Cindy Sherman and Kehinde Wiley's art work are prime examples of the notion of constructed identities. Specifically, Sherman's Historical Portraits series and Wiley's Prince Tommaso Francesco of Savoy-Carignano are similar in regard to their focus on constructed identity and use of historical subjects. Wiley suggests that "all identities are constructed, even supposedly 'normal' mainstream identities; no identity is natural and essential" (McDaniel and Robertson 53). Wiley's 2006 portrait of a black male in contemporary dress regally posed on an Italian horse is as "normal" as Van Dyck's similar painting of Thomas Francis in 1634 (Wikipedia). Cindy Sherman "reinforces the idea that identity is artificially constructed and transformable" (McDaniel and Roberston 55). Her photographs in the Historical Portraits series challenge the notion of natural identities, as Sherman poses in elaborate costumes and settings resembling historical portraits. She transcends preconceived gender identities by posing as famous men and women. Like Wiley's male figures, each time Sherman poses she "constructs" a new identity.
Both Sherman and Wiley's pieces support the same theory of constructed identities, but the mode in which they portray their views differs greatly. Wiley focuses mainly on challenging "normal" identities by showing that they are all constructed. If all identities are constructed, then Wiley believes he can create new ones (McDaniel and Robertson 53). He does this in one piece by painting Ice-T sitting on a seventeenth-century throne. The painting is far from the norm, as he merges the past and present in an unlikely juxtaposition (Recognize). He is consistent in using modern-day black males as the subject and painting as his medium (McDaniel and Robertson 53). However, Sherman dresses in the appropriate costumes and settings for the time period she plans to portray, and she does not compare the past and the present. Her manifestation of the notion of constructed identities comes from her own ever changing identity. She proves that one cannot label her as a certain sex or historical figure, because she is constantly becoming someone new. Sherman demonstrates that identities are never rigid and fixed. She also shows that identites are often times fake identities. Just becuase she is dressed as a male in historical attire does not make her a historical man. Lastly, Sherman prefers photgraphy to painting, and she is the subject of most of her photos (McDaniel and Robertson 55). Though both artists focus on the concept of constructed identities, they portray it in completely different ways.
McDaniel, Craig and Jean Robertson. Themes of Contemporary Art: Visual Art after 1980. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2010. 53-55.
"Recognize! Hip Hop and Contemporary Portraiture." Smithsonian, National Portraiture Gallery. Web. 20 Jan 2010. <www.npg.si.edu/exhibit/recognize/paintings.html>.
Wikipedia Contributors. "Thomas Francis, Prince of Carignan." Wikipedia. 15 Jan 2010. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Web. 20 Jan 2010. <www.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Francis,_Price_of_Carignan&oldid=338010657>.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think the Wiley and Sherman comaparison works well. I like that you pointed out at the end that each artist's take on identity differs; Sherman focuses on her own malleable image, whereas Wiley appropriates western history painting with modern black males. Personally, of the two, I find Sherman's work to be more interesting. Wiley's work is certainly fun, but doesn't do it for me. Perhaps its the idea of more personal identity that I connect to better? Maybe its a tendency to shy away from racial issues?
ReplyDeleteStokes proves “both artists focus on the concept of constructed identities, they portray it in different ways”. Stokes could have taken one of the artist’s works to the next level and “Theorized Identity” to explore works beyond the surface level. I am going to focus on Cindy Sherman’s Historical Portraits. I used the questions from the Psychoanalysis Lecture, Slide 7 as the foundation to assert questions of my own.
ReplyDeleteIf “identity is artificially constructed and transformed”, then what or how does my own identity relate to the photographs? (McDaniel and Roberston 55). I chose Untitled #205 (1989), as a specific work to examine. Does Sherman want the viewer to not just question the figure’s identity, but also examine my own identity? Glancing at Untitled #205, it looks like a portrait done in the Classical style and I do not see any connection to my own identity. After noting the physical similarities, like we are both women, both have blue eyes, and both like to sit around the house in nothing but a sheer blanket, I become frustrated. My identity is more than my exterior and so I project that assumption on her. The overall emotion coursing through me is anticipation. The woman is anticipating either having a child or maybe a man arriving or even merely anticipating being able to put her clothes back on. The emotion is closer to her identity, than any of her physical features. Does Sherman create these photographs for the viewer to use as a tool for self reflection? I believe she does. Sherman highlights “identity is always transferable”, because I am able to understand the woman’s anticipation (McDaniel and Robertson 55). Stokes proved her argument, but I felt that in order to address identity, properly, I had to use the analytic tools for myself.
McDaniel, Craig and Jean Robertson. Themes of Contemporary Art: Visual Art after 1980. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2010.
Image: Cindy Sherman, Untitled #205, after Raphael (1989)
I like to see the difference of the original blogger’s post and the second commenter’s response. Just like when examining identity, none of us are exactly alike- we think differently, thoughts come out differently and are processed differently. I like the way Stokes compares Cindy Sherman and Khinde Wiley’s relationship with addressing identity in their work. Identity is ever changing, and in the post structuralist world, this is recognized and embraced. The disintegration of the meatnarratives and embracing the petit recits are what post structuralists (and myself) are all about. Why try to pin something down that is never definite to begin with? That’s how I feel about most things in life… I know definitions, categories, commitments and the like are important for the functioning of the world in which we live, but are they essential? The way I have grown up and been conditioned to think doesn’t allow me the ability to comprehend what it would be like without categories, definitions or labels… that would/could mean the eradication of written text, spoken language, money, boundaries, obviously all social and power structures- this blows my mind. And for a reason I am not yet able to pinpoint, I feel as if this were ever really to happen, it would be like going backwards. May be we would become… closer to the cave men or to animals even. Even animals communicate; they know certain sounds (and even visuals) mean different things- threat, danger, bath, food, etc. . If we broke down all these things that seem to “identify” us, how would we form the definition of ourselves?
ReplyDelete