辛蒂雪曼〈歷史肖像〉與森村泰昌〈藝術史〉中的時光機器及時間之解構

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學藝術史研究所碩士論文 National Taiwan Normal University Graduate Institute of Art History. Master’s Degree Thesis. 辛蒂雪曼〈歷史肖像〉與森村泰昌〈藝術史〉中的時光機器及時間之解構. The Time Machine and the Deconstruction of Time in Cindy Sherman’s History Portraits and Yasumasa Morimura’s Art History. 指導教授Advisor：Professor Dr. Valentin Nussbaum. 吳馥安 Wu, Fu An. 中華民國103 年6 月 June 2014.

(2) Table of Content. List of Figures……………………………………………………………………….iv. Abstract…………………………………………………………………………….viii. Chinese Abstract……………………………………………………………………..x. Acknowledgement…………………………………………………………………..xii. Introduction………………………………………………………………………….1. Chapter One: The Anachronism of Cindy Sherman’s History Portraits and. Yasumasa Morimura’s Art History……………………………………………….....6. 1-1 Cindy Sherman’s Anachronic History Portraits………………………………..7. 1-2 The Self-Aware Art History…………………………………………………….18. 1-3 The Time Machine in History Portraits and Art History……………………...27. Chapter Two: Displaying Time: History Portraits / Art History and Museum….35. 2-1 The History, The Museum, and the Time Machine…………………………..35. 2-2 The Museum Time Machine…………………………………………………...41. 2-3 From the Museum without Walls to the Postmodern Museum……………..50. Chapter Three: Performing Time: History Portraits / Art History and Cinema...55. 3-1 History Portraits/ Art History and the Notion of Montage……………………55. ii.

(3) 3-2 Cinema as a Time Machine: Back to the Future……………………..……….61. 3-3 The Grotesque History: A Result of Montage………………………………..65. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………...74. Bibliography………………………………………………………………………...76. Figures……………………………………………………………………………….85. iii.

(4) List of Figures Fig. 1 Cindy Sherman, Madame de Pompadour Tureen, 1990, porcelain with silkscreen transfer, Artes Magnus, New York. Fig. 2 Cindy Sherman, Untitled #205, 1989, color photograph, 135.5 x 102 cm, Metro Pictures, New York. Fig. 3 Raphael Sanzio, La Fornarina, c. 1518-19, oil on panel, 85 x 60 cm, Galleria Nazionale, Rome. Fig. 4 Cindy Sherman, Untitled #216, 1989, color photography, 221 x 142.2 cm, Metro Pictures, New York. Fig. 5 Jean Fouquet, Madonna of Melun (right wing of diptych), c. 1450, oil on panel, 94.5 x 85.5 cm, The Royal Museum of Fine Arts, Antwerp. Fig. 6 Cindy Sherman, Untitled #212, 1989, color photograph, 104 x 81 cm, Metro Pictures, New York. Fig. 7 Caravaggio, Self-Portrait as Sick Bacchus, 1593-94, oil on canvas, 67 x 53 cm, Galleria Borghese, Rome. Fig. 8 Cindy Sherman, Untitled #201, 1989, color photograph, 102.87 X 75.88 cm, Metro Pictures, New York. Fig. 9 Cindy Sherman, Untitled #225, 1990, color photograph, 121.9 x 83.8 cm, Metro Pictures, New York. Fig. 10 Cindy Sherman, Untitled #194, 1989, color photograph, 118.7 x 81.9 cm, Metro Pictures, New York. Fig. 11 Cindy Sherman, film still of the original video Doll Clothes, 1975, Tate Museum, London. Fig. 12 Illustration of face in hole Fig. 13 Vincent van Gogh, Self-Portrait with Bandaged Ear and Pipe, 1889, oil on canvas, 51 x 45 cm, Collection Niarchos. Fig. 14 Yasumasa Morimura, Portrait (Van Gogh), 1985, color photograph, 120 x 100 cm, Luhring Augustine Gallery, New York. Fig. 15 Frida Kahlo, Self-Portrait with Thorn Necklace, 1940, Masonite, 59.5 x 40 cm, private collection. Fig. 16 Yasumasa Morimura, An Inner Dialogue with Frida Kahlo (Hand-Shaped Earring), 2001, color photograph on canvas, 149.9 x 120 cm.. iv.

(5) Fig. 17 Yasumasa Morimura, Blinded by the Light, 1991, color photograph and transparent medium, 200 x 362.6 cm. Fig. 18 Pieter Bruegel the Elder, The Parable of the Blind, 1568, tempera on canvas, 86 x 154 cm, Museo di Capodimonte, Naples. Fig. 19 Yasumasa Morimura, Daughter of Art History: Princess A, 1990, color photograph, 210.18 x 160.02 cm, Luhring Augustine Gallery, New York Fig. 20 Diego Velázquez, Portrait of the infant Margarita, 1656, oil on canvas, 128.5 × 100 cm, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Fig. 21 Yasumasa Morimura, Portrait (Futago), 1988, color photograph and transparent medium, 266 x 366 cm, Luhring Augustine Gallery, New York. Fig. 22 Edouard Manet, Olympia, 1863, oil on canvas, 130 x 190 cm, Musée d’Orsay, Paris. Fig. 23 Rembrandt van Rijn, Self-Portrait as Zeuxis, c. 1662, oil on canvas, 82.5 x 65 cm, Wallraf-Richartz Museum, Cologne. Fig. 24 Yasumasa Morimura, Laughing Self-Portrait 1665, 1994, color photograph on canvas, 120 x 95.9 cm, Luhring Augustine Gallery, New York Fig. 25 Dante Gabriel Rossetti, Monna Vanna, 1866, oil on canvas, 88.9 x 86.4 cm, Tate Gallery, London. Fig. 26 Yasumasa Morimura, Portrait (Fan), 1991, color photograph mounted on canvas, 139.7 x 120 cm, Luhring Augustine Gallery, New York. Fig. 27 Edward Burne-Jones, The Golden Stairs, 1880, oil on canvas, 269.2 x 116.8 cm. Tate Gallery, London. Fig. 28 Yasumasa Morimura, Angels Descending the Staircase, 1991, color photograph mounted on canvas, 240 x 226 cm, Luhring Augustine, New York. Fig. 29 Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres, La Source, 1856, oil on canvas, 163 x 80 cm, Musée d’Orsay, Paris. Fig. 30 Yasumasa Morimura, Portrait (La Source 3), 1986-1990, color photograph and transparent medium, 240 x 120 cm. Fig. 31 Leonardo da Vinci, Mona Lisa, c. 1503-1519, oil on poplar, 77 x 53 cm, Musée du Louvre, Paris. Fig. 32 Yasumasa Morimura, Mona Lisa in its Origin, 1998, color photograph on canvas, 78.11 x 55.88 cm. Fig. 33 Man Ray, Marcel Duchamp as Rrose Sélavy, c. 1920-21, Gelatin silver print, 21 x 17.2 cm, The Philadelphia Museum of Art, Philadelphia. v.

(6) Fig. 34 Yasumasa Morimura, Doublannage (Marcel), 1988, color photograph, 150 x 120 cm, Luhring Augustine Gallery, New York. Fig. 35 Edouard Manet, A Bar at the Folies-Bergère, 1881-82, oil on canvas, 130.5 x 190 cm, Courtauld Institute Galleries, London. Fig. 36 Yasumasa Morimura, Daughter of Art History (Theater A), 1990, color photograph and transparent medium, 180 x 246 cm, Luhring Augustine Gallery, New York. Fig. 37 Illustration of Worm Ouroborous. (Cover of The Worm Ouroborous by E.R. Eddison) Fig. 38 Lawrence Alma-Tadema, Phidias Showing the Frieze of the Parthenon to his Friends, 1868, oil on canvas, 72 × 110.5 cm, Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery, Birmingham. Fig. 39 Illustration of the Elgin Room in the British Museum in the 19th Century. Fig. 40 William Powell Frith, Private View of the Royal Academy, 1881, oil on canvas, 102 x 195 cm, Private Coll. Fig. 41 Cindy Sherman, Untitled #214, 1989, color photograph, 101.6 x 86.4 cm, Metro Pictures, New York. Fig. 42 John Everett Millais, Mrs James Wyatt Jr and her Daughter Sarah, c.1850, oil on mahogany, 35.3 cm x 45.7 cm, Tate Britain, London. Fig. 43 Claude Monet, Impression: soleil levant, 1873, oil on canvas, 63 x 48 cm, Musée Marmottan, Paris. Fig. 44 Portrait of Ritratto di Pesello in Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects by Giorgio Vasari, edition of 1568. Fig. 45 The ground plan of the Belvedere Gallery in Vienna after the rearrangement by Christian von Mechel, published in the French edition of his catalogue of 1781. Fig. 46 Example of period room, bedroom and parlor c.1800, as installed by George Francis Dow in 1907 at The Essex Institute. Photograph, The Essex Institute. Fig. 47 Engraving showing the early period room at the Nordiska Museum, Stockholm, Sweden. Reproduced by Mats Rehnberg from The Nordiska Museet and Skansen. (Stockholm, 1957), p. 13. Fig. 48 Robert Rauschenberg, Tracer, 1963, oil and silkscreen on canvas, 213.68 x 152.4 cm, The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, Kansas City, Missouri. Fig. 49 Aby Warburg, Mnemosyne-Atlas (Nr.32), 1924 – 1929.. vi.

