Drawing Restraint 9 (Matthew Barney, 2005)
-
Gregory
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:07 pm
Sorry, I meant overlap in what things are designated by the terms. In response to your claim that Barney's works aren't cinema but visual art, I was hoping to see what your definition of cinema stipulated. I see an overlap in the fact that some filmmakers have worked in other media as well and their films can be considered part of their larger body of work as visual artists. But perhaps more importantly there is overlap having to do with the basic creative features of the media. For me to claim that all cinema is visual art would be tricky, because we would have to agree on a definition or art, which is difficult. Anyway, you could end with an argument like this: Cinema is a type of visual art. Box-office hit Norbit is cinema. Therefore, Norbit is visual art. Anyway, my hope wasn't to answer big questions but to think about whether Barney should be considered a filmmaker (regardless of what he considers himself) and in any case what criteria should be used to assess his work.
-
toiletduck!
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:43 pm
- Location: The 'Go
- Contact:
Yeah, I tend to gravitate towards the big questions... sorry 'bout that.
I don't know that I can say that we should define Barney "regardless of what he considers himself." Doesn't intent hold some, if not a good deal, of weight in the artistic process? But then, to completely undermine my point, I don't tend to pay attention to interviews with artists (at least not in regards to their own work), so I can't honestly say that I have any idea, or am particularly interested to find out, how exactly Barney would classify himself. But when you boil it all down, I'm approaching the topic as I do any work of art: with vicious subjectivity. As long-winded as I may get about the subject, come the end of the day, Rosenbaum doesn't enjoy Barney because Barney's work doesn't meet the standards of quality inherent in the rubric of cinema he's using, and I enjoy Barney to an extent because at times his work quite nicely fills out the rubric of conceptualism (or what have you) that I'm using.
This sort of free-for-all criticism does creates problems in widespread assessment. How can we (collectively) judge anything if we aren't judging it in the same terms? By having a firm understanding of our own terms before making these sort of critical claims, which is something I falter at as much as the next guy. However, if we are able to, either immediately, or through time and discussion (as is the case here) distinctly define and convey the veil through which we view a work of art, we can break through these sort of walls while still maintaining an opinion as specific as the one we started with. Sure, I'm never going to convince Tommaso that the work of Barney or Nauman or Viola is not cinematic in nature, just as he won't convince me that they are. But that's not really the point either. The simple act of putting forth an effort to understand what an artwork looks like from a second point of view is enough to not only appreciate that viewpoint and the marvels of interpretation in general, it's also useful in helping to solidify (or on occasion subvert) one's own viewpoint.
But throwing aside that hippie love bullshit and giving MY opinion, I think one of the main reasons for this trouble through definition is the increasing specialization taking place in art. We live in a society that loves things to be cut and dry. Everything fits in some category, and if we come across something that doesn't, we make a new category so that it does. There's very little interest in the nebulous anymore, and it's having an effect on the way artists work. I'm curious to see how someone like Cocteau or Man Ray or even Warhol would be viewed in modern society, where everything has its place and every artist has his medium. Actually I'm more curious to see how a group like the Surrealists would fare today, both as a well-publicized artistic collective and one whose common thread is not one of product or style (well, not ideally speaking, anyway), but in theory.
Of course, all of this is a way of me wandering back to the big questions and avoiding your very specific one. Why do I considered Barney a visual artist? It really has nothing to do with a concrete guideline I have set between cinema and visual art. His work consistently appears to me to be less concerned with cinematic elements than with the Idea and it's portrayal. It's thanks to this focus on the Idea that I even hesitate to call Barney strictly a visual artist, instead preferring that gray area I keep alluding to. It really does come down to artist intent for me.
How then can I judge this work based on the artist's intent without actually knowing the artist's intent? Very hypocritically. Which is only a half-joke -- while I back the idea of the artist's intent, I also purport that any artist who feels that they have any control over an audience's interpretation of their work is a fool. So I take the interpretations and gut reactions that I get from a work and mix that with whatever prior knowledge or experience I may have with the artist or the subject or the style and meld it all together in what I assume is what the artist was trying to convey. It's not about getting the right answer (and I much prefer when they don't provide an answer key) as it is finding something that seems inherent and connects with me. And no matter who, in the grand scheme of things, is closest to what the artist actually intended, that's what I would expect from any other viewer. We're all (well, anyone participating in threads such as this one) intelligent enough to be able to provide support for our viewpoint while simultaneously entertaining the idea of a polar opposite.
Moral of the story? I can't keep my fucking mouth shut; everything reverts to the big questions. Sorry, that's just where my interests lie -- I hope I at least somewhat gave you what you were looking for, Gregory.
-Toilet Dcuk
I don't know that I can say that we should define Barney "regardless of what he considers himself." Doesn't intent hold some, if not a good deal, of weight in the artistic process? But then, to completely undermine my point, I don't tend to pay attention to interviews with artists (at least not in regards to their own work), so I can't honestly say that I have any idea, or am particularly interested to find out, how exactly Barney would classify himself. But when you boil it all down, I'm approaching the topic as I do any work of art: with vicious subjectivity. As long-winded as I may get about the subject, come the end of the day, Rosenbaum doesn't enjoy Barney because Barney's work doesn't meet the standards of quality inherent in the rubric of cinema he's using, and I enjoy Barney to an extent because at times his work quite nicely fills out the rubric of conceptualism (or what have you) that I'm using.
