Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Holzer,
Barbara
Kruger,
Cindy
Sherman
Jessica
Chalmers
Published
in
Flash
Art
(Italy)
June
1997
The
most
important
women
artists
of
the
1980s
were
not
tampax
artists
like
some
of
their
late
'60's
and
'70s
foremothers.
They
did
not
paint
or
mold
vulva-like
forms
in
honor
of
women
in
general
or
in
honor
of
particular
ones
like
Judy
Chicago
and
Hannah
Wilke
did.
They
were
not
activists
--
nor
did
they
talk
much
about
feminism
at
all.
Their
work
was,
however,
absolutely
crucial
along
with
the
work
of
others
such
as
Sherrie
Levine
and
Mary
Kelly
to
feminist
discourse
in
the
1980s.
Seen
as
being
on
a
par
with
the
rigor
of
contemporary
theoretical
writing,
the
intellectual
impulse
behind
Jenny
Holzer's
truisms,
Barbara
Kruger's
collages,
and
Cindy
Sherman's
film
stills
was
generally
considered
to
be
about
(re)presenting
the
female
body
within
a
critique
of
masculinist
or
phallocentric
ideology.
In
particular,
Kruger's
patchwork
of
clichd
images
collaged
from
various
found
sources
and
Sherman's
use
of
her
own
image
were
seen
as
commentary
on
available
modes
of
self-representation
for
women.
If,
at
the
time,
power
in
general
was
beginning
to
be
understood
as
operating
through
media
enforcement
of
stereotypes
rather
than
purely
through
economic
means
--
these
artists,
masters
or
mistresses
of
the
ide
reu,
of
the
advertising
image
and
slogan,
of
Hollywood
iconography
--
were
understood
as
deploying
the
irony
of
clich
against
that
power.
Jenny
Holzer
is
a
sentence
artist
long
devoted
to
placing
writing
in
places
outside
the
museum
and
gallery
-
public
places
where
passersby
don't
expect
to
be
addressed
as
anything
but
as
consumers
or
voters,
if
at
all:
low
along
the
rim
of
a
baggage
carrousel
(Mccarran
Airport,
Las
Vegas.
1986),
in
among
the
anonymous
neon
advertisements
of
Times
Square
(1982)
or
downtown
Las
Vegas
(1986),
or
on
parking
meters
or
a
garbage
can
lid
(Philadelphia
and
New
York,
1983).
Like
advertising
copy,
Holzer's
sentences
are
aimed
at
stopping
people
who
are
going
obliviously
about
their
daily
lives
--
and
inducing
them
to
read.
Unlike
ad
copy,
however,
her
words
come
unadorned
by
any
image
and
unmotivated
by
any
obvious
material
end.
In
1989,
Holzer
told
Diane
Waldeman:
"I
knew
it
was
theoretically
possible
to
leave
things
for
people
and
you
could
actually
stop
them
in
their
tracks."
As
a
graduate
student
at
the
Rhode
Island
School
of
Design,
she
left
pieces
of
paintings
lying
around
outside
for
people
to
find.
In
1977,
after
enrolling
in
the
Whitney
1
Museum's
Independent
Study
Program,
what
she
began
to
leave
around
were
the
sentences
and
fragments
she
called
truisms,
sentences
that
remain
the
basis
of
her
work
to
this
day.
It
comes
as
no
surprise,
then,
that
Holzer's
most
interesting
recent
work
ventures
on
line,
onto
the
Internet
--
that
"place"
which
is
at
present
being
tauted
as
being
or
possessing
the
potential
for
being
the
most
public
and
accessible
international
crossroads
in
history.
Her
project,
entitled
Please
Change
Beliefs,
can
be
found
on
da
'web
(http://adaweb.com),
a
site
devoted
to
producing
and
housing
on-line
projects
by
artists
such
as
Holzer,
Julia
Scher,
Lawrence
Wiener,
Vivian
Selbo,
and
others.