(7) Fig. 50 Germain Bazin, Degas Sculpteur. ln: L’Amour de l’Art, 2, 1931, n. I p.296 (Editorship by René Huyghe) Fig. 51 Poster of Back to the Future. Fig. 52 Hiroshi Sugimoto, Ohio Theater, 1980, gelatin silver print, 119.4 x 149.2 cm Fig. 53 Jeff Wall, Movie Audience, 1979, seven transparencies in three lightboxes. Each transparency 101.5 x 105 cm. Fig. 54 Cindy Sherman, Untitled Film Still #13, 1978, gelatin silver print, 50.8 x 40.6 cm, The Museum of Modern Art, New York. Fig. 55 Yasumasa Morimura, Self Portrait (Actress) White Marylin (Alone), 1999, c print, 125 x 99.7cm. Fig. 56 Cindy Sherman, Untitled # 220, 1990, color coupler print, 152.4 x 101.6 cm. Fig. 57 Pablo Picasso, The Dream, 1908, paper collage with ink drawing and white gouache. Fig. 58 Yasumasa Morimura, An Inner Dialogue with Frida Kahlo (Festive Decorations), 2001, color photograph, 149.86 X 120.02 cm. Fig. 59 Picture of the “Picasso Madonna”, original 13th century, with later additions. Photo from Dora Jane Hamblin, “Science Finds Way to Restore the Art Damage in Florence”, in: Smithsonian 4, no. 11 (February 1974), pp. 26-35, fig. on p. 35. Fig. 60 Illustration of Möbius strip. Photograph by David Benbennick. Fig. 61 Film Still of Back to the Future. Marty disguises as “Darth Vader from the planet Vulcan” to encourage his father George to invite his mother Lorraine to the dance party. Fig. 62 Darth Vader from the film Star Wars. Fig. 63 Cindy Sherman, Untitled #198, 1989, Chromogenic color print, 98.7 x 70.8 cm, the Broad Art Foundation, Santa Monica. Fig. 64 Niccolò Nelli, Allegory of agriculture, 1567, engraving. Fig. 65 Yasumasa Morimura, Mother (Judith II), 1991, colour photograph, transparent medium, 240 x 160 cm. Fig. 66 Giuseppe Arcimboldo, Vertumnus (Emperor Rudolph II), c.1590, oil on wood, 68 x 56 cm, Skoklosters Slott, Bålsta, Sweden. Fig. 67 Cindy Sherman, Untitled #219, 1990, Chromogenic color print, 165.1 x 101.6 cm, Collection of Larry Sanitsky, Beverly Hills. Fig. 68 Yasumasa Morimura, Self portrait (six brides), 1991, colour photograph mounted on canvas, 139.7 x 120 cm. vii.

(8) Abstract The American artist Cindy Sherman (born January 19, 1954) and the Japanese artist Yasumasa Morimura (born June 11, 1951) were often compared and discussed together. Not only because they both became famous in the 1980s, but also because they both use photography as medium and perform themselves a variety of archetypal characters in their artistic works. Both Sherman in her History Portraits series (1988 to1990) and Morimura in his Art History series (1985 to 2001) chose Western art history as subject matter and appropriated canonical paintings to create their artworks. In addition to sexual and cultural issues, the two series of works actually question the issues of time and history. They put into question the notion of art history, as for example the one illustrated and shaped in the museums. Although History Portraits and Art History put history in the title, the two series show paradoxical relations to time and obvious anachronisms. This phenomenon derives from the postmodernist posture, but cannot only be related to postmodernism. It should be traced back to the heterotopias and heterochronies introduced by the end of the 19th century through the multiplication of museums and the invention of cinema.. In this thesis, chapter one discusses the anachronisms represented in History Portraits and Art History. Although the strategies used by Sherman and Morimura are different, both of the two series of works represent the confusion of identity and further reflect the confusion of time and space. Sherman and Morimura create their own vision of art history in order to question it. Based on the principles of pastiche, Sherman’s works are kind of bricolage in the sense given by Lévi-Strauss. On the other hand, Morimura creates Art History series with great self-awareness and deliberately designs a realm in which different spaces and times coexist. The two series of works provide also a strange sensation of artificiality and grotesque. It seems that Sherman and Morimura are projecting themselves into a past where they are totally out of place, and the anachronism and incoherence we can detect in their reconstruction of the art history are not without having to do with a paradoxical time travel.. Chapter two discusses how Sherman and Morimura put into question the traditional and canonical coherence and structure of the modern museum and the art history. The modern museums have shaped the art history through systematically and chronologically categorizing their collections into different periods and styles. The viii.

(9) scientific way of classification can be traced back to the historical portraits gallery of Paolo Giovio during the 16th century and demonstrated by the development of period room in the 19th century. History Portraits and Art History indeed can be paralleled respectively with the portrait gallery and the period room. Rather than reconstructing the past in a coherent way as does the portrait gallery or the period room, the two series neither reconstruct the past and arrange the series in a coherent and chronological way, nor classify them into schools or categories as does the museum. On the other hand, the museum and “museum without wall” free the revered paintings from their own context and scale, and become something ready to combine with other sources. By juxtaposing canonical paintings with fragments of various sources, Sherman and Morimura express their opinion to the canonical art history, and demonstrate the transformation of the notion of time within the museum.. Chapter 3 discusses how cinema and the idea of montage influence the notion of time in History Portraits and Art History. In addition to performing different “roles” or stereotypes in their works, both Sherman and Morimura apply cinematic model respectively to their Untitled Film Stills and The Actress series. By assembling heterogeneous sources from various contexts without an integrated consistency, History Portrait and Art History indeed also demonstrate the practice of montage. Under similar context, the 80s science fiction movie Back to the Future trilogy offers an example illustrating the technique of montage and how cinema works as a time machine. Similar to History Portraits and Art History, the movie demonstrates the grotesque and caricatural version of history after the collision of times. While Sherman and Morimura do their time travel in the art history, Back to the Future also illustrates the essence of cinema and reviews the history of it. Morimura’s and Sherman’s series might be in the field of high art, an iconic counterpart of the contemporary popular fiction movie Back to the Future. The way of experiencing the past with irony and assumed anachronism is not so far from the field of movie.. Key Words: Cindy Sherman, Yasumasa Morimura, Art History, Photography, Portraits, Anachronism, Heterotopias, Museum, Montage, Time Machine. ix.

