Drawing Restraint 9 (Matthew Barney, 2005)

[toiletduck!]

I made it to the exhibit at the SFMoMA and must say it turned my experience with Drawing Restraint 9 completely around. I had never viewed the Cremaster Cycle in any form (and don't particularly feel that The Order DVD would be a proper representation), and was only slightly aware of the timbre of Barney's work. I went with a friend who was completely unfamiliar with Barney and together we spent hours piecing together the work, pulling themes from DR 1-6 and letting them sink in as we watched clips from DR 9, then going back and analyzing what seemed to be an abstract work in DR 8 and finding it actually quite specific.

As I would imagine is the case with Cremaster Cycle, Drawing Restraint is a work that needs to be experienced as an entity. The exhibit runs through Sept. 17th and I would suggest anyone with the slightest interest in Barney or who went to Drawing Restraint 9 and had their curiosity frustratingly piqued find time to get to San Francisco. There are also daily showings of DR 9, so I would recommend going early enough to experience the exhibit before a showing to get the complete experience.

-Toilet Dcuk

[Tommaso]

"Barney: They cannot be distributed as DVDs because they originally sold as limited-edition art objects. If a sculpture is in an edition of six, you can't make more of them. It's not right for them to be available to be owned in an unlimited way after they've been sold in a limited way. I have the right to do theatrical distribution of the films, which I've done with 'Cremaster' and 'Drawing Restraint 9"

This doesn't quite make sense to me: what's the difference between a theatrical exhibition - basically open to everyone who happens to live near one of the few big cities where the film is shown for three days or so - and a dvd? If this is an exclusive work of art that has been paid for by someone, how can Barney retain the rights to show the film in the cinemas? If anyone, the 'owner' (he or she who 'bought' the work of art) would have the right to decide whether to show it theatrically or make a dvd from it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that Barney retained the theatrical rights to "DR 9" and we have the chance to see it. But having it on a dvd wouldn't change the situation for the 'owner' ( quite apart from the fact that of course watching it on a tube does come nowhere near to watching it in the cinema), buut it would give the possibility of studying and enjoying it in detail. A dvd of a film is not the film itself, just as a photograph of a Picasso is not the same as that Picasso itself.

Yes, I admit: Of course I'm guilty of talking from complete self-interest here, because this film BLEW MY MIND and I did not understand it, and I would have the chance to see it again and understand it better, and as this is not a blockbuster, the only way to do this is to watch it on dvd. Still this is really one of the absurdest situations I ever heard of: apparently we have an artist and a cinematic genius of the very first rate who does not allow his audience to appreciate his work fully simply because he nourishes some 19th century kind of 'art only for the selected few' idea, apparently.

[toiletduck!]

I'm totally behind Barney on his decision. The problem with relating this situation to Picasso, for instance, is that a DVD is more than just a replica of a work of art. There is an original Guernica, and it is the only one in existence, so while a photograph of a print can intimate the viewing experience, the only way to actually see Guernica is to go to the Reina Sofia. By contrast, film, like music, is an artform of mass production. There are multiple prints of DR 9 in circulation right now, and as far as the audience is concerned, one is as good as another -- they are all originals. By putting a film to DVD, the filmmaker is, in essence, creating more originals, because with the right equipment, a consumer could effectively recreate (or at least come very close) the experience undergone by viewing the film in its theatrical setting.

With this extremely limited DVD release, Barney is attempting to retain the viewing experience as precious (it is also important to remember that Barney is not strictly a filmmaker by trade; that his work is being approached from a conceptual artist's perspective). Yes, this means a much smaller audience, but how many of us have seen Guernica?