This sort of free-for-all criticism does creates problems in widespread assessment. How can we (collectively) judge anything if we aren't judging it in the same terms? By having a firm understanding of our own terms before making these sort of critical claims, which is something I falter at as much as the next guy. However, if we are able to, either immediately, or through time and discussion (as is the case here) distinctly define and convey the veil through which we view a work of art, we can break through these sort of walls while still maintaining an opinion as specific as the one we started with. Sure, I'm never going to convince Tommaso that the work of Barney or Nauman or Viola is not cinematic in nature, just as he won't convince me that they are. But that's not really the point either. The simple act of putting forth an effort to understand what an artwork looks like from a second point of view is enough to not only appreciate that viewpoint and the marvels of interpretation in general, it's also useful in helping to solidify (or on occasion subvert) one's own viewpoint.
But throwing aside that hippie love bullshit and giving MY opinion, I think one of the main reasons for this trouble through definition is the increasing specialization taking place in art. We live in a society that loves things to be cut and dry. Everything fits in some category, and if we come across something that doesn't, we make a new category so that it does. There's very little interest in the nebulous anymore, and it's having an effect on the way artists work. I'm curious to see how someone like Cocteau or Man Ray or even Warhol would be viewed in modern society, where everything has its place and every artist has his medium. Actually I'm more curious to see how a group like the Surrealists would fare today, both as a well-publicized artistic collective and one whose common thread is not one of product or style (well, not ideally speaking, anyway), but in theory.
Of course, all of this is a way of me wandering back to the big questions and avoiding your very specific one. Why do I considered Barney a visual artist? It really has nothing to do with a concrete guideline I have set between cinema and visual art. His work consistently appears to me to be less concerned with cinematic elements than with the Idea and it's portrayal. It's thanks to this focus on the Idea that I even hesitate to call Barney strictly a visual artist, instead preferring that gray area I keep alluding to. It really does come down to artist intent for me.
How then can I judge this work based on the artist's intent without actually knowing the artist's intent? Very hypocritically. Which is only a half-joke -- while I back the idea of the artist's intent, I also purport that any artist who feels that they have any control over an audience's interpretation of their work is a fool. So I take the interpretations and gut reactions that I get from a work and mix that with whatever prior knowledge or experience I may have with the artist or the subject or the style and meld it all together in what I assume is what the artist was trying to convey. It's not about getting the right answer (and I much prefer when they don't provide an answer key) as it is finding something that seems inherent and connects with me. And no matter who, in the grand scheme of things, is closest to what the artist actually intended, that's what I would expect from any other viewer. We're all (well, anyone participating in threads such as this one) intelligent enough to be able to provide support for our viewpoint while simultaneously entertaining the idea of a polar opposite.
Moral of the story? I can't keep my fucking mouth shut; everything reverts to the big questions. Sorry, that's just where my interests lie -- I hope I at least somewhat gave you what you were looking for, Gregory.
-Toilet Dcuk
-
Tommaso
- Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 2:09 pm
Which is completely legitimate in my view. To put it very bluntly: either you like it or not. If it comes to a kind of 'public appreciation' of an artist, that is if you write an article or review, I would however always demand that the point-of-view of the artist is taken into consideration, and that at least to a degree the writer tries to abstract from his or her personal appreciation and considers whether the artist has achieved what he intended to. Thus we can say, for example, that Aronofsky didn't succeed in conveying the message of "The Fountain" for the specific reasons of employing visual imagery that is unoriginal or too simplistic for what he intended (spirituality, that is). On the other hand, even if you find the music of Stockhausen or Cage awful, you're entitled to do so, but it is obvious that there is a unity of initial thought and the subsequent realisation in the works produced, and the simple fact that it doesn't live up to what you would normally consider as 'music' isn't important.toiletduck! wrote:Doesn't intent hold some, if not a good deal, of weight in the artistic process? But then, to completely undermine my point, I don't tend to pay attention to interviews with artists (at least not in regards to their own work), so I can't honestly say that I have any idea, or am particularly interested to find out, how exactly Barney would classify himself. But when you boil it all down, I'm approaching the topic as I do any work of art: with vicious subjectivity.
Is that really so? Perhaps it's just my very insular perception, but I had the feeling that we are still in a period of unity of arts again, or rather we were until perhaps recently. Think of directors like Greenaway (whose works encompass almost anything from writing, painting, film, theatre etc.), Zhang Yimou (film+opera/ballet), not to speak of all the many directors who were/are also painters or illustrators (Jodorowsky, Jarman, etc.). The above mentioned composers are also good examples in a different way . Cage, btw, made a full length film called "One11 and 103", which consists solely of 'organized' light, and although it defies anything we were remotely used to see in the cinema, I find it incredibly cinematic. In a way, all these artists are/were 'mavericks', though, perhaps in a similar way that the surrealists were in their time, and meet with disregard from many critics, but I'm sure that history will prove that these films or artworks will have a more lasting standing than anything that is given an award now at one of those film festivals.toiletduck! wrote: We live in a society that loves things to be cut and dry. Everything fits in some category, and if we come across something that doesn't, we make a new category so that it does. There's very little interest in the nebulous anymore, and it's having an effect on the way artists work. I'm curious to see how someone like Cocteau or Man Ray or even Warhol would be viewed in modern society, where everything has its place and every artist has his medium.