(10) 中文摘要美國當代藝術家 Cindy Sherman （1954 年出生），及日本當代藝術家 Yasumasa Morimura （森村泰昌，1951 年出生）經常被一起討論比較。不僅因為他們同在 80 年代成名，同時也因為他們創作方式相似，都採用攝影為主要創作媒材，並且本身都扮裝成各式典型角色入鏡，成為作品的主角。在 Sherman 的〈歷史肖像〉（History Portraits）系列，以及 Morimura 的〈藝術史〉（Art History）系列之中，兩位藝術家不約而同地選擇了西方藝術史為創作主題，模仿西方經典名畫中的人物並創出系列作品。除了性別以及文化議題，〈歷史肖像〉以及〈藝術史〉事實上也對歷史以及時間之議題提出疑問。透過矛盾的時間呈現方式，Sherman 及 Morimura 質疑由現代博物館所形塑的藝術史概念。雖然這兩系列作品都以「歷史」（history）為題，但作品卻呈現矛盾的時間觀及明顯的時空錯置（anachronism）現象，此現象雖來自後現代主義的影響，但應被進一步分析，並追溯回兩個於 19 世紀時所發展，連結不同時空的異境（heterotopias）同時也是異時（heterochronies） 1– 博物館（museum）及電影（cinema）。本論文的第一章討論〈歷史肖像〉以及〈藝術史〉作品中所展現的時空錯置現象。雖然 Sherman 及 Morimura 使用的策略不同，這兩系列作品都表現出身份認同以及時空上的矛盾與混亂。Sherman 和 Morimura 創造了他們自己版本的藝術史，並進而提出他們對歷史的疑問。根據「拼湊」（pastiche）的原理， Sherman 的〈歷史肖像〉其實正符合 Lévi-Strauss （李維史陀）所提之 “bricolage” 概念。bricolage 為法文，在 Lévi-Strauss 的定義下，指的是運用手邊可及的材料來創作，而非經過精密的事前計畫或安排。 2另一方面，Morimura 則有計劃的創造出一個既非東方也非西方，既非男性也非女性，既非過去也非現在的「灰色地帶」。 3 Sherman 和 Morimura 以過去的畫作為靈感，拼貼來自不同時空的創作材料，使這兩系列作品散發出一種奇異的人造感及詭態（grotesque）。而 Sherman 及 Morimura 似乎將自身處於一個不能確定位置的. 1. Michel Foucault, “Of Other Spaces”, in: Architecture /Mouvement/ Continuité, October, 1984. Translated to English by Jay Miskowiec. Retrieved November 25, 2012 from http://foucault.info/documents/heteroTopia/foucault.heterotopia.en.html 2 Claude Lévi-Strauss, The Savage Mind, Chicago 1962, pp. 16-20. 3 See Yasumasa Morimura, “About my work”, in: Daughter of Art History: Photographs by Yasumasa Morimura, New York 2003, pp. 113-125, pp. 120.. x.

(11) 「過去」，我們可以說，Sherman 及 Morimura 透過他們的作品進行了一場時空旅行（Time Travel）。第二章探討 Sherman 及 Morimura 如何在這兩系列作品中質疑現代博物館及西方藝術史的形成與結構。透過將其收藏依時間順序及其對應之風格作有系統的分類，現代博物館形塑了西方藝術史。博物館依時間作科學分類的方法可追溯至十六世紀 Paolo Giovio 擁有龐大收藏的肖像畫廊（portrait gallery），並特別顯示於十九世紀的「時代展示間」（period room）。雖然〈歷史肖像〉及〈藝術史〉可分別與肖像畫廊及時代展示間相比，但 Sherman 及 Morimura 並未以科學的方式建構其作品，也未將這兩系列的作品依時分類，反而將西方藝術史中的經典之作當成現成之物，與不同來源的材料拼貼在一起，並忽視了時間的合理及連貫性。藉此，Sherman 與 Morimura 對經典西方藝術史表達了他們的看法與意見，也為博物館裡時間概念的轉變提供了例證。第三章討論電影及其中之蒙太奇（montage）手法對〈歷史肖像〉及〈藝術史〉時間觀念的影響。除在其作品中扮演各種角色甚或刻板印象（stereotypes），Sherman 及 Morimura 分別曾運用電影的概念於其創作之〈無題電影停格〉(Untitled Film Stills) 及〈女明星〉(The Actress) 系列。但〈歷史肖像〉及〈藝術史〉其實也運用了蒙太奇（montage）語法，將不同時空背景的材料並置，卻不在乎其中的一致性及內在的整合。在相似的時空背景之下，八〇年代的電影〈回到未來〉（Back to the Future）三部曲可作為電影中蒙太奇手法的例子，並示範電影如何作為時光機器。這兩系列作品和蒙太奇手法的關係可藉由與其相比進一步被解釋。在不同時空的碰撞之下，〈歷史肖像〉、〈藝術史〉及〈回到未來〉皆展示矛盾的時間觀念，並呈現出詭態（grotesque）及滑稽（caricatural）版本的歷史。〈回到未來〉不僅是以時空旅行作為主題的電影經典之一，其內容實際上也探討了電影的本質及蒙太奇的運用，並回顧了電影史。我們可以說〈歷史肖像〉及〈藝術史〉和〈回到未來〉在高級藝術（high art）及當代大眾文化之間互相參照，而這兩系列作品中諷刺及時空錯置的設定與電影領域相比，也並不遙遠。. 關鍵字：辛蒂雪曼，森村泰昌，藝術史，攝影，肖像，時空錯置，異境，博物館，蒙太奇，時光機器. xi.

(12) Acknowledgement 謝辭五年的研究生涯，充實又快樂，雖然偶爾也有撞牆之時，終於也一路走來，化為這本論文。這本論文的完成，首先要感謝我的指導教授 Professor Nussbaum，其啓發性，耐心及細心的指導，讓我逐步建構出這台時間機器。（I deeply appreciate my advisor Professor Nussbaum for his inspired, patient, and attentive advice, by which it is possible to build step by step my time machine.）另外，非常感謝劉巧楣教授及邱誌勇教授撥冗擔任我的評審委員，並給我許多論文改進的珍貴意見。很感謝曾曬淑所長及 Professor Syndikus，為我的藝術史知識奠下良好基礎，在此獻上我誠摯的謝忱。還要感謝 Professor Bonnet、 Professor Michalski，以及 Professor Richter-Bernburg 紮實的密集課程，讓我對不同面向的藝術史有更深的認識與體會。除了藝史所各位師長的教導與關心，當然也要感謝可愛的鄒姊還有助教們 – 芝華，美智，乃云，心怡，以及姝嬛，謝謝這些日子來的協助與支持。還有特別要感謝圖書館親切的林玉鶯女士，在我撰寫論文找資料時給予的許多幫助。很開心在藝史所有許多熱愛藝術史的同好，在學習的路上一起前行，互相加油。最愛的鐵球們 – 紀吟，珈瑩，品慧，佳穎還有怡萱 – 認識你們我年輕了十歲。雅雯和玉雲，懷念和你們一起在課堂討論還有閒聊的時光，也感謝分享寫論文的經驗。還有藝史所好多的好朋友們，你們拓展了我的視野，教了我好多事。薇慈和靜慧，感謝妳們在我撞牆時聽我發牢騷，與我分享生活中的大小事。還有我所有的好友們，我愛你們。最深的感謝獻給我心愛的家人們，謝謝你們給我最大的包容與支持，不論何時，你們都是我最安心的依靠。. xii.

(13) Introduction Both American artist Cindy Sherman (born January 19, 1954) and Japanese artist Yasumasa Morimura (born June 11, 1951) are famous for their performative photographic works and are often compared with each other.1 In Sherman’s History Portraits series (1988 to1990) and Morimura’s Art History series (1985 to 2001), both artists masquerade as different figures of revered paintings of Western art history. In past studies, the two series were often discussed under the scope of sexual and cultural issue.2 From the titles we can see the subject of the two series is indeed history, however the problematic temporality represented in the two series had not been studied in depth. At some level Sherman and Morimura in the two series reenact their own version of art history. Normally the aim of reconstructing history is to make it coherent and consistent, therefore as close as possible to the truth. For example, there have been many re-enactment societies that rebuild historical events, such as the Civil War in the US.3 Nevertheless, the two series deliver an apparent sense of anachronism and temporal inconsistency, making them playful, humorous, yet bizarre and troublesome. It seems that Sherman and Morimura are projecting themselves into a past where they are totally out of place. They are experiencing a kind of paradoxical time travel in Western art history.. The purpose of this thesis is to trace back to the sources of the troublesome notion of history. Under the postmodern context, the problematic notion of history represented in the two series can actually be traced back to the heterotopias and heterochronies introduced by the end of the 19th century through the multiplication of museums and. 1. For other comparisons between History Portrait and Art History, see Sharon Matt Atkins, Art Appropriation and Identity Since 1980, New Brunswick 2004; 楊佩芸，《後現代攝影對西方繪畫正典的擬仿與顛覆性–以辛蒂雪曼與森村泰昌為例》，嘉義 2006 (Pei-Yun Yang, Postmodern Photography as Mimicry and Subversion of Canonical Western Pictorial Art: Cindy Sherman and Yasumasa Morimura, Chiayi 2006.) In fact Morimura also imitates Sherman’s Untitled #96 in his To My Little Sister, For Cindy Sherman. 2 For example, about Sherman, for discussion of feminism, see Diane Neuaier, Reframing: A New American Feminist Photographies, Philadelphia 1995; For postmodern appropriation culture, see Douglas Crimp, “Pictures”, in: October, Vol. 8 (Spring 1979), pp. 75-88; For abjection in artistic practices, see Norman Bryson, Cindy Sherman, 1975-1993, New York 1993, p. 216; Emily B. Greenberg connects Sherman with grotesque theory, see “Cindy Sherman and the Female Grotesque”, in: Art Criticism, (Spring 1994), pp. 49-55. About Morimura, see Norman Bryson, “Morimura: 3 Readings” in: Art + Text 52 (September 1995), pp. 74-79; Paul B. Franklin, “Orienting the Asian Male Body in the Photography of Yasumasa Morimura”, in: The Passionate Camera: Photography and Bodies of Desire, New York 1998, pp. 233-247. 3 Amelia Jones, “The Artist is Present: Artistic Re-enactments and Impossibility of Presence” in: TDR: The Drama Review, Vol. 55, No. 1, Spring 2011, pp. 16-45, pp. 19.. 1.