In
Holzer's
on-line
project,
her
sentences
--
many
if
not
all
of
which
we
have
seen
previously
in
her
earlier
work
have
new
life
as
hypertext
links.
In
the
point-and-click
world
of
HTML,
Holzer's
words
can
do
more
than
communicate:
they
act
as
buttons
that
can
be
clicked
on
in
order
to
reach
other
sentence/buttons
in
the
form
of
Truisms,
Inflammatory
Essays
(from
work
done
in
and
around
1984)and
other
Holzer
genres.
As
with
her
LED
signs,
reading
is
controlled
by
the
artist
and
occasionally
frustrated.
Her
LED
signs
are
programmed
for
quick
passage,
synchronized
flashing,
among
other
effects.
Here,
too,
you
are
not
permitted
to
linger
over
a
truism.
Discouraging
contemplation,
the
blinking
on-line
text
changes
almost,
yet
not
quite,
faster
than
you
can
read
it.
Holzer
may
want
to
stop
people
in
their
tracks,
but
encouraging
the
kind
of
careful,
time-consuming
reading
that
one
is
usually
encouraged
to
give
to
poems
and
other
literary
work
is
not
what
this
work
is
about
either.
A
new
aspect
of
the
work
is
its
interactivity.
You
are
asked
to
choose
one
out
of
a
list
of
truisms,
alter
it
in
the
space
provided,
and,
having
clicked
on
the
proper
button
to
indicate
that
you
are
finished,
you
are
moved
to
another
page
where
you
find
your
newly-minted
saying
added
to
a
master
list
of
both
altered
and
unaltered
truisms.
Some
of
the
altered
truisms
in
fact
manage
to
capture
the
tersely
ironic
Holzer
style
--
the
impersonal,
faux- ageless,
sounds-like-a-clich
of
her
truisms.
Some
fail
to
capture
her
style,
some
do
not
try
to
capture
her
style,
and
others
mock
it.
The
da
'web
truism
master
list
is
a
Borgesian
catalogue
of
possibilities
whose
interest
lies
in
the
fact
that
it
records
an
on-going
tribute
to
Holzer
as
the
initiator
of
a
particular
form
writing.
This
is
a
form
of
writing
whose
politics
is
expressed
through
slogans,
slogans
whose
difference
from
other
slogans
(it
becomes
clear)
is
only
a
matter
of
minute
syntactical
adjustment.
This
is
sad
art,
revealing
--
in
spite
of
any
possible
democratic
motive
on
Holzer's
part
--
the
ephemeral
quality
of
political
2
commitment
and
political
language
and
the
arbitrary
factors
that
determine
political
interlocutors.
For
example,
in
the
following
(very
partial)
list
generated
by
the
Holzer
truism
RAISE
BOYS
AND
BOYS
THE
SAME
WAY
on
da
'web,
a
kind
of
inadvertent
conversation
or
argument
around
gender
has
emerged.
Mixing
humor
with
conviction,
the
argument
is
without
fire,
having
taken
place
between
slogans
which,
for
the
most
part,
were
probably
added
to
the
master
list
only
blindly,
without
foreknowledge
of
the
other
entries
on
the
list:
RAISE
BOYS
AND
GIRLS
AS
BOYS
AND
GIRLS
RAISE
BOYS
AND
GIRLS
ON
DIFFERENT
DAYS
RAISE
BOYS
AND
GIRLS
THE
SAME
WAY
AS
CABBAGES
RAISE
BOYS
AND
GIRLS
TO
BE
WHO
THEY
ARE
RAISE
GIRLS
AS
IF
THEY
ARE
BETTER
THAN
BOYS
Since
their
heyday
in
the
1980s,
Barbara
Kruger's
name
has
been
frequently
linked
to
Jenny
Holzer's
because
of
their
shared
commitment
to
borrowing
from
commercial
culture
in
order
to
critique
it.