There are very few of such groups today. One could think of the Danish 'dogma' group, but they are exclusively interested in film (please correct me if they do other things as well). One group that comes into my mind, however, is the Slovenian art collective "Neue Slowenische Kunst" (NSK) - writers, painters, filmmakers, theatre people, etc. - whose musical arm, Laibach, are well known (and misunderstood ) as simply only a sort of provocative music group. But they have repeatedly said that their work must be considered inside the tenets of the whole collective, and of course in a very post-modernist the NSK makes fun of those earlier artist groups like the Surrealists and Futurists, but they still manage to challenge our conceptions of art and society in an often successful way (for me, at least).toiletduck! wrote: Actually I'm more curious to see how a group like the Surrealists would fare today, both as a well-publicized artistic collective and one whose common thread is not one of product or style (well, not ideally speaking, anyway), but in theory.
So, I wandered far astray from topic, but I guess by trying to point out those examples I wanted to say that there are still attempts at crossing the boundaries of specific arts today, and all these artists are perhaps not appreciated by the 'masses' or even the 'art critics', but they manage to exert an influence on a minority group of the audience (often people who are engaged with the arts personally).
You mention Cocteau, and indeed he is perhaps the only cross-boundary artist I can think of who really managed to attract a wide audience. But still his critical perception was very wavering. He was almost completely rejected in the 60s and 70s, had a brief re-appreciation in the 80s, and is now also considered passé again. And even if there are still many people who love "La belle et la bete" or "Orphée", I assume only a few of them have read some of his essays and gotten to know his thoughts on art in general. But that wasn't different in his own time. And it's legitimate in a way, if you can enjoy the films nevertheless. I know nothing about Barney, but still I loved "DR9" and it engaged my thinking, though perhaps not in the way Barney intended. But if you dislike a work of art, it would be indeed a good idea if you asked yourself why and if you missed something. Thus I'm still grateful for your thoughts on Viola, although I still don't enjoy his work very much.
-
Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
I just got back this evening from a free screening of Drawing Restraint 9 here in Montreal organized by the DHC/ART Foundation for Contemporary Art. This is the first time and only time the film has played in Montreal and I have no idea when it will be back. Because of the rarity of the appearance, press and of course the fact that it has Bjork in it, I planned to arrive early to make sure I got in. Arriving forty minutes before doors were opened, the lineup was already nearly three blocks long. Luckily, the theater was large and I got in and secured a fine seat in the balcony in the middle. Though there a few walkouts, I was surprised at how patient the audience was considering the fact that most probably were there just for Bjork.
The film itself is something I need to digest more, but it's something I can easily say impressed me immensely. This is my first foray in Barney's work, having read more about him than actually engaged in his art. As a filmmaker his talents are excellent. Erotic, subtlely funny, methodically paced and at times obsessively and rigidly composed, Drawing Restraint 9 does wonders with just a visual palette. With nearly no dialogue, Barney's abililty to edit scenes and pull the viewer through this journey - this ritual - is amazing. The opening scenes through the title sequence are phenomenal.
But what it all means, I'm not sure. I know the film has much to do with rituals, tradition versus evolution and sexuality but sadly, without the context of the other Drawing Restraint sections, my reading of Drawing Restraint 9 can only go so far. I also questioned whether his duplication of Japanese tea and other rituals were slavish to the point of naive fetishism. I would love to hear feedback especially from those who have seen the entire Drawing Restraint exhibit on what their feelings are about Barney's engagement with Eastern religions, specifically what he is trying to extract from them.
Finally, since Barney is unable to release his films on DVD, he creates an interesting contradiction in that his films as far as the physical elements go, can only last so long. The print I saw was not an IFC print, but something noticeably older. While it was largely okay, there was definitely brief portions where damage from being projected over and over were plainly evident.
Regardless, this has been a positive first step into Barney's ouevre and I look forward to seeing more of his works (when the opportunities make themselves available).
The film itself is something I need to digest more, but it's something I can easily say impressed me immensely. This is my first foray in Barney's work, having read more about him than actually engaged in his art. As a filmmaker his talents are excellent. Erotic, subtlely funny, methodically paced and at times obsessively and rigidly composed, Drawing Restraint 9 does wonders with just a visual palette. With nearly no dialogue, Barney's abililty to edit scenes and pull the viewer through this journey - this ritual - is amazing. The opening scenes through the title sequence are phenomenal.
But what it all means, I'm not sure. I know the film has much to do with rituals, tradition versus evolution and sexuality but sadly, without the context of the other Drawing Restraint sections, my reading of Drawing Restraint 9 can only go so far. I also questioned whether his duplication of Japanese tea and other rituals were slavish to the point of naive fetishism. I would love to hear feedback especially from those who have seen the entire Drawing Restraint exhibit on what their feelings are about Barney's engagement with Eastern religions, specifically what he is trying to extract from them.
Finally, since Barney is unable to release his films on DVD, he creates an interesting contradiction in that his films as far as the physical elements go, can only last so long. The print I saw was not an IFC print, but something noticeably older. While it was largely okay, there was definitely brief portions where damage from being projected over and over were plainly evident.
Regardless, this has been a positive first step into Barney's ouevre and I look forward to seeing more of his works (when the opportunities make themselves available).
-
marty
Antoine, I was lucky to see Drawing Restraint 9 last year when it first played here in Melbourne, Australia. Two years earlier, I saw his seminal work, The Cremaster Cycle, all 7 hours of it in one day. It definitely helps to see this before DR9. For me, The Cremaster Cycle was a more richly rewarding experience because I saw it as a whole piece of work rather than one part of a cycle. It was complete. It is one of the great works of our time so I strongly suggest you check out the entire Cremaster Cycle (made up of 5 Cremaster films running for a total of around 7 hrs).
-
Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
-
In Heaven
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 11:01 pm
I know it's not the same, but it's not too difficult to find it available online...Antoine Doinel wrote:The Cremaster Cycle was here about a year ago, but I missed it as the scheduling was mostly during work days and it apparently sold out very quickly. I guess I'll have to wait for it to tour again....