(14) the invention of cinema. The museum is important in shaping the art history, which is the subject of History Portraits and Art History. In addition to the performative nature of their works, Sherman and Morimura have shown in other works their interests in cinema such as Untitled Film Stills and The Actress series. This thesis discusses the anachronism represented in History Portraits and Art History, how the two series put into question the traditional vision of the museum and art history, and how cinematic experience influences the anachronism of the two series. Through the discussions, the problematic notion of time will be traced back to the modern products of museum and cinema.. Chapter 1 discusses the anachronism represented in History Portraits and Art History. In History Portraits, the anachronic aspect and the troublesome temporality derives from Sherman’s practice of pastiche and bricolage. Sherman uses props and materials from different times and places to construct her History Portraits, however, she does not make her “portraits” integrated and well conducted, but intentionally leave the evidence of artificiality. The practice makes History Portraits a collage and each material of her images remains a fragment. On the other hand, Morimura clearly states that he would like to create an ambiguous realm, a grey area, in which his images are “neither adult nor child…neither a contemporary image nor a historic painting…neither Asian nor Western…neither woman nor man.”4 This setting also reflects Japan’s multiple cultural identities developed since the 19th century. In addition to the mixture of past and present, east and west, male and female, the disturbing anachronism also emerges through his deliberate appropriation of past important self-portraits and art works that are already appropriation of the past. Focusing on the materiality and the artificiality of paintings, Morimura also point out that although traditionally photography was thought to deliver true likeness, it can also deliver fictional images. In contrast to the conventional portraits, by exaggeratedly stressing the ugliness and even grotesque of the images, Sherman also creates illusionistic times and spaces. The performative quality of the two series also arose the problem of confused identity, therefore enhances the incoherence of time. Chapter 1 then discusses briefly the postmodern context of the two series and. 4. See Morimura, 2003, p. 120.. 2.

(15) integrates the works into the discussion of notions such as heterotopia, heterochrony, and the time machine.. Chapter 2 discusses how Sherman and Morimura question the formation of art history in History Portraits and Art History. Western art history was shaped through the scientific classification and category of the modern museums, which had been prefigured by Paolo Giovio’s portrait gallery in the 16th century and can be traced back to Christian von Mechel’s rearrangement of the paintings of the Belvedere Gallery in Vienna around 1780. The technique of arranging the collection chronologically into different categories can be retrospected to the evidences of the galleries of “historical portraits” in the 16th century, especially the one belonging to the papal physician and historian Paolo Giovio (1483 - 1552). Giovio categorized his portrait collection into four groups, according to the nature of the sitter’s character and achievement, and then organized them chronologically according to the date of death.5 On the other hand, Christian von Mechel was the first one who practically introduced a scientific way to display the artworks chronologically and time relatedly.6 Under Mechel’s approach, the fine art museum formed a historical framework, and the visitor could journey through the time line of art history. In the 19th century, the concept of classifying the collections according to periods evolved further to the notion of the period room: reconstructing the past by placing past objects in a room with a past decoration and making the viewer feel like walking through different stages of the history.7 Portrait gallery and period room offer examples of traditional reconstruction of history, in which the coherence of the details and chronology is stressed. However, although at certain level History Portraits and Art History can be respectively parallel to portrait gallery and period room, Sherman and Morimura do not integrate the “parts” of their images well, but combine them loosely in each work. Furthermore, they do not arrange their collection according to any school, style, or the time line of art history, but roam on the spots of art history, 5. See Linda Klinger Aleci, Images of Identity, Italian Portrait Collections of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, in: Nicholas Mann and Luke Syson (eds.) The Image of the Individual: Portraits in the Renaissance, London 1998, pp. 67-79, pp. 68-69. 6 Debora J. Meijers, The Places of Painting: The Survival of Mnemotechnics in Christian von Mechel’s Gallery Arrangement in Vienna (1778-1781), in: W. Reinink and J. Stumpel (Eds.), Memory & Oblivion, Proceedings of the XXIXth International Congress of the History of Art held in Amsterdam, 1–7 September 1996, pp. 205-211, p. 205. 7 Dianne H. Pilgrim, Inherited from the past: the American Period Room, in: American Art Journal, Vol. 10, No. 1 (May, 1978), pp. 4-23, p. 5.. 3.

(16) confusing the beholder with their own identities and materials from their own contexts. By this way Sherman and Morimura question the coherence of time in the museum and art history, and convey a totally different notion of time.. The notion of time represented in History Portraits and Art History also reflects the shift of the museum. As André Malraux in his Museum without Walls suggested, after the popularization of museum, the work of art underwent the procedure of decontextualization, in addition, this decontextualization was accelerated by the spread of photography, or the reproduction of the work of art.8 Therefore, the museum and the “museum without walls”, free the works of art from their original context and their own scale, and release them from time and space. They allow us to re-arrange the art works and create a new combination. The works of art from various times and spaces thus become something ready that can be “remixed” into new works. The idea of the “master pieces” is gradually abandoned, and anything can go into the museum.9 History Portraits and Art History demonstrate the postmodern aesthetics, in which the past, present and future coexist.. Chapter 3 goes further and discusses how cinema, especially in the aspect of montage, influences the anachronism shown in History Portraits and Art History. At first glance History Portraits and Art History seems not cinematic, in fact, in addition to the performative essence of the two series, Sherman and Morimura also apply the cinematic practice of montage to the two series. Through assemblage of heterogeneous parts, juxtaposition of sources from different times and spaces, History Portraits and Art History demonstrate the qualities of montage. Before Sherman and Morimura, forerunners such as Aby Warburg, René Huyghe and Malraux already applied the technique of montage to their study of art history. Montage offers them a new model to construct history, in which temporality should be understand more as a network of ideas that expands outward from multiple origins.10. The link between History Portraits, Art History and montage can be further understood by discussing the 80s time travel movie Back to the Future since all of André Malraux, “Museum Without Walls”, in: Stuart Gilbert (Trans.), The Voices of Silence, Princeton 1978, pp. 13-14; 21-24. 9 See Douglas Crimp, “On the Museum’s Ruins”, in: October, Vol. 13 (Summer, 1980), pp. 41-57. 10 Jones, 2011, p. 30. 8. 4.

(17) them share similar context and show the same orientation of mixed times. In addition to telling a story of time travel, the movie is in fact an illustration of the metaphor that cinema is a time machine. Therefore, in a deeper level, Back to the Future is a movie talking about the essence of cinema. History Portraits and Art History can be compared to Back to the Future since all of them illustrate a grotesque and caricatural version of history. According to the idea of Eisenstein, the grotesque history represented in History Portraits and Art History can be read as the result of the collision of times,11 which is also demonstrated in the story of Back to the Future. By applying the technique of montage, they all show inconsistent and discontinuous styles as well as confusing identities. Through the comparison of the two series of works with Back to the Future, we can further understand that the anachronism represented in History Portrait and Art History is indeed influenced by the practice of montage.. 11. See Sergei Eisenstein, Jay Leyda (trans.), Film Form, San Diego 1977, pp. 37-38.. 5.