A
commercial
artist
in
the
'70s
for
Conde
Nast
publications,
Kruger's
best-known
art
of
the
'80s
appropriated
images
from
her
day
job.
One
thinks
immediately
of
her
1989
poster
for
a
march
on
Washington
in
support
of
Roe
v.
Wade,
"Your
Body
is
a
Battleground."
Or
the
attractive
face
of
a
reclining
woman,
leaves
covering
closed
eyes:
"We
Won't
Play
Nature
to
Your
Culture."
Kruger's
slogans
are
catchier
than
the
Holzer
truisms,
and
less
ambiguous
in
their
intention
to
mock
and
provoke.
"What
Big
Muscles
You
Have!"
reads
one.
And
on
the
silhouette
of
a
woman
bent
over
with
pins
sticking
in
her
all
down
her
back:
"We
Have
Received
Orders
Not
to
Move."
Her
feminism
is
a
politics
of
the
"we"
and
the
"you"
of
the
"we"
women
and
a
"you"
posited
as
a
conflation
of
men
and
the
image-power
of
advertising.
In
the
1980s,
Kruger
enjoyed
--
as
did
Cindy
Sherman
--
the
acclaim
of
critics
like
Craig
Owens,
who
saw
the
work
in
terms
of
contemporary
philosophical
paradigms
about
power
and
spectacle.
For
instance,
in
Owens'
essay
"The
Medusa
Effect
or,
The
Spectacular
Ruse,"
he
credits
Kruger's
appropriation
of
advertising
strategies
and
images
with
the
power
to
disturb
mass
cultural
control
over
representation.
Citing
Roland
Barthes,
whose
book
on
reading
mass
culture,
The
Fashion
System,
was
published
in
translation
in
the
United
States
3
in
1983,
Owens
proposes
Kruger
as
a
political
artist.
If
commercial
culture,
he
writes,
derives
its
power
from
the
use
of
stereotypes
--
and
gender
stereotypes
in
particular
--,
then
a
practice
that
intervened
in
the
automatic
acceptance
of
those
stereotypes
would
end
by
exposing
the
secret
rule
of
the
ideology
that
spawned
them.
Kruger's
pointed
texts
and
re- presented
images
were
seen
as
creating
just
the
kind
of
distancing
between
the
eye
of
the
beholder
and
the
seductive,
oppressive
stereotypes
of
advertising.
Kruger's
recent
work
continues
to
address
the
darker
side
of
advertising,
although
it
is
not
clear
where
the
politics
of
appropriation
lead
to
in
the
nineties,
when
popular
culture
and
advertising
are
themselves
more
self-critical
and
diverse
than
they
were
ten
to
fifteen
years
ago.
At
a
1996
exhibition
in
Melbourne,
Kruger
took
up
three
rooms
of
the
Heide
Modern
Art
Museum
with
an
exhibit
that
included
an
audio
component.
On
the
walls
of
one
of
the
rooms,
there
were
written
commands
whose
tone
was
restlessly
pleading
and
dissatisfied:
"Don't
hate
me.
Don't
leave
me
alone.
Don't
kill
me.
Don't
be
a
jerk."
There
were
questions:
"What
are
you
looking
at?
Why
are
you
here?
What
did
you
say?
Who
do
you
think
you
are?"
Several
complex
photomontages,
again
in
black
and
white,
of
crowds
and
larger
faces
also
figure
on
the
Heide
web
page
that
commemorates
the
exhibition.
"Hate
like
us,"
reads
one.
"Look
like
us,"
reads
another.
Two
installations
in
New
York
during
the
nineties
also
took
this
familiar,
confrontational
approach.
Drawing
on
the
style
and
strategy
of
the
early
successful
work,
Kruger
seems
to
have
reacted
only
slightly
to
changes
in
the
American
popular
and
intellectual
landscape.