-
toiletduck!
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:43 pm
- Location: The 'Go
- Contact:
I plan on replying in greater depth with some of my own interpretation eventually, Antoine, but I want to be sure I've got proper time to sort everything out in my own head as I write it. Plus, there's a full Barney retro going on in Chicago right now and I'd like to see it again first. I can tell you right now, though, that resistance (or restraint) is a huge theme in Barney's work, and especially in the DR cycle. In fact, the crossbar on the field symbol prevalent in his work stands for resistance against the human body, soul, mind, etc.
While his themes and style frequently fail to amaze me (as much as this thread would appear to the contrary), the more I encounter Barney's work, the more excited I get about the fact that he is creating art that places new rules upon cinema -- or art in which cinema plays by new rules. And I like change.
-Toilet Dcuk
Now this is the part that really interests me. I wonder just how many prints of DR9 were created. I saw it very early during the original limited release, so my print was fine, but the fact that he is allowing these to fall apart on their own devices without putting any effort into mass preservation is very exciting and, I believe, goes against any claims to Barney as full on bottom line money whore. It was something I tried to briefly touch on a page or two ago, but it would appear that Barney, whether intentionally or not, is playing the form by strict standard artistic rules rather than the commercialism inherent in all cinema, art or not. If there truly are this set amount of prints for all time to come, the film has managed to become somewhat successful as a (quite limited) theatrical release and also something that is very temporal (or as temporal as materials can get in this day and age).Antoine Doinel wrote:Finally, since Barney is unable to release his films on DVD, he creates an interesting contradiction in that his films as far as the physical elements go, can only last so long. The print I saw was not an IFC print, but something noticeably older. While it was largely okay, there was definitely brief portions where damage from being projected over and over were plainly evident.
While his themes and style frequently fail to amaze me (as much as this thread would appear to the contrary), the more I encounter Barney's work, the more excited I get about the fact that he is creating art that places new rules upon cinema -- or art in which cinema plays by new rules. And I like change.
-Toilet Dcuk
-
Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
Interesting theory TD!, but I think you might too limiting in equating preservation with commercialism. Certainly, Barney is very concerned with the presentation of his works. I was poking around today and I found out that the Cremaster Cycle films were officially released on DVD -- but in an extremely limited edition of 10 of each film, each signed by Barney and housed in unique sculptures. They are apparently worth hundreds of thousands of dollars at auction. At least in the example of the Cremaster Cycle, it creates a system wherein the films can only be owned by wealthy persons and everyone else either has to buy bootleg versions or hope the exhibit reaches where they live at some point. However, it also opens the question of whether an artist has to make his work available or affordable for everyone. It's certainly an interesting debate.toiletduck! wrote:Now this is the part that really interests me. I wonder just how many prints of DR9 were created. I saw it very early during the original limited release, so my print was fine, but the fact that he is allowing these to fall apart on their own devices without putting any effort into mass preservation is very exciting and, I believe, goes against any claims to Barney as full on bottom line money whore. It was something I tried to briefly touch on a page or two ago, but it would appear that Barney, whether intentionally or not, is playing the form by strict standard artistic rules rather than the commercialism inherent in all cinema, art or not. If there truly are this set amount of prints for all time to come, the film has managed to become somewhat successful as a (quite limited) theatrical release and also something that is very temporal (or as temporal as materials can get in this day and age).
As for his refusal (?) to preserve the films I can see how it would fit his overall artistic scope, but I still feel he can accomplish those goals without allowing the films to fall apart. Drawing Restraint 9 certainly engages a strange duality -- embracing a worldwide star in a lead role, a decent marketing campaign (as far as art films go), releasing a soundtrack album, but then making one's ability to see the film somewhat difficult. Another interesting contradiction is the Palm Pictures release of The Order - a thirty minute section from the Cremaster Cycle 3. Again, for someone greatly concerned with presentation and interpretation it's an odd contradiction of his own terms to have that one portion of a seven hour film widely available, and out of context. And if he is letting his films age naturally without proper storage or preservation it creates an interesting situation where I feel he's treading a fine line between being a Luddite or simply (if frustratingly) brilliant.
All said though, I haven't really spoken in this much detail or been as immediately engaged and interested about a modern artist in quite some time. Like you, I'm not even sure what I think yet about his work - even at a conceptual level - but it's refreshing to see someone whose vision is so uniquely indentifiable and their own.
-
toiletduck!
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:43 pm
- Location: The 'Go
- Contact:
Oh, I'm certain I'm not speaking nearly as well informed -- or clearly -- as I should be. My last post went straight from brain to webbernets (always a smashing idea), but you bring up very good points (I especially am curious as to the extent of Barney's participation/opinions towards The Order DVD) and I hope to be able to sit down sometime this weekend (maybe next week, I won't be able to review DR9 and parts of Cremaster until then) and actually formulate something coherent.
Cheers 'til then!
-Toilet Dcuk
Cheers 'til then!
-Toilet Dcuk
-
toiletduck!
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:43 pm
- Location: The 'Go
- Contact:
I'm just going to start typing and see where this ends up.
I saw Cremaster 3 last night, but unfortunately will not be able to catch DR9 at the retro, so that will have to be from memory. Now having been lucky enough to have caught the entire Cremaster Cycle, all of Drawing Restraint at the SFMoMA and very brief snippets of the recent doc Matthew Barney: No Restraint, also at the DR exhibit, I am just going to launch into my random (unresearched) thoughts towards the Cremaster Cycle and hope that it segues into Drawing Restraint and the thematic arc to Barney's oeuvre.
