I don't think it's actually about photography, but...

[32BT]

... there's even a reference to mannequins! What more could a photographer ask for?

https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/self-portrait-cindy-shermans-instagram-account

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/cindy-sherman-instagram-1039676

[OmerV]

She’s parodying the famous mummer Cindy Sherman, probably in hopes of dissipating her celebrity now that she’s no longer the recluse of the past.

[Rob C]

Why would anyone care a fig?

With all the horrors of this world that already exist...

[elliot_n]

That's a poor excuse for a poem.

Cindy Sherman? I'm a fan.

[Rob C]

That's a poor excuse for a poem.

Cindy Sherman? I'm a fan.

That's interesting; care to tell us what about her thrills?

I find myself totally devoid of understanding around the issue, much as with Nan Goldin and Diane Arbus.

I get that they took photographs, but so what? What did they produce that really merits scrutiny to the level of fandom?

Rob

[elliot_n]

That's interesting; care to tell us what about her thrills?

Sadly, I can't (politics being banned here).

But, in short, I admire her sustained critique of the male gaze.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

But, in short, I admire her sustained critique of the male gaze.

Me too. And she has wit and good humor.

[RSL]

But, in short, I admire her sustained critique of the male gaze.

Well, after all, isn't the male gaze full of "toxic masculinity?"

[Rob C]

Sadly, I can't (politics being banned here).

But, in short, I admire her sustained critique of the male gaze.

What has politics got to do with it? What's wrong with the male gaze - it is what it has ever been, which is why you exist.

[Martin Kristiansen]

Don’t think I would like Cindy Sherman as a dinner partner but I like her photography.

[Rob C]

Don’t think I would like Cindy Sherman as a dinner partner but I like her photography.

I don't think anyone apparently that self-obsessed would make a good partner for anything.

Rob

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... which is why you exist.

Rob, the left is on a lofty mission to save the planet from the invasive species, a.k.a. human race

[amolitor]

Male gaze makes a great deal more sense in cinema than it does in all photography, which is why Sherman started out making fake movie stills.

That said, lumping male gaze in conceptually with toxic masculinity is naive at best, willfully inflammatory at worst.

I think Sherman is interesting, but I don't think I'd want to own any of her prints. Maybe some of the untitled film stills.

[Rob C]

Male gaze makes a great deal more sense in cinema than it does in all photography, which is why Sherman started out making fake movie stills.

That said, lumping male gaze in conceptually with toxic masculinity is naive at best, willfully inflammatory at worst.

I think Sherman is interesting, but I don't think I'd want to own any of her prints. Maybe some of the untitled film stills.

There are very few prints I'd want to own other than my own - if that's not too pun-like. There are many paintings that I would love to own, and I would need look no further than our own Peter's efforts with trees. Ironically, another rock, another tree are amongst my least favourite types of photograph. (You see how kind I can be at times regarding photography?) It just shows, to me, the huge difference between the two mediums: it's not the subjects but the treatment.

Rob

[Telecaster]

I like Sherman's film stills a lot. Saw 'em at The Met (I think) c. 2002. Not large prints either…8x10"s maybe. I don't view 'em as didactic at all…I think that's just an overlay put on 'em. IMO they're more playful than anything else.

-Dave-

[rabanito]

There are very few prints I'd want to own other than my own
Rob

I agree with that.
Nota bene: It's not that I don't enjoy the great photographs of the really good photographers but on my walls I like to see my prints.

[Rob C]

I agree with that.
Nota bene: It's not that I don't enjoy the great photographs of the really good photographers but on my walls I like to see my prints.

I like to see the work of photographers I admire, best of all, in books.

Sadly, those I want are too damned expensive to keep me calm... 

I also like watching them doing their thing in "making of" videos but as these must be quite expensive to do well, there seems to be a short list of them, and just a lot of links to stills collections, some of which go very wrong, including work by other people in similar style. You'd never know, unless you were quite familiar with the work. So much for the Internet and accuracy.