Cindy Sherman vs. Troy Brauntuch: Different approaches to a similar goal

Last week, we discussed the "Pictures" show from the late 70's, and I thought I'd elaborate on a comparison we touched on briefly during the lecture. Both Cindy Sherman and Troy Brauntuch are famous for highlighting the process of photography and mechanical reproduction in their pieces, as well as suggesting a larger narrative which takes place outside of the photographic frame. However, the two artists go about it in two drastically different ways. Sherman highlights the cameras ability to imitate, augment, or re-contextualize an image or point of view by utilizing dramatic angles, heavy make-up, a shutter speed which closely approximates the medium of film (film plays at 24 frames a second, and it appears that Cindy is shooting at around 1/15th of a second, which replicates the cinematic look), and back-lit projection, another common filmic trope. These images also suggest a larger narrative taking place; there is not a single one in which Sherman or her subject are looking directly at the camera lens. Instead, their eyeline goes away from

the camera lens (sometimes just by a little, like

in the top photo). This creates a feeling of anxiety and incompleteness, all of which has to do with Sherman's choice of medium, combined with the fact that by the 1970's, most people had an understanding (whether conscious or subconscious) of cinematic language upon which a certain horizon of expectations are built (for instance, that if a character is looking offscreen, the audience can rightfully expect to see what that character is looking at. Sherman denies her viewer this). All of this serves to heighten the viewer's awareness of photography as a medium, and the process of producing the photographic image is the real subject of these pieces.

In contrast, Troy Brauntuch utilizes photography in order to call attention to the look of

film itself when examined in either a zoomed in or fragmented form. We talked in class about his installation piece "Hitler Asleep in his Mercedes", in which Brauntuch re-appropriated an image from 1934 of Hitler's back, blew it up, displayed it next to a detail (blown up even more), and framed it with two images of stadium lights which themselves were blown up past the point of recognition. The image above uses this same approach, however the images themselves are reduced to a mere interruption in the white negative space. These images below utilize similar techniques which serve to distort the clarity of the photographic image, while still suggesting a larger story which could be happening outside of the frame. The picture at the bottom utilizes two different points of view (the birds eye of the town contrasted with the portrait), which engages the relationship between cinema and photography because these two images interact in a similar way as an establishing shot which cuts into a character.

In conclusion, both Sherman and Brauntuch utilize photography in order to heighte

n the viewers awareness of the medium itself and its capabilities, although they use drastically different approaches.