Quite the Repetoire from Cindy Sherman's Exhibition at the VAG from winter 19/20, Vancouver, B.C.

I have never really known what to think of this repertoire of imagery. When I see that image, any of her images, I am taken back to a realm where it does not strike me as being important necessarily. Of course, as like in all other advertising contexts I am told it is anyway at least with the words and the cultural capital behind such industries that she appropriates from. Regardless, the context is just as important as the subject as well as all the other content perhaps. Yet, it had not congealed for me if you will in anything other than a sense of unease sort of as in I do not necessarily like that role to begin with. You know as if I am somehow supposed to at least engage with who I am when I view this repertoire of imagery. Yet that is what advertising is like is it not? Except this is not that either. It is artwork, and so it is a little difficult for me to come to terms with such tropes per se as dealing with commercial photography in such a way as to rehash all these common things we have about such imagery it seems. You can begin to see then how difficult it is for artists like her to deal with such topics that challenge notions of identity when people do not mind them as well. All these images of women from films, etc… are quite endearing rather than just beautiful I suppose. That is the style of pop culture to begin with as well, the reproduction of culture per se in ways that highlight the best of both worlds perhaps regarding such things. Yet they also do not stand up against common notions of narrative either. It is also in the realm where the street and documentary traditions meet and what is created is gleaned from what exists out there and is not necessarily a criticism that makes people cringe like that. Yet of course that is what much of the artwork of the movements back then did. It is almost an expectation perhaps. And so, this thread of connection with the curator perhaps always seems to take place in her work perhaps. Because she overtly deals with editorial material it is safe to assume that the pieces would somehow demand a similar reception. In the gallery show then we are actually taken on a journey, quite an intimate one as such as in we are almost submerged wholeheartedly into accepting the ins and outs of the appropriative technique a style that to this day has quite a bit of baggage behind it. The merging and melding point between such imagery are the ones where I notice just the utter scale of such a repertoire. It makes me wonder when and were these printed to begin with? Were they always supposed to be so large? They are not done in an oblique way either. Unlike most shows she has done her entire film series is shown. Most imagers are extremely high quality and massive looking, almost as though there is somehow a commentary on the scale, size, and importance placed on things like femininity and things like that. The things more dramatic, theatrical, and gross where she uses prosthetics and clown makeup somehow do actually pertain to not only qualities of changeability, as well as social movements, and things as size and the ability to remain at a strange distance to things related to gender, in a way that raises things that stand out from just the sort of mutability perhaps of such entertainment industry. Film characters going to magazine idols, going to clowns, then to morbid bandaged figures the borderline between male expressionism and consumers’ ability to unscrew the G.I. joes without breaking their limbs off as well. In such a way she raises concerns of possibility then. What images can remain masculine and not then. Then there is also this thing of collaboration as well where what can be not as beautiful as well. Given the pieces with the wealthy aristocrats and then the high fashion designers she steps out of and is yet able to remain original, even though she is also able to change the look because of her contemporary status perhaps. It must have been refreshing to be on the other side of a spectrum of empathetic criticism that was so saturated full of commentary so to speak on the advertising industry. What is quite unique though is the things with designers where she takes on an entirely a type of an East meets West globalism then. As well, there is also a type of almost acceptance even of the literature type of realm… a textual type of realm perhaps although explored yet less noticed in her pervious works for some reason. In the age of fake news and things like that where phrases do not and are not necessarily profuse as memes, then back to an era where things can hover in the background and I suppose just like they do as realistically as divisions made in classic advertising it seems. Going through it, it quite intrigued me with her major language. It is nice to know that they could still provide an atlas worth of historical information as well. More over though the exhibition raises interesting outlook about how we all read it seems. There is no denial that text has always been a part of her work though.