(18) Chapter 1: The Anachronism of Cindy Sherman’s History Portraits and Yasumasa Morimura’s Art History. What is anachronism? Briefly speaking, anachronism is about the unsuitability of time.12 Normally, we conceive time as a continuous line, and everything happening in time occurs chronologically, thus we have the notion of past, present, and future. Anachronism, therefore, could be defined as a disrespect for chronology, so the boundary of past, present, and future is blurred. In the first chapter, I would like to discuss the elements that make History Portraits and Art History anachronic, and therefore to explain why the notion of time is troublesome in the two series.. Alexander Nagel and Christopher S. Wood in their book Anachronic Renaissance suggest that the work of art has plural relation to time. It is made or designed by an individual or by a group of individuals at some moment, at the same time, it refers backward to a past origin, which could be a remote ancestral origin, a prior artifact, or even a origin outside of time – the divinity.13 Moreover, it regenerates new meanings by the future recipients. Therefore, according to Nagel and Wood, “The work of art is a message whose sender and destination are constantly shifting.14” In this sense, the work of art always connects to multiple times. As Nagel and Wood suggest: The work of art anachronizes” from the Greek anachronizein, built from ana-, “again,” and the verb chronizein, “to be late or belated.” To anachronize is to be lated again, to linger. The work is late, first because it succeeds some reality that it represents, and then late again when that representation is repeated for successive recipients. To many that double postponement came to seem troublesome, calling for correction, compensation, or at the very least, explanation.15. According to the definition of The Oxford English Dictionary, the word anachronism means “An error in computing time, or fixing dates; the erroneous reference of an event, circumstance, or custom to a wrong date.” Or “Anything done or existing out of date; hence, anything which was proper to a former age, but is, or, if it existed, would be, out of harmony with the present.” See The Oxford English Dictionary, Volume I, 1989, p. 48. On the other hand, according to The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia, the word anachronism deriving from Greek means “an error in respect to dates; an error which implies the misplacing of persons or events in time.” See The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia: A Work of Universal Reference in All Departments of Knowledge with a New Atlas of the World, London 1901, Vol. 1, p. 192. 13 Alexander Nagel and Christopher S. Wood, Anachronic Renaissance, New York 2010, p. 9. 14 See Nagel and Wood, 2010, p. 9. 15 See Nagel and Wood, 2010, p. 13. 12. 6.

(19) The specificity of History Portraits and Art History series is that they are not only works of art, but also works of art appropriating past works of art. Therefore the temporalities of these two series become more complicated. By analyzing the anachronisms represented in History Portraits and Art History, we can have a better insight of their paradoxical relations to time. 1-1 Cindy Sherman’s Anachronic History Portraits The American artist Cindy Sherman is one of the representatives of contemporary art, famous for her perfomative photographic art works. In most of her works, she masquerades as stereotypical characters from different environment such as cinema, mass media, and history of art. Although Sherman rejects theories, her art works offer a ground for various discussions on feminism, postmodern appropriation culture, abjection in artistic practices, and many other issues.16 As A. D. Coleman comments, Sherman’s work has drawn voluminous commentary of diverse discussions of feminism, the male gaze, mimesis, Kant, Hegel, Freud, Lacan, Barthes, Kristeva, Foucault.17 In her History Portraits, Sherman based her work on canonical paintings of Western art history and created 35 photographic works. In addition to the issue of gender and identity, postmodern simulation, and grotesque practice, History Portraits also touch the issue of time, and convey a sense of anachronism. How History Portraits demonstrate temporality? What makes History Portraits anachronic? Before discussing these questions in detail, it would be helpful to know more about Cindy Sherman, one of the representatives of what Douglas Crimp named “The Picture Generation”.18. Cindy Sherman was born as the youngest child of a family in New Jersey and raised in suburban Long Island. Since Sherman was much younger than her siblings, she. 16. See note 5. A. D. Coleman, “Cindy Sherman at MoMA: The Apotheosis of an Insider”, in: Photography Criticism, PCCA, 1997. http://www.photocriticism.com/members/archivetexts/photocriticism/coleman/colemansherman.html (accessed March 8, 2014). 18 In 1977 Douglas Crimp curated the influential exhibition Pictures at Artist Space, presenting the early work of Sherrie Levine, Jack Goldstein, Phillip Smith, Troy Brauntuch, and Robert Longo; later in 1979, he delivered the essay “Pictures” in October to discuss the postmodern artist strategies. Besides the artists mentioned above, he included Cindy Sherman in the discussion. These artists were then known as “The Pictures Generation”. See Douglas Crimp, “Pictures”, in: October, Vol. 8 (Spring 1979), pp. 75-88. 17. 7.

(20) passed her childhood as the only child in her family19 As a girl of the TV generation, Sherman loved watching TV since her adolescence, and she formed the habit of watching TV while doing something else at the same time.20 She watched every kind of programs, such as old movies, situation comedies, and cartoons. Like others of her generation, Sherman learned not only the events from the TV news, but also different roles and identities in Western culture, especially American culture, from various TV programs.21 In addition to watching TV, the young Sherman also engaged in playing dress-up as different characters such as an old lady or monsters; until Sherman became an adult, she still kept this hobby, and integrated it into her art works.22. Sherman later decided to go to art school, and she entered the State University College in Buffalo in 1972. Initially she intended to be a painter, and at the time she painted self-portraits and realistic copies of images she found in magazine and photographs.23 Although she was later famous for her photographic works, she actually failed the requisite introductory photography course due to her difficulties with the technological process of making a print.24 Luckily, her next photography teacher considered that to have creative idea was more important, and introduced her to conceptual art, which had a liberating impact on her.25 When Sherman was in school, conceptual art was becoming influential. It could be traced back to Marcel Duchamp in the early 20th century when he questioned, “Is a thing art because I make it, or is it art because I, the artist, name it, or designate it art?”26 By the 1960s, this concept had helped artists develop other unusual forms of art such as body art and performance art,27 and the issue of time became more important to the artists. For example, performance art can merely exist in a period of time and then disappear; what left is the documentation.28 As a documentary tool, photography sometimes substitutes the original and becomes a new artwork. It was under this circumstance. 19. Catherine Morris, The essential Cindy Sherman, New York 1999, p. 15. See Morris, 1999, p. 17. 21 See Morris, 1999, p. 17. 22 See Morris, 1999, pp. 17-20. 23 See Morris, 1999, p. 24, See also Amada Cruz, “Movies, Monstrosities and Masks: Twenty Years of Cindy Sherman”, in: Amada Cruz et al. (eds.), Cindy Sherman: Retrospective, London 1997, pp. 1-17, p. 1. 24 See Morris, 1999, p. 24, and Cruz, 1997, p. 1. 25 See Morris, 1999, p. 24, and Cruz, 1997, p. 1. 26 See Morris, 1999, p. 22. 27 See Morris, 1999, p. 22. 28 See Morris, 1999, p. 23. 20. 8.

(21) that Sherman, when studying in college, first encountered contemporary art through other fellow students such as Robert Longo.29. At the end of 1977, Sherman began her now famous series Untitled Film Stills. In the pictures of Untitled Film Stills, Sherman impersonated different female archetypes from films of the 1950s, such as classic Hollywood movies, film noirs, foreign films, and B-movies.30 These characters are often familiar yet unidentifiable, and demonstrate how the power of media images can influence identity.31 On the other hand, because Sherman’s characters in Untitled Film Stills were not specified, the beholders could have their own interpretations for these women. Untitled Film Stills soon became a popular topic for critics and material for all sorts of theories.32 One important reading is about the theory of the male gaze. Amanda Cruz connected Untitled Film Stills with Laura Mulvey’s prominent 1975 essay Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema, in which she argued that the image of woman on screen is both the subject of the controlling male gaze and the object of male desire.33 Therefore, Untitled Film Stills present assorted types that are constructed by the media and activated by the desire of the (mostly male) viewers. As a result, many feminists studied Untitled Film Stills. Some such as Laura Mulvey and Abigail SolomonGodeau, suggested that Sherman pointed out the artificiality of the identities that are constructed in cinema and other mass media34, while the other, like Mira Schor, argued that Sherman’s photography actually reinforced stereotypes.35. In Rear Screen Projection (1980-81), Sherman again uses cinema as a repertoire of stereotypes, as later in History Portraits she uses art history instead. According to Jean-Pierre Criqui, Sherman’s art works mainly explore concepts of pretense,. 29. See Cruz, 1997, p. 1. See Morris, 1999, p. 37. 31 See Cruz, 1997, p. 2. 32 See Coleman, 1997. 33 See Cruz, 1997, p. 3. 34 See Abigail Solomon-Godeau, “Suitable for Framing: The Critical Recasting of Cindy Sherman”, in: Parkett (Summer 1991), pp. 112-115, See also 劉瑞琪，《陰性顯影：女性攝影家的扮裝自拍像》，台北 2004 (Jui-Ch'i Liu, Feminine Masquerade: Self-Representations by Women Photographers, Taipei 2004), pp. 148-149. 35 See Mira Schor, “Backlash and Appropriation”, in: The Power of Feminist Art: The American Movement of the 1970s, History and Impact, New York 1994, p. 255. See also Liu, 2004, pp. 148-149. 30. 9.

