Talk:Cindy Sherman

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Magdalenetaylor.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(Current last two external links do not go to images, but to a general artnet.com "galleries" page. -- March 1, 2013) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.97.16 (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Cindy Sherman's Statement

Regarding "Guest of Cindy Sherman"...

As my name is in the title and my work and self are so abundantly represented, I would like to counter any assumption that I am or wish to be personally associated with it. I am not a participant in any events related to the film's screenings in this festival or future presentations.

I apologize to all those who participated, thinking they were doing me a favor in giving interviews and otherwise assisting in the fabrication of this film.

Against my better judgment, it was clearly unwise to cooperate with the project at its inception.

Cindy Sherman

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. The film was accepted into the documentary competition of the 2008 Tribeca Film Festival in New York City where it had its world premiere. Financed in part by the Sundance Channel, it is expected to air there in 2009. —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.[5] At the moment the film info cannot be reinstated, because the information isn't verified. However, there are 25,000 google hits.[6] Likely suitable references include Tribeca Film Festival,[7] NYmag,[8], NY Times,.[9][10] [11] NY Post,[12] Art Forum.[13] Village Voice,[14] Elle,[15] Artnet.[16] LA Times,[17] ArtNews,[18] Variety,[19] and NY Observer.[20] 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: [21]. 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 [22] 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)

Here are some words from Cindy Sherman in regard to the post:

Guest of CS hasn't been picked up for distribution, there is no release date, no official word that it will ever be aired on the Sundance channel, other than what the filmmakers proclaim. Therefore, the is this film really "out there" if it is not available to the general public?

Its "world premiere" was at a film festival in New Zealand, not in NYC.

I am not trying to "control the truth" and many of you may agreed that documentaries can be far from objective and truthful. This is an unauthorized biography. While it purports to be a documentary about me, it's about Paul Hasegawa-Overacker who exploits my name to call attention to his own plight of not being the center of attention. Other than a few scenes that show me working in my studio, installing an exhibition & discussing my work, the film is a gossipy attempt to "prove" that he was with someone famous, therefore should be famous himself.

I was "initially supportive" of the project the same way I was initially supportive of the relationship. Big deal. The guy didn't have a job so was totally living off of me ­"from what you hear" you could call that financing, since I financed everything he did while we were together.

My main objection to this "paragraph" is that it makes the film out to be more significant than the minor footnote that it is, which is in keeping with how Paul H-O would like to be remembered, as a more significant character in my life than just another ex-boyfriend. I am curious if anyone has actually seen the film, as one viewing would show that it's not an intelligent take on my work or the art world. It's gossip and I would like to believe that the high level of intelligence of this site would not support this type of documentary. Also, if no one has seen the film or had access to the film, does that not justify my first point?

Furthermore, the makers of this film have tried to put various spins on the fact that I've disassociated myself from it, which I found necessary to do upon hearing, in order to sell tickets, their claims that I would appear at screenings.

The fact that I had the right to my image in the film & therefore edited out snapshot footage of myself at the beach, on vacation & at holiday parties (really not relevant to an analysis of my work), was spun into my censoring of the film. None of the footage of me working in the studio, installing or discussing work was removed, even though numerous scenes make me cringe.

Of your References section, 7 of 10 concern this film. Since when is this objective, when a 30 year career in photography is summed up in 3 references compared to 7 for a film that was spun out of the capitalization of my name? I'm still confused by the strong fight to keep the film's mention on my page, does it go further than just maintaining the validity and reputation of the site, which I am all for?

Lastly, it's been suggested that I should now contribute to updating my own Wikipedia page in order to balance out the lesser importance of this film. I did not realize that this was the responsibility of the subject of each page. Somehow, especially after reading all your concerns about censorship, I was under the impression that this was decidedly not to be left to the subject. However, I will gladly work on expanding the inventory of the numerous, more important projects that I've been involved with over the years.

To start, here's a list of other films/videos about me, some far more illuminating: > BBC film "Nobody's Here But Me" (early 90¹s?) > Michel Auder (my ex-husband) documentary video about me (late 80¹s?) > Carol Anne Klonarides video - early 80¹s ­ more a doc of a > performance > State of the Art, Iluminations series 1986 UK (small section on Youtube) I can also post a full biography on the talk site of all my exhibitions, reviews, books, film projects etc.

Sincerely,

Cindy ShermanMargaretlee02 (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed several redundant references and currently irrelevant information, per above...Modernist (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I want to make Cindy's official CV available to anyone who is interested. It is a 44 page word document so I am not sure how to distribute it. Please contact me if you would like a copy.Margaretlee02 (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit, I chuckled at "intelligent take on my work or the art world". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.229.166 (talk) 07:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

References

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)

The Billy Bragg song "Cindy of a Thousand Lives" is purportedly a reference to the artist's body of work. I have no more detail than this you-tube clip, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXQCp3Sflns. Might be worth someone chasing up (I don't care enough to do so myself). Futnuh (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

challenging and important questions

We're told that:

Through a number of different series of works, Sherman has raised challenging and important questions about the role and representation of women in society, the media and the nature of the creation of art.