I'm not going to even pretend to approach any of the work from a narrative perspective, as even if there is a story in Barney's mind, it would appear to be solely for his acknowledgement (as would, I would assert, his output as a whole), and that an outsider is best served by letting the images and their subconscious effect wash over.
Much has been made of The Cremaster Cycle and its connections to sexuality and the development of such (as signified by the title itself), but I find that the structural conceits and the five film process seem to be the greatest push towards that, with some definite imagery along the way, but also that a majority of these films seem to be Barney just working some internal shit out. The strongest theme in C3, the freshest on my mind, seems to be a clash of identity in Barney which upon further reflection carries through much of the Cycle. Barney is located at a mental crux of three very contrasting anthropological sects which he continually refers to in his work: traditional Celtic, true blue American, and conceptual artist -- a position that instantly implies misfit in every societal setting, right down to even the contemporary art world.
Celtic: Barney's Celtic ancestry is obviously at the forefront of his mind and I would assume was a cornerstone of his family life as a youth. It's interesting to me that while Barney is often creating himself into characters of a Celtic styling (the satyr in C4, the entered apprentice in C3, another satyr-like figure in DR7), these characters are in particular states of distress. While much of Barney's imagery could be termed disturbing or uncomfortable, it is generally done in such a clinical way that it becomes a ritual rather than a state of transgression. Yet, much of the Celtic imagery, especially that in which Barney is involved, becomes frightening not because of the surroundings but because of the character's display of weakness and uncertainty, particularly the entered apprentice and his bout with the cheetah/woman in the Guggenheim. This idea carries over into non-Barney characters as well, particularly the Finn McCool tale bookending C3 in which we have a genuine direct human conflict between two characters (despite their not being human), and especially, in what is the most glaring and inexplicably touching (to me) example, the bartender in the Cloud Club in C3. Barney is obviously enamored with the traditional Celtic side with which he was raised, but he presents it through a filter of confusion and, at times, foolishness. There is a definite charm to the Cloud Club bartender and his continuing obssession with the order of things, but when an unfamiliar presence enters (who just so happens to be played by Barney) and disrupts the order, chaos ensues, at once humorous thanks to the Celtic representation's slavish dedication to tradition even in the face of trouble, but also touchingly sad. Barney seems to have a farther disconnect to his Celtic roots than any other image with which he identifies himself and while this is likely a cause for his intense fascination, it also appears to be a crevice that he is regretfully aware of yet unable to span despite his best efforts.
American: Barney as a red-blooded American, on the other hand, seems to be a self-image with which he is extremely familiar and yet creates a strong pair of opposing opinions within. Barney has very many aspects of the All-American boy: a very strong athlete, he played football in Idaho throughout his youth, moved to NYC (the yin to rural America's yang) and eventually entered Yale to study medicine. At many points in his life and in many different ways, Barney has been the postcard of Americana, which I believe fuels the sense of nostalgia in his work -- leading to his use of the Chrysler Building, classic cars, Busby Berkeley dance lines, the Goodyear Blimp, rodeo and cowboy imagery, and to a certain extent, Harry Houdini. Yet the way Barney works with his classic American themes seems quite laissez-faire in a subversive sort of manner. Taking very iconic imagery, he allows it to be itself, to embody the icon it has become. But doing so in the midst of such unfamiliar, unsettled surroundings takes the image out of the comfort level we have allowed ourself to be lulled into. C1 is a perfect example of this -- two Goodyear blimps float above a massive Berkeley array on the blue turf at Boise State (which to a football player or fan definitely sits at a certain iconic level). All of these pieces are allowed to live and breath as their own beings, their real life counterparts (and, to think about it, it's a situation the realization of which is not outlandish in the least). Yet the combination of Barney's haunted, lingering cinematography and the pseudotheistic occurences in the blimp along with the trademark Barney sterility turn a reasonable, albeit not everyday, situation into something entirely alien. Which is very much how I think Barney views this aspect -- the greater society finds it commonplace, yet one long hard stare later and a new, frightening topography comes to surface. A frightening topography which is still nonetheless an essential part of Barney's history and thus his current being. And how does one come to terms with that?
Conceptual Artist: I was originally going to attempt to tie the sterile, synthetic elements into this section, but I believe they are not necessarily, and at least not deeply, connected. Rather I find the entire work, Barney's openness to these images pouring from his brain in what I consider the modern equivalent of the bridging between the French Symbolists and the Surrealists, to be representative of his adult persona. Surrealism is the paradox of the most basic, automatic creative urges being the most difficult to tap into, and Barney has flung himself long off that edge. Artistically, he is recreating his own humanity by distilling the building blocks that have resulted in the person he now is and throwing them back together in new, uncertain recipes.
I really need to get back to work now, but I hope to return tomorrow to finish (?) what I started, with some discussion on (and this is more for my remembrance's sake) the use of antiseptic, sterile imagery; synthetic materials; resistance, restraint, and ritual; a new, worldly addition to Barney's personal discoveries in DR; the field symbol; sexuality; and maybe some other stuff.
I hope this wasn't too sleep-inducing!
-Toilet Dcuk
I saw Cremaster 3 last night, but unfortunately will not be able to catch DR9 at the retro, so that will have to be from memory. Now having been lucky enough to have caught the entire Cremaster Cycle, all of Drawing Restraint at the SFMoMA and very brief snippets of the recent doc Matthew Barney: No Restraint, also at the DR exhibit, I am just going to launch into my random (unresearched) thoughts towards the Cremaster Cycle and hope that it segues into Drawing Restraint and the thematic arc to Barney's oeuvre.
