Talk:Cindy Sherman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject History of photography, a project to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on the history of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Place of birth

There is an inconsistency between the place of birth in the introduction and the body of this page (New Jersey vs. New York). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.188.81 (talk) 06:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pink Robe series

There's nothing on the 1982 'Pink Robe' series here - can anyone add some detail? --Air 14:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Further detail on the Sex Pictures series would also be beneficial —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.204.225 (talk) 10:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

This is just a note to explain why the "Masters of Photography" link was removed. Although it contains some contents related to Cindy Sherman, it also contains a great deal of pop ups and advertisements. So it is questionable whether the content advances the information in this wiki article or is it simply an adspace website wrapped in real information. --Muserna Muserna 18:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The Masters of Photography Cindy Sherman link:(you've been warned on the pop-ups.)
http://www.masters-of-photography.com/S/sherman/sherman_articles.html

  • I always find the Masters of Photography articles to be very helpful. They also include items that we can't include here on Wiki, such as copyrighted photos. I see your point (and won't revert your edit), but my vote would be to replace the link. TheMindsEye 19:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

was she born in glen ridge or bay ridge? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC) she was born in Glen Ridge and shortly after moved to Huntington, Long Island —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.192.90.114 (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: popular culture, film: Guest of Cindy Sherman

according to the edit history, Cindy herself has reviewed her page and made edits. Cindy, the corrections are appreciated. Also, it is clear from a quick websearch that you are displeased with the "Guest of Cindy Sherman" movie. However... the movie is "out there" and it is appropriate to the popular culture section of the page, so please stop removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.117.50 (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Regardless of Sherman's opinion, the paragraph does not yet merit inclusion because it is undocumented and concerns a future event (Wiki is not a Crystal ball). Accordingly, I removed the material pending documentation. TheMindsEye (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
You deleted the entire paragraph rather than just the sentence about the future showing on the Sundance Channel which makes your edit questionable. However, a quick Googling yields copious references to source material, so I have reverted your wholesale deletion and I have added references to the paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.117.50 (talk) 03:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is the information that gets deleted from the Cindy Sherman page every time it is put in, sometimes with a comment that says "I don't want this information in my page":

A feature documentary, "Guest of Cindy Sherman" has been completed about the travails of artist/videographer Paul Hasegawa-Overacker, aka Paul H-O and his many-year relationship with Cindy Sherman. Sherman was initially supportive of the project directed by H-O and Tom Donahue, but subsequently she changed her mind.[1] The film was accepted into the documentary competition of the 2008 Tribeca Film Festival in New York City where it had its world premiere.[2] Financed in part by the Sundance Channel,[3] it is expected to air there in 2009[4]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artumentary (talk • contribs) 15:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we discuss why some of you consider it acceptable to censor this article? I understand that Cindy Sherman wishes that her ex-boyfriend did not make a documentary that mentions her. However, Cindy Sherman does not get to control the truth, nor does she get to control this page. She initially supported the project, even financed it according to what I hear, and the film was made and shown at Tribeca Film Festival, and it received high marks. This film is a more significant work of art than a number of the other works listed under popular culture, so deleting it while leaving in the rest is obviously at attempt to censor rather than to clean up or improve the article. Artumentary (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with a single sentence along the lines of "Cindy Sherman is the subject of a recent film called Guest of Cindy Sherman", linking to an article about the film. The other popular culture entries link to other articles. So, far the paragraph about the film doesn't.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
You say here that you don't have a problem with it, but the revert edit that you did says that the film "hasn't even been released yet" So, on the one hand, you diminish the significance of the film, and on the other hand you claim that it deserves its own whole webpage? My suspicion remains that this is censorship. However, if you feel that it would improve wikipedia to create a webpage about the film, why didn't you do that? Explain why you deleted valuable information from wikipedia? My suspicion remains that it is censorship. Cindy Sherman doesn't like the information, the page is being monitored, and the information is repeatedly deleted under a variety of excuses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artumentary (talk • contribs) 15:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. I've suggested a compromise: if the film is as significant as you claim then you can write an article about it.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I do assume good faith, I only point out when the actual evidence overturns that assumption, and I provided the evidence.
I disagreed with your compromise and I already suggested what should have happened: I feel the information belongs in this article, and that the information is additive to wikipedia, and it is wikipedia policy that additions are welcome. If you feel it belongs in a separate article, you should create a separate article, you should not simply delete information. Or, if you do delete information, you should be prepared to defend why you did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.117.50 (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, your assertion that the other popular culture items link to other articles false, they do not. There are several links to ancillary information, but not a single one of them puts its central point in another article. And still I assume good faith, so I assume that now that you realize that you are mistaken, you will put back in the information you have deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.117.50 (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Modernist and Ethicoaestheticist, Could you guys get together and agree on the censorship of this paget that you would agree to? I made the change that Modernist suggested that Ethicoaestheticist had suggested, to make this popular culture item look just like the other ones and reference a separate article, but Modernist deleted that within a few minutes. Modernist, the suggestion to create a separate article, do you envision that being referenced from the Cindy Sherman page? Your comments thus far do not indicate what is the reason you have deleted the compromise that was suggested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.117.50 (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Response on your talk page...Modernist (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, your response was non-responsive. This issue relates to the Cindy Sherman page, and I think you should make your response here in the Cindy Sherman talk section. You suggested that you would teach me how to create a page for the film. I am not interested in the film, I am interested in Cindy Sherman. I asked you a direct question above, and I will repeat the question: if a page were to be created for the film, would you accept a link from the popular culture section of this page to that page? It is the proper function of the popular culture section of pages all over wikipedia. You have already most recently deleted such an entry. If you agree, you should revert your edit. If you do not agree, please explain why. If you do not respond, I will revert the edit which will undoubtedly get your attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artumentary (talk • contribs) 23:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment about this edit.[1] At the moment the film info cannot be reinstated, because the information isn't verified. However, there are 25,000 google hits.[2] Likely suitable references include Tribeca Film Festival,[3] NYmag,[4], NY Times,.[5][6] [7] NY Post,[8] Art Forum.[9] Village Voice,[10] Elle,[11] Artnet.[12] LA Times,[13] ArtNews,[14] Variety,[15] and NY Observer.[16] There's no problem about including the information once referenced. I think there should be some more information about it also, namely Sherman's participation and subsequent withdrawal. The subject of an article has the right to remove incorrect information, but not information that conforms to core policies of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. It would also be better placed in the Film and video section, not under Popular culture. Ty 01:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As to a separate article and a link or wikilink between the two, the simple answer is - a link from Cindy Sherman to the new article about the film is more than likely acceptable. Modernist (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
There seem to be enough sources to validate a separate article, which should then have a link, but I can't see any valid reason why a summary of the film info should not be in this article, particularly as it is, according to sources, a project in which she initially participated and then withdrew from. Ty 03:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