(22) fabrication, staginess, and simulation.36 Afterward in Centerfolds (or Horizontals, 1981), Pink Robes (1982), Fashion (1983-1994), Sherman has continuously used her self-image to discuss the issue of stereotypes in mass media and the consumption world, and gradually changed her image from vulnerable women into strange or even grotesque roles. In her Fairy Tales series (1985), Sherman transformed herself into horrific creatures, making her characters disturbing at a higher level, and revealed the artifice of these images.37 In Disasters (1986-89), Sherman developed the loathsome aspect and faded herself out of the images.38 Mary Russo in her book The Female Grotesque: Risk, Excess, and Modernity suggests that the way Sherman connects the female body with disturbing elements in her fashion photographs, film stills, and historical masquerades, is related to the theory of female grotesque.39 After History Portraits, Sherman took pornography for inspiration in her series Sex Pictures (1992), using body parts of mannequins and medical catalogues constructing hybrid dolls that show their sex.40 Later in Horror and Surrealist Pictures (1994-96), Sherman expanded the hybrid dolls into a family, and continued the idea of horrific image that she had begun with the Fairy Tales series.41 In 1997, Sherman also directed the film Office Killer, and again showed her face and figure in Hollywood/Hampton Types (2000-02) and Clowns (2003-04) series.42 In 2008, Sherman’s Society Portraits displayed a series of images of herself in the guise of women who struggle with the myth of beauty that presents in a culture in which people are obsessed by youth and wealth.43 These women are again simply types such as the personal trainer, the exrealtor, and the divorcee, among others.44 In 2012, Cindy Sherman exhibited her new, large-scale works that describe mysterious female figures standing in isolation before desolated landscapes.45. See Jean-Pierre Criqui, “The Lady Vanishes”, in: Régis Durand et al, Cindy Sherman, Paris 2006, pp. 270-283, p. 271 37 See Cruz, 1997, pp. 8-9. 38 See Morris, 1999, pp. 82-86. 39 See Mary Russo, The Female Grotesque, Risk, Excess, and modernity, New York 1994, p. 2 40 See Cruz, 1997, pp. 12-14. 41 See Cruz, 1997, pp. 14-15. 42 Régis Durand, Jean-Pierre Criqui, Laura Mulvey, Cindy Sherman, Paris 2006, pp. 266-268. 43 See “Biography” in cindysherman.com, http://www.cindysherman.com/biography.shtml (accessed January 30, 2014). See also “Cindy Sherman” in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Sherman (accessed January 30, 2014). 44 See “biography” In cindysherman.com, http://www.cindysherman.com/biography.shtml (accessed January 30, 2014). 45 See “biography” in cindysherman.com, http://www.cindysherman.com/biography.shtml (accessed January 30, 2014), and “Exhibitions” in Metro Pictures, 36. 10.

(23) History Portraits The motivation for Cindy Sherman to create History Portraits could be partly inspired by a commission from Artes Magnus, a producer of limited edition art objects, that invited Sherman to produce a series of porcelain products including a dinnerware service, a tea set, and a soup tureen. Sherman used the 18th century molds originally made for Madame de Pompadour to cast her new pieces, each of which bearing images of Sherman dressed in 18th century garb.46 (Fig.1) The same year, Sherman included an enlarged image from one of the porcelain pieces in a group exhibition at Metro Pictures Gallery.47 In 1989, in order to commemorate the bicentennial of French Revolution, Sherman created a series of images in which she reenacted characters of the French Revolution, and exhibited the works at the Chantal Crousel Gallery in Paris.48 Later in 1989, she received a fellowship in Rome, therefore she went there for two months and began to prepare for the creation of History Portraits.49 Although staying in a city with so many originals of old masters, Sherman did not study the masterpieces in museums and galleries, but worked only through reproductions in French and Italian art books,50 and spent much time in the flea markets of the Porto Portese to see what types of props, costumes and accessories she could find.51. Similar to her earlier Untitled Film Stills, it is often difficult to trace these portraits back to one specific origin. The beholder will feel familiar with Sherman’s characters in her History Portraits, but most of them could not be clearly recognized as representation of one painting.52 This is partly because Sherman constructed her figures depending on what she could get from the flea markets. She said, “So it just grew and grew until I was buying and collecting more and more of these things, and suddenly the characters came together just because I had so much of the detritus from. http://www.metropicturesgallery.com/exhibitions/2012-04-28_cindy-sherman/ (accessed January 30, 2014). 46 See Cruz, 1997, pp. 10-12, Morris, 1999, pp. 89-93, and Kristina Anne Hadsell, Cindy Sherman: the real vs. simulation, Los Angeles 2001, p. 67. 47 See Cruz, 1997, pp. 10-12, Morris, 1999, pp. 89-93, and Kristina Anne Hadsell, 2001, p. 67. 48 See Cruz, 1997, pp. 10-12, Morris, 1999, pp. 89-93, and Kristina Anne Hadsell, 2001, p. 67. 49 See Cruz, 1997, pp. 10-12, Morris, 1999, pp. 89-93, and Kristina Anne Hadsell, 2001, p. 67. 50 See Cruz, 1997, pp. 10-12, Morris, 1999, pp. 89-93, and Kristina Anne Hadsell, 2001, p. 67. 51 See Cruz, 1997, pp. 10-12, Morris, 1999, pp. 89-93, and Kristina Anne Hadsell, 2001, p. 67. 52 This “déja vu” experience was suggested by Douglas Crimp in his essay “Picture”. See Crimp, 1979, pp. 75-88.. 11.

(24) them.”53 Nevertheless, Sherman did mention that there are three works in this series appropriating paintings of the old masters. They are: Untitled # 205, which refer to Raphael’s La Fornarina; (Fig. 2, 3) Untitled # 216, which refer to Jean Fouquet’s Madonna of Melun, (Fig. 4, 5) and Untitled # 224, which refer to Caravaggio’s Sick Bacchus.54 (Fig. 6, 7) The paintings inspiring Sherman date from the 15th century to the 19th century; Sherman used assorted props, wigs, and prosthetic devices to construct her characters, and disguised herself as a man in seventeen of the images, (Fig. 8) accounting for almost half of the series. In 1990 Sherman returned to New York and finished the History Portraits series. The following year, the series was exhibited in the Metro Pictures Gallery. Arthur C. Danto connected History Portraits to Art History 101 Exam,55 which recalls the experience while seeing a painting one often feel it familiar but cannot call its name. Sherman also admitted that she had a hard time when taking art history courses: “I never did terribly well in art history. I could never memorize the slides.”56 Before working on this project, Sherman investigated the gestures, countenance, costume, scenery and lighting in the traditional historical portraits but preserved the freedom to create her own characters.. Sherman commented her History Portraits in an interview with David Brittain: “People go into museums, or even churches that these paintings are in, and they are made to feel as if they’re endowed with some religious experience. In a way I guess I’m poking fun at that and trying to say that art isn’t that serious, or to me it isn’t.”57 For example, in Untitled # 225 (Fig. 9), Sherman wears a bright yellow wig, which is braided and decorated with plastic “pearls” and blue bowknot. With makeup, props, and contact lens, she enlarges the proportion of her nasion and changes her eyes into green. Most strikingly, Sherman put her left hand on the fake breast revealing frankly from her right armpit. The audience can see the color and texture differences between 53. See Cruz, 1997, p. 2. Noriko Fuku, “A Woman of Parts”, in: Art in America, 85 (Jun. 1977), pp. 74-81, p. 80. 55 Arthur C. Danto, “Past Masters and Post Moderns: Cindy Sherman’s History Portraits”, in: Cindy Sherman and Arthur C. Danto, Cindy Sherman: History Portraits, New York 1991, p. 9. Art History 101 Exam is the exam of basic art history course in American universities. To pass the exam, the students should remember the title, the artist, the year, the medium of an artwork, among others. 56 See Danto, 1991, p. 9. 57 David Brittain, “Cindy Sherman Interviewed: True Confessions”, in: Creative Camera, 308 (Feb./Mar. 1991), pp.34-38, p. 38. 54. 12.