I'm not going to even pretend to approach any of the work from a narrative perspective, as even if there is a story in Barney's mind, it would appear to be solely for his acknowledgement (as would, I would assert, his output as a whole), and that an outsider is best served by letting the images and their subconscious effect wash over.
Much has been made of The Cremaster Cycle and its connections to sexuality and the development of such (as signified by the title itself), but I find that the structural conceits and the five film process seem to be the greatest push towards that, with some definite imagery along the way, but also that a majority of these films seem to be Barney just working some internal shit out. The strongest theme in C3, the freshest on my mind, seems to be a clash of identity in Barney which upon further reflection carries through much of the Cycle. Barney is located at a mental crux of three very contrasting anthropological sects which he continually refers to in his work: traditional Celtic, true blue American, and conceptual artist -- a position that instantly implies misfit in every societal setting, right down to even the contemporary art world.
Celtic: Barney's Celtic ancestry is obviously at the forefront of his mind and I would assume was a cornerstone of his family life as a youth. It's interesting to me that while Barney is often creating himself into characters of a Celtic styling (the satyr in C4, the entered apprentice in C3, another satyr-like figure in DR7), these characters are in particular states of distress. While much of Barney's imagery could be termed disturbing or uncomfortable, it is generally done in such a clinical way that it becomes a ritual rather than a state of transgression. Yet, much of the Celtic imagery, especially that in which Barney is involved, becomes frightening not because of the surroundings but because of the character's display of weakness and uncertainty, particularly the entered apprentice and his bout with the cheetah/woman in the Guggenheim. This idea carries over into non-Barney characters as well, particularly the Finn McCool tale bookending C3 in which we have a genuine direct human conflict between two characters (despite their not being human), and especially, in what is the most glaring and inexplicably touching (to me) example, the bartender in the Cloud Club in C3. Barney is obviously enamored with the traditional Celtic side with which he was raised, but he presents it through a filter of confusion and, at times, foolishness. There is a definite charm to the Cloud Club bartender and his continuing obssession with the order of things, but when an unfamiliar presence enters (who just so happens to be played by Barney) and disrupts the order, chaos ensues, at once humorous thanks to the Celtic representation's slavish dedication to tradition even in the face of trouble, but also touchingly sad. Barney seems to have a farther disconnect to his Celtic roots than any other image with which he identifies himself and while this is likely a cause for his intense fascination, it also appears to be a crevice that he is regretfully aware of yet unable to span despite his best efforts.
American: Barney as a red-blooded American, on the other hand, seems to be a self-image with which he is extremely familiar and yet creates a strong pair of opposing opinions within. Barney has very many aspects of the All-American boy: a very strong athlete, he played football in Idaho throughout his youth, moved to NYC (the yin to rural America's yang) and eventually entered Yale to study medicine. At many points in his life and in many different ways, Barney has been the postcard of Americana, which I believe fuels the sense of nostalgia in his work -- leading to his use of the Chrysler Building, classic cars, Busby Berkeley dance lines, the Goodyear Blimp, rodeo and cowboy imagery, and to a certain extent, Harry Houdini. Yet the way Barney works with his classic American themes seems quite laissez-faire in a subversive sort of manner. Taking very iconic imagery, he allows it to be itself, to embody the icon it has become. But doing so in the midst of such unfamiliar, unsettled surroundings takes the image out of the comfort level we have allowed ourself to be lulled into. C1 is a perfect example of this -- two Goodyear blimps float above a massive Berkeley array on the blue turf at Boise State (which to a football player or fan definitely sits at a certain iconic level). All of these pieces are allowed to live and breath as their own beings, their real life counterparts (and, to think about it, it's a situation the realization of which is not outlandish in the least). Yet the combination of Barney's haunted, lingering cinematography and the pseudotheistic occurences in the blimp along with the trademark Barney sterility turn a reasonable, albeit not everyday, situation into something entirely alien. Which is very much how I think Barney views this aspect -- the greater society finds it commonplace, yet one long hard stare later and a new, frightening topography comes to surface. A frightening topography which is still nonetheless an essential part of Barney's history and thus his current being. And how does one come to terms with that?
Conceptual Artist: I was originally going to attempt to tie the sterile, synthetic elements into this section, but I believe they are not necessarily, and at least not deeply, connected. Rather I find the entire work, Barney's openness to these images pouring from his brain in what I consider the modern equivalent of the bridging between the French Symbolists and the Surrealists, to be representative of his adult persona. Surrealism is the paradox of the most basic, automatic creative urges being the most difficult to tap into, and Barney has flung himself long off that edge. Artistically, he is recreating his own humanity by distilling the building blocks that have resulted in the person he now is and throwing them back together in new, uncertain recipes.
I really need to get back to work now, but I hope to return tomorrow to finish (?) what I started, with some discussion on (and this is more for my remembrance's sake) the use of antiseptic, sterile imagery; synthetic materials; resistance, restraint, and ritual; a new, worldly addition to Barney's personal discoveries in DR; the field symbol; sexuality; and maybe some other stuff.
I hope this wasn't too sleep-inducing!
-Toilet Dcuk
-
toiletduck!