Of
course,
it
is
not
possible
to
say
for
sure
whether
Kruger's
perseverance
is
simply
a
lack
of
sensitivity
to
her
environment
or
if
it
reflects,
on
the
contrary,
a
greater
sensitivity
to
the
persistence
of
a
static
ideological
structure
beneath
what
only
seems
to
be
a
diversified
commercial
field.
Cindy
Sherman,
who
graced
the
late
seventies
and
eighties
with
her
spectacular
untitled
film
stills,
lent
glamour
and
nostalgia
to
the
discourse
of
feminist
appropriation.
There
was,
first
of
all,
her
intriguing
use
of
herself
as
a
model.
To
understand
the
magic
of
this,
it
is
necessary
to
view
her
work
in
groups
so
as
to
see
the
way
in
which
her
look
changed
through
the
manipulation
of
light
and
makeup.
Her
photos
show
a
girl
or
a
woman,
caught
in
a
moment
of
distraction,
the
fascination
of
her
presence
in
part
a
result
of
the
implication
of
an
absent
narrative.
In
many,
she
has
the
look
of
a
starlet;
in
others,
she
takes
on
a
full
range
of
lesser
feminine
characters:
the
career
girl,
the
housewife,
the
beaten
wife.
4
In
each
stylized
pose,
no
matter
if
she
appears
as
a
sexual
tease,
in
starlet
guise
--
or
bruised,
crying,
or
just
in
the
midst
of
daily
work
Sherman
recreates
herself
in
quotations,
the
irony
of
her
"as
if"
a
commentary
on
the
construction
of
female
identity
through
media.
Often
discussed
in
conjunction
with
Laura
Mulvey's
1973
article
on
Hollywood's
complicity
with
male
voyeurism
and
fetishism,
Sherman's
film
stills
describe,
like
the
article,
the
predicament
of
female
self-representation.
Sherman's
work
has
always
tended
towards
horror,
if
only
in
the
form
of
a
nostalgic
citation
of
cinematic
conventions.
In
the
film
stills,
the
lone
female
figure
often
seems
vulnerable
to
attack
--
standing
waiting
by
the
side
of
a
road
(Untitled
Film
Still
#48.
1979);
putting
up
her
collar
as
she
walks
alone
in
the
cold
(Untitled
Film
Still
#54.
1980);
or
turning,
startled
and
frowning,
to
catch
the
gaze
of
the
viewer
in
Untitled
Film
Still
#63
(1980).
Often,
she
has
the
spunky
or
distracted
look
of
a
girl
who
only
vaguely
senses
what
the
audience
already
knows:
that
she
is
about
to
confront
some
lurking
threat.
When,
beginning
in
the
early-
to
mid-eighties,
the
horror
became
explicit
in
Sherman's
work,
many
fans
were
disappointed.
Instead
of
the
elegant,
mostly
black-and-white
stills,
in
1986-90
there
developed
a
steady
stream
of
bile
and
goo,
vomit,
decay,
obscene
sexual
dolls,
ominous
fairy
tale
images,
and,
most
recently,
masks.
One
of
the
most
striking
works
is
an
extreme,
golden
face
(Untitled
#327.
1995),
part
of
which
or
all
of
which
is
mask,
and
part
of
which
or
all
of
which
is
synthetic.
The
gold
face
is
wide-eyed,
wide-mouthed,
and
seems
to
be
calling
out
forcefully
rather
than
screaming.
More
masculine-appearing
than
feminine,
and
more
the
androgynous
cyborg
than
gendered
human,
it
has
the
look
of
a
strange
god
in
some
kind
of
inexplicable
pain.
A
narrative
that
would
make
sense
of
its
pain,
however,
is
not
implied
through
the
citation
of
cinematic
conventions
as
you
would
expect
in
the
earlier
work.
Rather,
there
is
a
sense
of
new
pain,
illegible
within
a
fractured,
uncinematic
Real.