(25) the fake breast and her skin, and the fake nipple even sprays water. Moreover, in Untitled # 194 (Fig. 10), Sherman stands against the dark background, disguises as a man with red nose, stubble, and dry chapped lips, revealing a fake hairy masculine chest. She puts her right hand on her belly, with a brunch of fake leafs in her left hand, pretending to be serious. However, the costume and the “scarf” she is wearing look coarse and rumpled, delivering a sense of roughness.. Brooks Adams used to criticize the roughness of the setting in History Portraits. He criticized that the textiles in History Portraits do not really fit with each other, and that Sherman should have found better props for the series; together the images deliver a “raw, frontier quality”.58 Indeed, from the examples above we should see that at some extent Sherman parodies the old masters through History Portraits. She did not embellish the clue of artificiality; in contrast, she intentionally left it manifest. This arrangement shows that the identity in a historical portrait is often a constructed one,59 and implies that the portraitures in art history often promote idealized images, or even stereotypes. Referring to the comments Sherman made above, she seems to have deliberately made these images “raw”. In some way History Portraits are collages composed of textiles, fake breasts, noses, wigs, and props from various sources.60 As mentioned before, Sherman decided the role she would play depending on what she could get. She combined loosely the artificial props and prosthetic devices with the fabrics she found in flea markets, ignoring the synthetic effect of the whole image.. This creative process of combining materials from both past and present delivers a sense of anachronism, and reminds us the concept of pastiche and bricolage. In art See Brook Adams, “Cindy Sherman at Metro Pictures”, in: Art in America, Vol. 78, No. 6 (1990), pp. 172-173, p. 172. To quote the original: “In the image roughly derived from Raphael’s La Fornarina, Sherman discloses huge pregnant belly under the sheerest of white shawls; such a love child would only be implicit in Renaissance portraits or in Ingres’s later coolly erotic treatments of Raphael and his mistress. What is subtle in the Sherman is the scrawniness of her own flesh, with that pathetic little bangle on the upper arm suggesting a fragile, aging bacchante. Similarly, in her appropriation of Fouquet’s Madonna and Child, the weird thing is not the exposed prosthetic breast but the way that the Christ child’s face is concealed, suggesting some sense of shame – perhaps the artist’s at not being able to find a good enough prop. In all of these portraits, the textiles (which Sherman reportedly found in Rome) are especially exquisite yet completely out of scale to one another; this gives the images a raw, frontier quality that is, dare I say, almost Grant Wood in feeling. Sherman’s singular lack of skill in putting these fabrics together is one of the photographs’ greatest strengths and probably also part of their peculiar appeal.” 59 See Danto, 1991, p. 8. 60 See Danto, 1991, pp. 5-6. 58. 13.

(26) history, pastiche conventionally has two meanings. The first one refers to the tradition of copying the masters; by selecting different “parts” from different masters, the artist creates another optimal work.61 For example, it was said that Tintoretto combined Michelangelo’s disegno, and Titian’s color.62 Therefore in this sense pastiche means the superbly executed copy of a masterwork.63 Another kind of pastiche is linked to the commercial copy made for a “mass market”, usually implying a genre of painting which bares questionable quality and is a product of an eclectic painter who drew upon diverse techniques and styles.64 Thus pastiche is “a unity of stylistically heterogeneous elements.”65 Moreover, the word pastiche acquires its special meaning under the context of postmodernism. Hoesterey points out that the postmodern pastiche recalls the artistic practices of borrowing from the archive of Western culture; however, the “quotation” of heterogeneous elements works more than mere stylistic medley, but also as cultural critique.66 From this point of view, the process of Sherman’s creation of History Portraits is indeed a pastiche: although the roles look like figures from canonic paintings, the impression is only the surface. The characters are actually wearing parts and props from various sources, and these elements are not designed for a synthetic effect, they are just fragments from different places. Nevertheless, it does not mean Sherman does not have the ability to integrate the sources; indeed she intentionally “pastiche” the sources to “poke fun” at the art history.. The concept of bricolage could also be connected to History Portraits. Claude LéviStrauss in his book The Savage Mind (La Pensée Sauvage, 1962) discusses the idea of bricolage, a French word, and discriminate it from engineering.67 According to LéviStrauss, a bricoleur is someone who “works with his hands and uses devious means compared to those of a craftsman.”68 And he mentioned:. 61. See Ingeborg Hoesterey, Pastiche: Cultural Memory in Art, Film, Literature, Bloomington 2001, p. 2. 62 See Hoesterey, 2001, p. 2. 63 See Hoesterey, 2001, p. 3. 64 See Hoesterey, 2001, p. 1. 65 See Hoesterey, 2001, p. 6. 66 See Hoesterey, 2001, p. xii 67 Claude Lévi-Strauss, The Savage Mind, Chicago 1962, pp. 16-20. 68 See Lévi-Strauss, 1962, pp. 16-17.. 14.

(27) The ‘bricoleur’ is adept at performing a large number of diverse tasks; but unlike the engineer, he does not subordinate each of them to the availability of raw materials and tools conceived and procured for the purpose of the project. His universe of instruments is closed and the rules of his game are always to make do with ‘whatever is at hand’, that is to say with a set of tools and materials which is always finite and is also heterogeneous because what it contains bears no relation to the current project, or indeed to any particular project, but is the contingent result of all the occasions there have been to renew or enrich the stock or to maintain it with the remains of previous constructions or destructions.69 According to the structuralist anthropologist, this “tinkering” can produce bright and unforeseen outcome.70 Bricolage is therefore “the making of something new out of something old”71, and a bricoleur describes a persona who works based on heterogeneous models and sources.72 Therefore, the notion of bricolage can also be analogically compared to what Sherman did in History Portraits. Sherman created the characters depending on what she could collect from the flea market; she was not like an “engineer” or a scientist who plans a project scientifically and prepares the materials before execution. Both pastiche and bricolage reflect the idea of using multiple sources and the ignoring of an integrated coherence. They provide some insight of the reasons for the anachronism presented in History Portraits. Another anachronic element of History Portraits is Sherman’s face. Her contemporary face is repeatedly shown in History Portraits, recalling the paper dolls, (Fig. 11) which she used to make for planning what she would wear each day when she was a teenager;73 or the “face in hole”, which often appears at famous scenic spots providing tourists the opportunity to take photos, and for a moment, being someone else and experiencing another life. (Fig. 12) The performative quality of History Portraits raises the problem of identity especially even Sherman shows herself in most of her artworks, she doesn’t take them as her self-portraits. She said: “ I don’t do self-portraits…I always try to get as far away from myself as possible in the. 69. See Lévi-Strauss, 1962, p. 17. See Hoesterey, 2001, p. 10. 71 See Hoesterey, 2001, p. 10. 72 See Hoesterey, 2001, p. 10. 73 See Fuku, 1977, p. 78. 70. 15.

(28) photographs.”74 Danto approves this saying. He suggests that Sherman shows herself in her works because this way is more convenient than hiring other models, therefore even the works are all for her does not mean she is the subject.75. Nevertheless, some still takes the works as self-portraits. For example, Richard Brilliant in his book Likeness and Beyond: Portraits from Africa and the World parallels Sherman with Rembrandt: “Good portraits…concretize the individual portrayed and suggests that beneath the diversity of appearance in life the dominated idea of a particular human being. Such a belief gives meaning to the self-portraits of the contemporary American photographer, Cindy Sherman, who represents herself over and over again in a variety of costumes and settings reminiscent of Rembrandt’s self-portraits, without ever concealing that the image was taken by her.”76 As we know, in Rembrandt’s early tronies, the artist showed his models or himself dressed in exotic garments with accessories such as a turban. According to Frederic Schwartz, Rembrandt’s tronies, or “face paintings”, shows a blurring of genres that extended to or derived from history paintings.77 Tronies were originally head studies that were put into larger historical compositions.78 However Rembrandt and his Dutch contemporaries transferred the preparatory study of faces into an autonomous works of art in itself, which mixed elements of face study, narrative, and portraits.79 For example, some of Rembrandt’s early self-portraits showed this orientation and experimented with different poses and expressions, such as in Self-portrait with an Open Mouth and Self-portrait with a Feathered Cap.80 For Sherman’s works, Amelia Jones also suggests, “these performative images are still ‘self-portraits’ in the sense that they convey to the viewer the very subject who was responsible for staging the. Elisabeth Bronfen, “The Other Self of the Imagination: Cindy Sherman’s Hysterical Performance”, in: Zdenek Felix and Martin Schwander (ed.), Cindy Sherman: Photographic Work 1975-1995, Munich 1995, pp. 13-26, p. 13. 75 See Danto, 1991, p. 7. 76 Richard Brilliant, Likeness and Beyond: Portraiture from Africa and the World, London 1991, p. 13. 77 Frederic Schwartz, “The Motion of the Countenance: Rembrandt’s Early Portraits and the Tronie”, in: RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics, No. 17/18 (Spring-Autumn, 1989), pp. 89-116, p. 89. 78 See Schwartz, 1989, p. 93. 79 See Schwartz, 1989, pp. 89-97. 80 B. P. J. Broos, et al, "Rembrandt van Rijn", in: Grove Art Online. Oxford Art Online. Oxford University Press, http://0www.oxfordartonline.com.opac.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/subscriber/article/grove/art/T071362 (accessed July 14, 2014). 74. 16.