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:43 pm
- Location: The 'Go
- Contact:
Realizing I in no way touched on the topics that Antoine brought up, a brief discursive post on Barney's use of ritual:
As I briefly mentioned earlier, resistance is a huge factor in all of Barney's work, represented by the crossbar in his ubiquitous Field symbol. In particular (and I draw this from supplementary materials at the Drawing Restraint exhibit and pieces of the Barney doc), Barney's interest in restraint stems from his athletic training, in which resistance training is commonly used to build strength. This spurs the paradox that one can become greater through limitation, which I believe is the crux of Barney's extensive use of restraint. It's visible throughout the Cremaster Cycle, especially in Barney's characters. Every (or very near to) character that Barney embodies goes through some sort of rigorous physical process -- usually an extended act of climbing (the mason & entered apprentice in C3, the satyr in C4, the diva(?) in C5). Barney the artist appears to be locked in a struggle for progression and self-improvement without an end in sight and Barney the athlete deals with that struggle the only way he knows how: draining himself in order to create a greater void to be refilled.
Drawing Restraint actually revolves around this idea -- creation through limitation. DR 1 through 6 were all temporal works that now only exist through video and other artifacts in which Barney, alone, created drawings while fighting against physical restraint: bungee cords, weights, out of reach canvases, etc. The beginning of this project (which if I remember correctly began not long after the Cremaster Cycle began and ran parallel to it) was very much Barney attempting to acheive artistic progess through athletic training methods, which he was quite familiar with. Very interesting work, but only as a concept, not a final product. DR 7 is a video work which, to be honest, did very little for me and also seemed to be a bleeding together of Drawing Restraint and the Cremaster Cycle. DR 8, on the other hand, is a collection of drawings and statuary that led into the creation of DR 9, in which I am coming to find that I believe Barney was able to start to make connections between resistance training and the artistic process, but only through a reversal in his thinking.
The early DRs and the Cycle focus a lot on physical restraint as a matter of pushing oneself as far (or hard) as one can. With DR 9 (and even some of the later Cremasters), Barney starts to revel in the opposite: restraint as a matter of less over more. The numerous rituals (the tea ceremony, wardrobe ceremony, early construction, wrapping ceremony, etc., etc.) in DR 9 (as well as its laborious pace -- a glacial build vs. Cremaster's steady clinical pulse) are simply a different form of restraint, a focus on precision rather than power. Barney has found that to reconcile his athletic training with his artistic process he is able to use the same theories, but the techniques must change. In essence, the focus must be honed down to each individual detail in a methodic, somewhat meditative state of attentiveness in order to further appreciate, and be aware of, the creative process as a whole, as well as the intricacies therein and thereafter. In an even greater achievement, DR 10-14 further combined this intense singular focus with the early physical struggle. These final pieces are site-specific works which Barney created against resistance, very similar to DR 1-6. However, in these later works Barney is no longer simply pushing against an opposing force to gain acheivement. This final works are of a more meticulous, though equally draining physically, nature. For example, DR 14, at the SFMoMA is a wall drawing created while Barney was hanging suspended from a third story walkway. Another, DR 13 in Japan I believe, is an elevated drawing which Barney could only reach and in turn create through the repeated use of a trampoline. Both works combine the physicality of the resistance in DR 1-6 and the mental (and to an extent physical) focus in DR 9.
In regards to the Eastern setting and interests, I believe that ties very much into the identity discussion of my last post, but that is something I would like to try do a little research on before I throw it up here. (Maybe in a few days?)
-Toilet Dcuk
As I briefly mentioned earlier, resistance is a huge factor in all of Barney's work, represented by the crossbar in his ubiquitous Field symbol. In particular (and I draw this from supplementary materials at the Drawing Restraint exhibit and pieces of the Barney doc), Barney's interest in restraint stems from his athletic training, in which resistance training is commonly used to build strength. This spurs the paradox that one can become greater through limitation, which I believe is the crux of Barney's extensive use of restraint. It's visible throughout the Cremaster Cycle, especially in Barney's characters. Every (or very near to) character that Barney embodies goes through some sort of rigorous physical process -- usually an extended act of climbing (the mason & entered apprentice in C3, the satyr in C4, the diva(?) in C5). Barney the artist appears to be locked in a struggle for progression and self-improvement without an end in sight and Barney the athlete deals with that struggle the only way he knows how: draining himself in order to create a greater void to be refilled.
Drawing Restraint actually revolves around this idea -- creation through limitation. DR 1 through 6 were all temporal works that now only exist through video and other artifacts in which Barney, alone, created drawings while fighting against physical restraint: bungee cords, weights, out of reach canvases, etc. The beginning of this project (which if I remember correctly began not long after the Cremaster Cycle began and ran parallel to it) was very much Barney attempting to acheive artistic progess through athletic training methods, which he was quite familiar with. Very interesting work, but only as a concept, not a final product. DR 7 is a video work which, to be honest, did very little for me and also seemed to be a bleeding together of Drawing Restraint and the Cremaster Cycle. DR 8, on the other hand, is a collection of drawings and statuary that led into the creation of DR 9, in which I am coming to find that I believe Barney was able to start to make connections between resistance training and the artistic process, but only through a reversal in his thinking.