To
Hal
Foster,
Sherman's
"disgust"
work
coincides
with
a
dominant
or
growing
sense
of
the
real
defined
as
trauma.
However,
there
have
been
intermediate
steps.
One
shot
--
in
which
Sherman
appears
as
a
reflection
in
sunglasses
left
in
a
mess
of
things
and
goo
(Untitled
#175.
1987)
serves
to
link
the
disgust
work
with
the
early
film
stills.
In
a
sick
blue
light,
you
see
something
like
a
beach
scene,
with
a
rumpled
towel,
dirty
hat,
and
various
non-specific
lumps
and
out-of-focus
shapes.
There
is
still
a
cinematic
quality
here,
but
the
specificity
of
certain
repellent
details
and
the
particularity
of
the
bluish
light
hints
at
the
5
garish
quality
of
later,
even
more
vivid
shots.
Later,
her
vomit
scenes
lose
all
reference
outside
of
their
own
fuzzy,
meaty,
or
semi-liquid
material.
Ultimately,
in
Sherman's
work,
horror
becomes
a
vivid
display
rather
than
a
suggestion
of
psychological
terrors
and
(masculine)
things
lurking
outside
the
margins
of
the
camera's
frame.
The
mask-work
and
the
perverse
dolls,
too,
preserve
this
sense
of
the
indiscreet
and
of
confrontation,
presenting
the
ugly
details
of
their
patched-together
faces
and
bodies
as
if
relishing
their
absolute
contradiction
of
idealized
femininity.
Unlike
Holzer
and
Kruger,
Sherman's
later
work
forgoes
the
discourse
of
appropriation-as-subversion
that
made
her
name
in
the
late
'70s
and
early
'80s.
However,
Holzer
and
Kruger,
whose
present
work
does
not
differ
as
substantially
from
the
work
that
made
them
famous
in
the
'80s
as
subversive
artists,
do
not
thereby
retain
this
status
in
the
context
in
which
their
work
is
now
read.
This
is
not
to
say
that
at
least
Sherman
and
Holzer
are
not
actively
engaged
in
the
most
critical
issues
of
today.
Kruger
may
only
be
repeating
a
successful
formula
from
the
past
--
but
Holzer,
who
has
also
recently
ventured
into
the
off- line
interactive
realm
of
virtual
reality
environments,
and
Sherman,
who
is
purportedly
in
the
process
of
making
a
slasher
film
with
Miramax,
have
not
lost
any
of
their
early
nerve.
Rather,
their
loss
of
subversive
impact
reflects
changes
in
American
culture,
changes
in
the
relationship
between
culture
and
politics
--
and
between
the
commercial
realms
of
Hollywood
and
advertising
and
what
used
to
be
called
"alternative"
culture.
In
a
world
losing
its
sense
of
the
mainstream,
ironic
quotation
of
genre
or
stereotype
can
no
longer
function
as
salient
politics.
And,
in
a
world
in
which
everything,
including
politics,
is
aestheticized,
rebellions
against
visual
fetishization
such
as
Sherman's
horror
and
disgust
art,
--
and
also
mourning
work
of
the
sort
that
Holzer
created
recently
in
Lustmord
and
Black
Garden
--
make
more
sense.
At
the
end
of
a
century,
prognoses
for
historical
change
are
typically
grim.
At
the
end
of
this
millennium,
prognosis
itself
seems
burnt
out
through
overuse
in
advertising
and
journalism.
How
can
any
artist
hope
to
play
the
role
of
social
conscience
in
such
a
context?
In
a
live
on-line
interview
on
HotWired,
Holzer
was
asked
if
she
"had
anything"
short
enough
for
a
license
place.
"I
would
love
to
share
a
truism
with
everyone
I
share
the
highway
with,"
typed
the
visitor.
Holzer
answered
quickly.
"How
about
THE
FUTURE
IS
STUPID,"
she
typed,
"
-
sans
vowels?"
6