(29) image…and yet – through their very exaggeration of the performative dimension of the self … – clearly they profoundly shift our conception of what a self-portrait is.”81 Actually, History Portraits, as Sherman’s earlier works, blur the boundary between self and other. Like David Rimanelli reviewed on Cindy Sherman in Artforum, “Sherman could be everyone in her art and as such she was no one (in her art)”.82 Different from the comical yet frightening characters in History Portraits, according to Danto, Sherman is in fact a quiet, extremely private, modest, serious person, “…and profoundly intuitive rather than theoretical about her work.”83 This contrast reminds us the performative quality of History Portraits. Interestingly, the only three paintings Sherman mentioned as her reference of History Portraits – Raphael’s La Fornarina, Jean Fouquet’s Madonna of Melun, and Caravaggio’s Sick Bacchus – are all about double identities. The three paintings fused iconographical models with real identities: La Fornarina, whose pose and attributes – the lanceolate laurel and quince leaves – suggests that she is the personification of love, is traditionally identified as Margherita Luti, Raphael's Roman mistress 84. The Virgin Mary of Madonna of Melun has the features of Agnes Sorel, the favorite of Charles VII85. In the painting she is dressed in an ermine robe and a crown of pearls, lowers her eyes and offers the Child her breast.86 In the Sick Bacchus, which was thought a self-portrait of Caravaggio87, the Bacchus has the grapes in his right hand and crowns his hair with vine leaves. In contrast to Sherman’s exaggerated and playful expression, the attitudes of the sitters in most traditional portraits are often relatively neutral or even self-restraint. Conventionally, the sitter’s feature and posture is often idealized, but Sherman uglified her characters. She commented, “The world is drawn toward beauty that I became interested in things that are normally considered grotesque ugly, seeing them. Amelia Jones, “The Eternal Return: Self-Portrait Photography as a Technology of Embodiment”, in: Signs, Vol. 27, No. 4 (Summer 2002), pp. 947-978, p. 948. 82 See David Rimanelli, interview in Artforum (May 1990), p. 187. 83 See Danto, 1991, p. 8. 84 See Marc Restellini, Patrizia Nitti et al., Raphael: Grace and Beauty, Milan 2001, pp. 73-74. 85 See Erik Inglis, Jean Fouquet and the Invention of France: Art and the Nation after the Hundred Years War, New Haven 2011, p. 11. 86 Norbert Schneider, The Art of the Portrait: Masterpieces of European Portrait Painting 1420-1670, London 2002, p. 43. 87 See David Franklin, Caravaggio and his Followers in Rome, New Haven, 2011, p. 133. 81. 17.

(30) as more fascinating than beautiful.”88 The female grotesque theory developed by Mary Russo is often cited to interpret Sherman’s works. In History Portraits, as in other works of later period, Sherman stress more on the ugliness than the beauty of the figures, and for Mary Russo, this is a means to resist and destruct the male voyeuristic and fetishistic gaze.89 Although in the past artists such as Leonardo Da Vinci and Rembrandt also study grotesque characters or facial expression, traditionally portraits are usually idealized representations. Therefore, this expression of ugliness discrepant from the traditional portraiture also contributes its part to the presence of the problematic temporality and anachronism.. The last element I would like to mention is the medium. In History Portraits, Sherman used photographs to imitate paintings, and the discrepancy between the two media implies the coexistence of past and present. Moreover, photography is often looked upon as the evidence of existence, a piece of a frozen moment.90 But the artificiality of History Portraits is contradictory to the photographic medium and its purpose to deliver a more accurate likeness.91 The time in History Portraits is a fictional one, and what existed is a forged past. Another contrast is that in the early stage of photography history, the technical (or we may say engineering) aspect of photography was stressed.92 However, Sherman works as a bricoleur who constructed a work from a diverse range of things that happen to be available. All these contradictions make History Portraits exist in an illusionistic time; consequently, the images juxtapose various temporalities, and convey a sense of anachronism.. 1-2 The Self-Aware Art History The Japanese artist Yasumasa Morimura is often compared to Cindy Sherman, since both of them are noted for their self-performative photographic artworks, and both began active in the art world in the 1980s. As an Asian male, Morimura’s artworks not only touched the issue of gender, but also that of race and culture. Similar to History Portraits, Morimura’s Art History series also deliver a sense of anachronism.. 88. See Morris, 1999, p. 79. See Mary Russo, The Female Grotesque: Risk, Excess and Modernity, New York 1994, pp. 53-57. 90 See Roland Barthes, Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography, New York 2000. 91 Michael Langford, Story of Photography, Oxford 1997, p. 19. 92 See Langford, 1997, p. vii 89. 18.

(31) This anachronism partly derives from his Japanese background. Yasumasa Morimura was born in 1951 and grew up in Osaka, Japan. He is the only child of his family, but during that time most Japanese families were typically large.93 According to the interview made by Rosemary Wright Jasinowski, Morimura describes himself as “skinny, painfully shy, not especially attractive and not good at sports; a loner.”94 When applying for college, Morimura struggled between his interests in visual arts and creative writing. He finally chose visual art because he scored highest on the art exam, and afterward he studied design for four years at the Kyoto City University of Art, graduating in 1978.95 When Morimura was at the University, one of his professors, Ernest Sato, gave him strong inspiration and influence. Ernest Sato was an outstanding photographer and a person of mixed-ancestry. His father was Japanese and his mother was Irish/Polish American.96 Sato was very fashionable at a time when Japan was not fashion oriented like today. Morimura thinks that Sato’s life was “cool, stylish, and dramatic”, and finally became his apprentice for eight years.97 What Sato influenced most was his introduction of modernist philosophy. According to Jasinowski, Morimura said that at that time Japan had absorbed Western art only up to the 19th century, therefore the teaching of Sato opened a new door to Morimura.98. From the mid-1980s Yasumasa Morimura commonly featured himself as characters (sometimes even still life objects) of famous paintings in art history. Unlike Cindy Sherman, whose History Portraits only accounts a small portion of her works of art, Morimura takes art history as a main inspiration of his creation. Besides the characters of the art history, Morimura in his The Actresses series also portrayed famous actresses in Western cinema, such as Marilyn Monroe and Vivien Leigh.99 Afterward, Morimura masqueraded as famous people such as Mao and Che Guevara and well-known photographic images in history.100 Generally speaking, Morimura’s. 93. Rosemary Wright Jasinowski, Morimura Yasumasa: A Cross Culture Study in the Self-Portrait, SelfDefinition and the Creative Process, New York 2001, pp. 262-263. 94 See Jasinowski, 2001, p. 263. 95 See Jasinowski, 2001, p. 264. 96 See Jasinowski, 2001, p. 264-265. 97 See Jasinowski, 2001, pp. 266, 268. 98 See Jasinowski, 2001, p. 268. 99 Morgan Falconer, "Morimura, Yasumasa", in: Grove Art Online. Oxford Art Online, http://0www.oxfordartonline.com.opac.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/subscriber/article/grove/art/T097151 (accessed May 20, 2012). 100 See “Yasumasa Morimura”, in: Luhring Augustine, Artists http://www.luhringaugustine.com/artists/yasumasa-morimura/ (accessed January 30, 2014).. 19.