What are these "challenging and important questions"? -- Hoary (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Cindy sherman.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Cindy sherman.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 11 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

youngest

"the youngest by far of five children" - you're the youngest or you are not - I edited the line accordingly Irish Melkite (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

quality

This is a bizarre and sloppily written article that falls far below the standard one might attach to the entry for such an important figure in contemporary Western art. At least one of the people cited is virtually unknown, and banal details of Sherman's loft living are included for no reason. I began to copy edit the article and gave up as the article itself struck me as poor. I hope someone comes along and polishes it up as deserved.Actio (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cindy Sherman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080513123546/http://www.papermag.com/blogs/2008/04/cindy_sherman_speaks.php to http://www.papermag.com/blogs/2008/04/cindy_sherman_speaks.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Cindy Sherman

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Cindy Sherman's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "art21":

• From Laurie Simmons: [23] art21
• From Untitled 153: "Untitled (#153)". art21.org. Retrieved 26 August 2014.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cindy Sherman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.lightwork.org/residency/artists.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.moorecharitable.org/index.php/events/azuero-on-the-harbor
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130709125200/http://stephenpetronio.com/about-the-company/staff-board/ to http://stephenpetronio.com/about-the-company/staff-board

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cindy Sherman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160112071811/http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/the_comfort_of_objects/ to http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/the_comfort_of_objects/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130814102129/http://rca.ac.uk/Default.aspx?ContentID=161282&CategoryID=36283 to http://www.rca.ac.uk/Default.aspx?ContentID=161282&CategoryID=36283

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Solo exhibitions

I suggest MarPatton build their list of exhibitions here if it is controversial for them to replace a proesy exhibitions section with it:

• Thirty Years of Staged Photography, Louisiana Museum of Modern Art, Humlebaek, Denmark, 2007.
• Cindy Sherman, Metro Pictures, New York, 2008.
• History Portraits, Skarstedt Gallery, New York, 2008.
• Cindy Sherman, Gagosian Gallery, Rome, Italy, 2009.
• Cindy Sherman, Sprueth Magers, Berlin, Germany, 2009.
• Cindy Sherman, Sprueth Magers, London, 2009.
• Made In Italy, Gagosian Gallery Rome, Italy, 2011.
• Cindy Sherman, Sprueth Magers, London, 2011.
• Cindy Sherman, The Museum of Modern Art, New York, 2012. Travelled to: San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, San Francisco, CA, and Walker Art Centre, Minneapolis, MN (through 2013).
• Cindy Sherman, Gagosian Gallery Paris, 2012.
• Cindy Sherman, Metro Pictures, New York, 2012.
• Untitled Horrors, Astrup Fearnley Museum, Oslo Norway, 2013. Travelled to Moderna Museet, Stockholm, Sweden and Kunsthause Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland (through 2014).
• Cindy Sherman, Dallas Museum of Art, Dallas, TX, 2013.
• Cindy Sherman: Works From The Olbricht Collection, Me Collectors Room Berlin / Stiftung Olbricht, Berlin, Germany, 2015.
• Cindy Sherman, Sammlung Goetz, Munich, Germany, 2015.
• Cindy Sherman, Metro Pictures , New York, 2016.
• Cindy Sherman, Queensland Art Gallery / Gallery of Modern Art, Brisbane, Australia, 2016.
• Cindy Sherman: Imitation of Life, The Broad, Los Angeles, CA, 2016.
• I Prefer Life, The Weserburg, Bermen, Germany, 2016.

I suggest removing the private galleries as they are less notable, such as Gagosian and Sprueth Magers.

References

Thanks for this, Lopifalko, nice of you! I'll admit that it was mostly because of those private gallery shows that I reverted the edits (I feel I've spent half my life removing COI gallery spam). A couple of things: (+) prose is surely preferable to a bald list in the general way of things; but (-) the existing prose is neither very good nor remotely neutral. In my view, the ideal move would be to write new and better text, incorporating any useful material from the existing version, and also any substantial institutional exhibitions from the list above that are missing from the page as it stands. Volunteers? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for prematurely editing this section. I agree with working on this section via the talk page, and to exclude less notable galleries. I will work on refine this section as I believe having a list format in and Exhibitions section best represents the information presented. I'll communicate my thoughts throughtout process and would love your input. --MarPatton (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Artist

Sherman is generally conisdered, and considers herself, to be an artist using the medium of photography. I have amended the lead and infobox accordingly. I might try to improve the lead further but don't have time right now. ProfDEH (talk) 08:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Art since 1945

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 January 2022 and 18 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EmilyAnderson25 (article contribs).

Wiki Education assignment: Art Librarianship

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2023 and 10 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ceelle21 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Uwmadartlibhb23 (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)