While I agree in theory with the potential inclusion outlined by Ty above I strongly recommend a separate article; not knowing the reasons behind the fervent disavowal by the subject and her subsequent withdrawal, and having seen a disclaimer from the subject concerning the withdrawal and objections from the subject of the film to anything concerning it, I think those serious objections need to be acknowledged, respected and considered necessary in conjunction with anything about that film, and given those objections it would be better placed as a separate article...Modernist (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If there is a suitable reference, then the subject's views, including disavowal, on the film can be included, but there is nothing in wikipedia policy that says such objections per se are a reason to exclude material, if it otherwise meets policy requirements. Editing is per WP:NPOV. Put a request on WP:BLPN if you want additional input. Ty 04:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Ty, the version you were asked to comment on unfortunately had been butchered to conform to the ongoing criticism. A previous version of several edits (my references and Modernist's cleanup) I think does conform to what you are requesting and could be reinstated as is: [17]. The film project started while Sherman and H-O were a couple, and it was not finished before the couple broke up. She was given some veto power and dozens of minutes of footage were removed at her request. There is plenty of gossip about circulating about the film and their dispute, and I'm not mentioning it to say that any of it is encyclopedic in nature, but simply that none of it rises to the level of anything serious, simply that ex-boy and girl friends don't like appearing in each other's films, and that part of Sherman's "public persona" (some would say "marketing strategy") is to remain a mysterious and private figure, and the film lifts that veil. She makes quite a bit of money selling art, and who would want to upset that applecart? She is very interestingly quoted in another citation [18] saying something very refreshing about one of her early projects: 'I'm doing one of the stupidest things in the world and they're actually falling for it.' The artist is well aware of the importance of her image, she doesn't say things like that any more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artumentary (talk • contribs) 15:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Just as an aside, I have added the next section 207.237.117.50 (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Please be very cautious about speculation and opinion re. WP:BLP, unless it is for material for the article which can be validated. I think the quote you mention is interesting and should be included, provided it is put in proper context, which will probably mean the article needs to be expanded and to include other views she has expressed in order to avoid WP:UNDUE. Ty 23:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we write it for an encyclopedia?

Paul Hasegawa-Overacker (also known as H-O) and Tom Donahue completed a feature documentary, Guest of Cindy Sherman, about the former's relationship with Sherman. She was initially supportive, but later opposed the project. The film, financed in part by the Sundance Channel, had its premiere in the documentary competition of the 2008 Tribeca Film Festival.

Plus refs of course. I thought the film had its premiere in New Zealand, or at least that's where it was first shown. As Modernist has pointed out, the film and relevant issues could be explored in more depth in a separate article also. Also, I would note that the editors you have been talking to have erred of the side of caution, which is no bad thing in itself, but I think this material is valid. Ty 23:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Popular Culture section contains works by the artiste

Several of the items in the Popular Culture section are actually works that the artist participated in. From what I understand, popular culture usually refers to pop-culture references like "Cindy Sherman is the subject of the song Cindy Sherman". But the Marc Jacobs ads are works of Cindy Sherman, and also the album cover art. Hearing no objections, I will move these at some point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.117.50 (talk • contribs)

Agreed. Ty 23:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)