Sherman used photography to question who decides what women should look like
Cindy Sherman's photographs were not meant to be portraits of real people or documents of actual events. Instead, she used the camera to explore how images shape the way we think about identity, especially female identity. Her central purpose was to show that the versions of women we see in magazines, films, and advertisements are constructed—they are choices made by photographers, stylists, and editors, not reflections of how women naturally are.
Sherman did this by playing characters herself. She would dress up, explore makeup, pose in front of a camera, and then examine the resulting image. By controlling every element—costume, lighting, expression, setting—she demonstrated that any photograph is a deliberate creation, not a window into truth. This method became her signature approach across decades of work.
Key Takeaways
- Sherman's photographs were self-portraits where she played different characters to show that identity in images is constructed, not natural.
- Her early work mimicked the style and poses of Hollywood film stills and fashion magazine photographs to expose how those images shape expectations of women.
- She wanted viewers to recognize that photographs are made objects—the result of deliberate choices about lighting, costume, and pose—rather than unfiltered reality.
- Her work raised questions about who has the power to create and control images of women, and what happens when women take that power for themselves.
Her early series copied the look of Hollywood and magazines on purpose
In the late 1970s, Sherman created a series called Untitled Film Stills. In these photographs, she dressed and posed herself to look like a character from a 1950s or 1960s Hollywood film. She wore wigs, different makeup, different clothes in each image. The lighting and composition mimicked the style of actual film publicity photographs.
The point was not to pretend she was an actress. The point was to show how narrow and repetitive the roles available to women in film actually were. By playing many of these characters herself, Sherman made visible the formula: the ingénue, the femme fatale, the vulnerable woman, the woman in danger. She was saying, "Look at how many times this same limited set of images gets repeated, and look at how easily I can slip into any of them."
This series became influential because it gave viewers a way to see something they had been looking at their whole lives—movie posters, publicity stills, magazine covers—as constructed images rather than natural ones. Sherman had not discovered a hidden truth; she had made the construction visible.
She was asking who gets to make images of women
Before Sherman's work became well known, most photographs of women in public circulation were made by men. Fashion photographers were mostly men. Film directors were mostly men. Magazine editors who chose which images to publish were mostly men. The images themselves reflected choices about how women should appear, how they should pose, what they should wear.
By taking the camera into her own hands and creating these images herself, Sherman was claiming the power to represent herself. She was also asking a question: if a woman makes an image of a woman, does it mean something different than when a man does? Her answer, shown through the work itself, was yes—it creates the possibility of critique, of stepping outside the image to examine it, rather than straightforward inhabiting it.
This was a significant shift in photography at the time. Sherman's work helped establish that photography could be a tool for questioning how images work, not just a tool for creating beautiful or accurate pictures.
Her later work became darker and more unsettling
As Sherman continued, her photographs became less about mimicking glamorous images and more about exploring disgust, decay, and the body. She used prosthetics, fake blood, and grotesque makeup. She photographed herself in scenarios that were deliberately ugly or disturbing—vomiting, covered in slime, disfigured.
These images still served the same purpose as her earlier work: to question how we see and judge bodies, especially female bodies. But now she was asking harder questions. If a woman's value in images depends on her appearance, what happens when that appearance is made repulsive? What does it feel like to see a female body that refuses to be beautiful or acceptable? Sherman was using shock and disgust as tools to make viewers uncomfortable with their own assumptions about what female bodies should look like and how they should behave.
Sherman showed that photographs are never neutral
One of Sherman's lasting contributions was demonstrating that no photograph is straightforward a record of what was in front of the camera. Every photograph involves choices: where to stand, what to include in the frame, how to light the subject, when to press the shutter. These choices shape what the photograph means and how viewers respond to it.
By making herself the subject and controlling all these choices visibly, Sherman made this truth impossible to ignore. She was not trying to hide her method or make the image look natural. Instead, she wanted viewers to see the construction—to notice the makeup, the costume, the artificial lighting—and to think about what that construction was doing.
This insight applies to all photography, not just Sherman's work. It means that when you see a photograph in a magazine or online, you are looking at a made object, not a transparent view of reality. Someone decided what to include and what to leave out. Someone decided how to light it. Someone decided whether to alter it. Understanding this is part of understanding how images shape the way we think.
Her work influenced how photographers and artists think about identity
Sherman's approach opened a path for other artists to use photography as a tool for questioning identity, representation, and power. After her work became known, many photographers began exploring similar ideas: How do images construct identity? Who has the power to make images? What happens when people take control of their own representation?
Her influence extended beyond fine art photography into fashion, advertising, and film. Photographers and directors began more consciously playing with the codes and conventions of image-making, sometimes to critique them and sometimes straightforward to acknowledge that they were making choices. The idea that a photograph could be a statement about photography itself, rather than just a picture of something, became more widely accepted.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did Sherman always photograph herself instead of using other models?
By being both the photographer and the subject, Sherman maintained complete control over the image. This allowed her to make visible the gap between the character she was playing and her actual self—the point was not to fool viewers into thinking she was someone else, but to show how easily identity can be constructed through costume, makeup, and pose. Using herself was essential to the critique.
Are Sherman's photographs feminist?
Sherman's work engages with feminist ideas about representation and power, particularly around who gets to make images of women and what those images communicate. However, Sherman herself has been cautious about labeling her work as explicitly feminist. What is clear is that her photographs ask critical questions about how female identity and the female body are represented in visual culture.
What is the difference between Sherman's work and just dressing up for a photo?
The difference lies in the purpose and the awareness. Sherman's photographs are designed to make viewers think about how images work and what they communicate. She is not trying to create a beautiful portrait or document a moment; she is using photography as a medium for ideas. The costume and pose are tools for that exploration, not the point in themselves.
Did Sherman's photographs change how people look at images?
Sherman's work contributed to a broader shift in how photographers, artists, and viewers think about images. Her demonstration that photographs are constructed rather than natural helped establish photography as a medium for critique and questioning, not just documentation. This has influenced how images are made and interpreted across many fields.