face: Deeper Meanings and Critical Commentary
The History Portraits are more than just clever imitations. They’re a complex commentary on a range of issues, including:
-
The Construction of Identity: Sherman’s transformations highlight the fact that identity is not fixed or inherent but rather something that is constructed through external factors like clothing, makeup, and social context. She shows us that we are all, in a sense, performing identities every day.
-
The Male Gaze: Many of the original portraits in the series were painted by men, often depicting women as objects of beauty or desire. Sherman’s re-stagings challenge this "male gaze" by taking control of the representation and offering a more nuanced and complex portrayal of women.
-
The Art Historical Canon: By appropriating and reinterpreting famous works of art, Sherman questions the authority and exclusivity of the art historical canon. She suggests that these images are not timeless masterpieces but rather products of their time, shaped by social, political, and cultural forces.
-
The Power of Images: The History Portraits explore the power of images to shape our perceptions of history, identity, and the world around us. Sherman shows us that images are not neutral representations of reality but rather active agents in the construction of meaning.
-
The Role of the Artist: Sherman’s work challenges the traditional notion of the artist as a genius creator. She presents herself as a performer, a manipulator of images, and a commentator on culture. She embraces the artificiality of the image and rejects the idea of authenticity.
(🤔 Pause for dramatic effect.)
Think about it: Sherman’s not just copying old paintings. She’s interrogating them. She’s asking questions like: Who gets to be represented in art history? How are they represented? And what does it mean to be a woman, a historical figure, an artist in the late 20th century?
V. Let’s Get Specific: A Few Case Studies
Let’s dive into a few specific examples to illustrate these points:
A. Caravaggio’s Sick Bacchus (c. 1593) vs. Cindy Sherman’s Untitled #224 (1990)
(🖼️ Image on screen: Side-by-side comparison of Caravaggio’s Sick Bacchus and Cindy Sherman’s Untitled #224.)
-
The Original: Caravaggio’s Sick Bacchus is a self-portrait, depicting the artist as the Roman god of wine, looking pale and unwell. It’s a masterpiece of chiaroscuro, with dramatic lighting and realistic detail.
-
Sherman’s Take: Sherman’s version is less polished, more theatrical. The prosthetics are obvious, the makeup is exaggerated, and the overall effect is slightly unsettling. She looks less like a god and more like a slightly hungover partygoer who’s seen better days.
-
What’s Going On? Sherman’s version draws attention to the constructed nature of the image. The obvious artifice undermines the illusion of realism and highlights the performative aspect of the original painting. She’s also poking fun at the idea of the "tortured artist" and the romanticization of suffering. Plus, let’s be honest, she looks like she raided a Halloween store for the costume!
B. Raphael’s La Fornarina (c. 1518-1519) vs. Cindy Sherman’s Untitled #205 (1989)
(🖼️ Image on screen: Side-by-side comparison of Raphael’s La Fornarina and Cindy Sherman’s Untitled #205.)
-
The Original: Raphael’s La Fornarina is a portrait of his mistress, Margherita Luti. She’s depicted as a beautiful and sensual woman, with flowing hair and a suggestive pose.
-
Sherman’s Take: Sherman’s version is less idealized, more earthy. She’s wearing a simple head covering and her makeup is less refined. She doesn’t exude the same sense of effortless beauty as the original.
-
What’s Going On? Sherman’s version subverts the male gaze by presenting a more realistic and less objectified portrayal of a woman. She’s challenging the traditional representation of women in art as passive objects of desire. The slightly awkward pose and less-than-perfect makeup suggest a woman who is more real, more human. It’s like she’s saying, "Hey, even Renaissance mistresses have bad hair days!"
C. Byzantine Madonna vs. Cindy Sherman’s Untitled #209 (1989)
(🖼️ Image on screen: Side-by-side comparison of a Byzantine Madonna icon and Cindy Sherman’s Untitled #209.)
-
The Original: Byzantine Madonnas are characterized by their stylized features, gold backgrounds, and an overall sense of otherworldliness. They represent the Virgin Mary as a symbol of purity and divinity.
-
Sherman’s Take: Sherman’s version is almost grotesque. The makeup is heavy, the prosthetics are exaggerated, and the overall effect is both humorous and unsettling.
-
What’s Going On? Sherman’s version challenges the idealization of religious figures and the traditional representation of female divinity. She’s highlighting the artifice of religious imagery and questioning the power structures that underpin it. It’s as if she’s saying, "Okay, but what really went into creating these icons?"
VI. Why Does It Matter? The Lasting Legacy of the History Portraits
Cindy Sherman’s History Portraits are not just clever visual tricks. They’re a powerful and enduring contribution to contemporary art. They’ve influenced generations of artists and continue to resonate with audiences today.
Here’s why they matter:
-
They Challenged the Status Quo: Sherman’s work helped to dismantle the traditional hierarchies of art history and to open up space for new voices and perspectives.
-
They Expanded the Definition of Photography: Sherman pushed the boundaries of photography as an art form, demonstrating its potential for conceptual exploration and social commentary.
-
They Raised Important Questions About Identity: Sherman’s work continues to spark conversations about the nature of identity, the power of images, and the role of representation in shaping our understanding of the world.
-
They Made Art History Fun! Okay, maybe that’s a subjective point, but Sherman’s playful and irreverent approach makes art history more accessible and engaging for a wider audience.
(🎤 I step away from the podium and address the class directly.)
So, the next time you see a historical portrait, don’t just admire the brushstrokes or the composition. Think about who is being represented, how they are being represented, and what the artist is trying to communicate. And remember, there’s always more to the story than meets the eye.
Cindy Sherman reminds us that art history is not a static collection of masterpieces but a dynamic and ever-evolving conversation. And she invites us all to join in.
(👏 Applause breaks out. A few students even whistle. The bell rings, signaling the end of class.)
Alright, class dismissed! Don’t forget to read the assigned chapter on the male gaze. And try not to get too inspired by Cindy Sherman’s costume collection… unless you’re planning a really epic Halloween party. See you next week!