The early DRs and the Cycle focus a lot on physical restraint as a matter of pushing oneself as far (or hard) as one can. With DR 9 (and even some of the later Cremasters), Barney starts to revel in the opposite: restraint as a matter of less over more. The numerous rituals (the tea ceremony, wardrobe ceremony, early construction, wrapping ceremony, etc., etc.) in DR 9 (as well as its laborious pace -- a glacial build vs. Cremaster's steady clinical pulse) are simply a different form of restraint, a focus on precision rather than power. Barney has found that to reconcile his athletic training with his artistic process he is able to use the same theories, but the techniques must change. In essence, the focus must be honed down to each individual detail in a methodic, somewhat meditative state of attentiveness in order to further appreciate, and be aware of, the creative process as a whole, as well as the intricacies therein and thereafter. In an even greater achievement, DR 10-14 further combined this intense singular focus with the early physical struggle. These final pieces are site-specific works which Barney created against resistance, very similar to DR 1-6. However, in these later works Barney is no longer simply pushing against an opposing force to gain acheivement. This final works are of a more meticulous, though equally draining physically, nature. For example, DR 14, at the SFMoMA is a wall drawing created while Barney was hanging suspended from a third story walkway. Another, DR 13 in Japan I believe, is an elevated drawing which Barney could only reach and in turn create through the repeated use of a trampoline. Both works combine the physicality of the resistance in DR 1-6 and the mental (and to an extent physical) focus in DR 9.
In regards to the Eastern setting and interests, I believe that ties very much into the identity discussion of my last post, but that is something I would like to try do a little research on before I throw it up here. (Maybe in a few days?)
-Toilet Dcuk
-
Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
Wow, td!, thanks for the elaborate thoughts on Barney's works. It too will take me a day or two to digest it and respond, particularly in regard to DR9. I really wish I had seen both Cremaster and Drawing Restraint works in their entirety so we could really delve into the subject matter but I'll do the best I can.
-
miless
- Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 1:45 am
The Cremaster series, for me at least, works best as a massive installation/book. The films were interesting (beautifully designed, poorly shot), but the installations was magnificent (I saw it at the Guggenheim several years ago, and it looked as if the architecture and the pieces were made to be together). Likewise the book is amazing, well worth the $75 it's now going for (at least at powell's here in Portland).
I also felt the same about the Drawing Restraint series. For me, the least interesting aspect of all 15(?) works is (other than a few early pieces) the film for 9 itself. Its installation at SFMOMA was spectacular (especially some of the drawings housed in molding gelatin frames) and the whole presentation was just breathtaking.
I love Barney as an artist, a man who is capable of creating some beautiful and bizarre images out of even more bizarre products. Unfortunately I do not care for his films (except for their details). I love just flipping through the Cremaster book from time to time, it's spine-tingling, awe-inspiring, vomit-inducing and arousing all at the same time.
My favorite artist of this current era, by far.
I also felt the same about the Drawing Restraint series. For me, the least interesting aspect of all 15(?) works is (other than a few early pieces) the film for 9 itself. Its installation at SFMOMA was spectacular (especially some of the drawings housed in molding gelatin frames) and the whole presentation was just breathtaking.
I love Barney as an artist, a man who is capable of creating some beautiful and bizarre images out of even more bizarre products. Unfortunately I do not care for his films (except for their details). I love just flipping through the Cremaster book from time to time, it's spine-tingling, awe-inspiring, vomit-inducing and arousing all at the same time.
My favorite artist of this current era, by far.
-
Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
Hey td!, sorry the delay in responding. I've been trying to formulate the questions and observations I have.
Yes, it certainly makes much more sense now that Barney would use Eastern rituals to displace/resist his immediately identifiable person. But now, I am somewhat confused again as the just released coffee table tome Drawing Restraint Volume IV in which Barney dresses up and photographs himself as General MacArthur in two very historically significant moments of WWII. It would seem that idenifying his person as an occupying force or even liberating force he is no longer interested in restraint but almost conquering. I'm not sure what to make of the use of military figures in this work (and I guess it doesn't help I haven't seen it in the context of the entire exhibition).
Do you have any observations td!?
I also wonder if Barney believes that North American "culture" (being that we don't really have one as one could argue we are a continent without an identity) is really just signified by its achievements as highlighted throughout the Cremaster cycle. I think it would be fascinating if he delved into Native American ritual or Celtic rituals (as a way of positioning his historical self with his natural self). I think those avenues would create fascinating results.
Yes, it certainly makes much more sense now that Barney would use Eastern rituals to displace/resist his immediately identifiable person. But now, I am somewhat confused again as the just released coffee table tome Drawing Restraint Volume IV in which Barney dresses up and photographs himself as General MacArthur in two very historically significant moments of WWII. It would seem that idenifying his person as an occupying force or even liberating force he is no longer interested in restraint but almost conquering. I'm not sure what to make of the use of military figures in this work (and I guess it doesn't help I haven't seen it in the context of the entire exhibition).
Do you have any observations td!?
I also wonder if Barney believes that North American "culture" (being that we don't really have one as one could argue we are a continent without an identity) is really just signified by its achievements as highlighted throughout the Cremaster cycle. I think it would be fascinating if he delved into Native American ritual or Celtic rituals (as a way of positioning his historical self with his natural self). I think those avenues would create fascinating results.
-
Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
A new documentary, Matthew Barney: No Restraint, is coming to DVD.
-
miless
- Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 1:45 am
I saw this in the theater a few months ago... and it was pretty lackluster. Some really interesting moments (especially hearing about Barney's early career... and his direct shot to the top of the art world... and how he was a J Crew Model) but the whole thing is really just a massive Barney blow-job.Antoine Doinel wrote:A new documentary, Matthew Barney: No Restraint, is coming to DVD.
-
pianocrash
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:02 pm
- Location: Over & Out
A region 1 disc has been in my netflix queue since it was released a few months ago, and it will probably sit there for a while longer (I have to get through both seasons of Sledgehammer!, first).
I don't think any one document could adequately take on Barney, especially a 71 minute film. How could it? Time to go back to the library, I guess.
I don't think any one document could adequately take on Barney, especially a 71 minute film. How could it? Time to go back to the library, I guess.