Jan Avgikos article “CindySherman: Burning Down TheHouse” investigates the possible link between photography and pornography. Sherman's work is essentially a natural progression, transitioning from the docile film still girl to hyper-sexualized scenes of what the girls get up to when left to their own devices. Primarily, her imagery investigates female identity - we are essentially looking through a woman's eyes so naturally subjects become "seductive and confrontational". Avgikos does believe that “photography is implicitly male and aggressive” which leads the reader to the ultimate conclusion that on some level these images representative of sexuality "can only partially be explained by moralizing on the victimization of woman in society." Avgikos goes on to discuss representation of the act versus the act itself and its ability to contaminate. However, the remedy, censorship, protects the majority's self image of normalcy. "...no one comes out looking normal once you know how they fuck and what they think about while they're doing it." After looking past the simple surface reading we see the imminent possibility of the artist’s fascination with disease and severe sense of self loathing.
Avgikos analyzes the work primarily by using Barthes critical theory on Semiotics but doesn’t make it obvious. Essentially, our opinion of the work or at very least our reading of the artist’s own opinion of the subject matter, rapidly deteriorates the further we delve into semiotics. We start by investigation of the basic linguistic element by utilizing the information that this work was created by a woman; the tone of the essay begins as fairly accepting, almost forgiving on a basic level due to this fact. I mention this be-cause as we move on to the coded iconic symbols and begin to unwind the symbols, interestingly enough the basic tone of the essay itself begins to unwind as well, turning quite a bit more abrasive and discussing in vernacular the varying contents of the images; eventually disregarding of high-brow linguistics all together, including the degradation of the sexual act as a whole, to a “fuck”. The final stages of semiotic theory begins simply with “Look again at Sherman’s images”. As we hit the wall of this final stage of semiotics the text becomes sickeningly but amazingly descriptive, similar to spending a decent amount of time looking at the referenced work. This final stage in reading Sherman’s work reads more like a Swinburne poem, longing for necrophilia or cannibalism, rather then an essay decoding works of art; which frankly there is not any other more effective way in the case of this work.
The thing that really blows my mind about the essay is the overall structure of it. It is written in a fashion that the further we dig, the more we reveal, the grittier the words become. While I have to admit the colorful language threw me for a bit of a scholarly loop at first, I do agree with Avgikos’ final assessment of Sherman’s series. While on some basic levels I guess I can subscribe to the belief that it isa commentary on pornography and our society, I do firmly believe it runs much deeper than that. I agree with Avgikos final assessment, when I look at these images I see a lot of self loathing; in part from the societal norms enforced on women but more so the artist’s own struggle with femininity, her place within it while also maintaining a strong sense of feminism. However, I don’t think that it is as limited as all that. Using Medusa as a comparative factor is an extremely accurate example for a lot of reasons. Primarily, these bizarre sexual acts captured entrance the viewer; freeze them in their tracks and for a few seconds the spell remains unbroken, we remain slack-jawed and stoic. Seeing the true face of this beast whether it reflects our own vices or simply piques our curiosities, on some level we are compelled to look, drawn to them like a siren song because something so primal and sexual in nature, these images speak to something deep within each of us - something that, I believe, transcends gender entirely.
Avgikos analyzes the work primarily by using Barthes critical theory on Semiotics but doesn’t make it obvious. Essentially, our opinion of the work or at very least our reading of the artist’s own opinion of the subject matter, rapidly deteriorates the further we delve into semiotics. We start by investigation of the basic linguistic element by utilizing the information that this work was created by a woman; the tone of the essay begins as fairly accepting, almost forgiving on a basic level due to this fact. I mention this be-cause as we move on to the coded iconic symbols and begin to unwind the symbols, interestingly enough the basic tone of the essay itself begins to unwind as well, turning quite a bit more abrasive and discussing in vernacular the varying contents of the images; eventually disregarding of high-brow linguistics all together, including the degradation of the sexual act as a whole, to a “fuck”. The final stages of semiotic theory begins simply with “Look again at Sherman’s images”. As we hit the wall of this final stage of semiotics the text becomes sickeningly but amazingly descriptive, similar to spending a decent amount of time looking at the referenced work. This final stage in reading Sherman’s work reads more like a Swinburne poem, longing for necrophilia or cannibalism, rather then an essay decoding works of art; which frankly there is not any other more effective way in the case of this work.
The thing that really blows my mind about the essay is the overall structure of it. It is written in a fashion that the further we dig, the more we reveal, the grittier the words become. While I have to admit the colorful language threw me for a bit of a scholarly loop at first, I do agree with Avgikos’ final assessment of Sherman’s series. While on some basic levels I guess I can subscribe to the belief that it isa commentary on pornography and our society, I do firmly believe it runs much deeper than that. I agree with Avgikos final assessment, when I look at these images I see a lot of self loathing; in part from the societal norms enforced on women but more so the artist’s own struggle with femininity, her place within it while also maintaining a strong sense of feminism. However, I don’t think that it is as limited as all that. Using Medusa as a comparative factor is an extremely accurate example for a lot of reasons. Primarily, these bizarre sexual acts captured entrance the viewer; freeze them in their tracks and for a few seconds the spell remains unbroken, we remain slack-jawed and stoic. Seeing the true face of this beast whether it reflects our own vices or simply piques our curiosities, on some level we are compelled to look, drawn to them like a siren song because something so primal and sexual in nature, these images speak to something deep within each of us - something that, I believe, transcends gender entirely.
XI - The Lovers from the series Arkanum by S. Jenx
