awesome...

i know Cindy and have never felt she was anything but honest and forthright. i even got the privelage of going into her studio and play with her props.

i think this film may just be the result of any relationship that ends. they are all conflicted and fraught with drama.

Ah, I see, because you know Cindy...

whatever

I would guess that one thing informing Sherman's sudden reversal is the recent appearance of ex-husband Michael Auder's film, THE FEATURE, which--guess what?--features extensive, and not always flattering, footage of & commentary on his life with Cindy Sherman in the 80s. And his problems with being second-fiddle, etc. etc. etc.

So, OK. Yeah. Her privacy's possibly getting violated. But then you've got to ask: how deep--or how complex-- is your commitment to privacy when you get into SEQUENTIAL relationships with guys who want to film your relationship?

I realize this film could not have been made without Cindy Sherman's participation and consent. Maybe she saw it as a long form experiment in ceding partial control of her image to someone else. It also sounds like titantically poor judgement from a combination of romance gone sour and pure ego.

Who knows. It's somewhat depressing, but it seems her experiment worked because this guy gives a much worse impression of himself than her.

I mean in just this short interview he comes off as a resentful asshole with a sense of wounded entitlement who pretty much resents Cindy's fame even as he continues to cash in on it.

I can't think of a more passive agressive act against an ex who is more famous than you.

This film has caused a lot of problems for me and for people in the art world who may have something to do with the film and are worried about what the effect is going to be. I've been excommunicated, basically, from that whole level of the art world.

Awwww. Too fucking bad. You made the film of your own free will, just as Cindy took part by her own choice. And the only reason you got to do it at all is because your ex is successful.

I think Paul could have without being such a titantic, brazen leech, but then if he had a sense of proportion he might not have done it.

It's obvious the man realizes his entire career is built around reacting to work done by other people. Instead of accepting or enjoying this position, he seems angry and perhaps ashamed and willing to blame it on the people he used.

Poor little Paul, with his career as a successful art critic and interviewer, suffering from living in comfort with luxury and fame because he doesn't own it himself.

For centuries women have gotten used to being the second fiddle.

I know. I know what it's like to be second fiddle, and I acknowledge my inferiority to the greater body...

Most women of famous men don't write tell all books, and they do, their grievence is usually about things the exes actually did, rather than their mere possessen of more success and status.

I think the deal here is: Good manners never go out of style. If you have a partner, take care of your partner, you know?...we were trading stories about getting shafted, you know?...Be careful of who you invite. And be conscientious, because it can really bite you in the ass.

Or don't partner up with an ungrateful little pussy with a camera and a wounded craving for borrowed fame.

Again, it's depressing to see a great artist is so lacking in boundaries and taste in men. No wonder his thearpist dumped him, Cindy clearly needs help and she's a more worthy case than this jerk.

Dear Editor,

I just started reading the article, but I must admit that I've never heard of "Cindy Sherman". What is this "art world" in which she is a celebrity?

At any rate, interesting article.

Shaun Narine

And all I got was this documentary. Paul H-O on his film about the iconic photographer and the perils of being an art world sidekick. By Joy Press

Who?

Cindy Sherman.... what is the big deal? You couldn't pay me to hang one of those things on my wall. What silliness.

Incidentally, what is up with Mr Humidity... spamming all the message boards. Being an Obama supporter, I feel comfortable saying the reason Obama has petered off in polling has less to do with Wrighty, and lots to do with his f**king annoying cult following and their obnoxious BS and behaviour.

Before even opening the comments section I knew a letter just like softdog's would be there waiting for me. Though I haven't seen the film, the article makes it pretty clear that Ms. Sherman gave her consent and participated in the making of the it. Her recent ambivalence toward it is nothing more than PR., calculated to juice up public interest. Sherman's been around for a long time, To be sure, a little fresh "exposure", of a different sort, wouldn't exactly be seen as unwelcome by her dealers, regardless of what they might be saying in the press.

Softdog's predictably condescending and sneering disparagement is misplaced. Paul's not a leech. According to the article, Sherman isn't depicted as a monster, its the world that she and her dealers have created around her, "Cindyworld", that is held up to scrutiny.

I also beg to differ with what was perhaps the most stomach- turning cliche of SD's letter: that Paul would not exist were it not for Sherman. Paul was existing well enough to attract Sherman's attention in the first place. He probably didn't fully understand what he was getting into, falling in love with, not just an another individual, but a jealously guarded and controlled commodity.

I love reading comments from "angry" "serious" artists, arty-types. Have a sense of humor.

Cindy Sherman is a smart woman, but more of a marketing tool than an artist. Anyone can take silly, sexy, ironic pictures of herself -- I know, "but you didn't".