The problem isn't one of elitism, so much as an inability (or enhanced ability) on the part of the medium and it's accompanying technology. Barney cannot treat his film as he would, say, one of his sculptures, and provide one original for the audience to migrate to after having their interest sparked by an unsatisfactory representation, such as a photograph. There is no such thing as an unsatisfactory representation of a film work (unless he purposefully created a bad transfer, which seems silly; or a sampler a la Cremaster, which I have my own personal bias against), and so Barney has been forced to choose between maintaining DR9's integrity as a conceptual work of art (and the right time/right place sensibility that goes along with it) and allowing DR9 to function as a film (with the corresponding mass production).

It seems obvious to me which category is more appropriate for this (and all of Barney's) work.

-Toilet Dcuk

[Michael]

--- never mind.

[godardslave]

I can't agree with Barney on the DVD comments, it does seem like a form of elitism/ego to me.

[Tommaso]

and so Barney has been forced to choose between maintaining DR9's integrity as a conceptual work of art (and the right time/right place sensibility that goes along with it) and allowing DR9 to function as a film (with the corresponding mass production).

It seems obvious to me which category is more appropriate for this (and all of Barney's) work.

I can understand your point of view, TD, though I do not wholly agree that you can re-create the cinema experience at home with state-of-the-art-technology yet. The difference to 'Guernica' is, btw, that you could always go to the museum where it is and see it, whereas there will probably be no perpetual showings of Barney's films. And everyone could get an idea what "Guernica" is by looking at a print, whereas you cannot get an idea about DR9 simply by looking at some stills.

I did know nothing about Barney before (actually I only went to see the film because I heard Björk's soundtrack album), so I still do know very little about his importance in the art world, his approach and how his work is received there. But after seeing DR9 it is obvious to me that - despite of all the conceptions going with it - it is first of all a marvellous piece of cinema, one of the most daring and striking I have ever seen. And as such it is quite different from your usual 'visual artists makes a film as a diversion' kind of thing. It's a major work of filmic art, and as such it deserves better than being seen only by a few art collectors, and belongs to the film circuit in the first place.

[toiletduck!]

Sorry, Guernica was a bad analogy; I just jumped on the Picasso line of thought. A better comparison might be the work of Christo. I, unfortunately, missed out on The Gates by a month or so, and, despite the wide array of photographic work on the piece, I will never truly be able to grasp what The Gates were all about. However, I simply cannot fault Christo on the grounds of elitism due to his self-imposed two week exhibition limit. The fleeting existence of Christo's work is as much a piece of the art as the large scale or vivid colors, and I have no one to blame but myself for not having experienced it. (Sidebar: I will not being missing another Christo work; I've learned my lesson.)

The parallel to Barney's work is not one of time, but inclusiveness. The thing that we have failed to consider is that Drawing Restraint 9 is only one of fourteen (as of mid-June) pieces that make up Drawing Restraint as a whole. While some of the pieces are currently only documented through video and scant artifacts, technically only DR7 and DR9 are video works. By giving DR9 a widespread DVD release, Barney would be able to allow DR9 to be studied intimately, but possibly at the cost of Drawing Restraint as a whole. I have nothing documented to back it up, but I would even imagine that Barney would at some level be opposed to a wider theatrical release of DR9, for similar reasons. Or at least I would were I in his shoes.

'Filmic art' was a beautifully chosen descriptor for DR9, Tommaso. Filmic art places the emphasis on the art, leaving the film as circumstantial, as opposed to an art film in which the film is primary and the art is circumstantial (a little demeaning, I know, but you get the drift). As such, it does deserve to be seen by more than a few art collectors, as does any great work of art, regardless of medium. Yet, as art first and film second (which I take 'filmic art' to be), I can't bring myself to say it belongs in the film circuit either. The piece is intended to work on a deeper, or at least different, level than film and demands to be handled differently as well.

There's an amazing underlying conversation here regarding the artist's lack of control over the temporality of work on film (at least within the medium's current political/economical set-up, as well as that of home video), however, I a) don't have nearly enough time to begin that conversation while at work and b) don't want to sidetrack the thread if it would only be to hear myself talk -- or see myself type. However, if there's a thread to be derailed, a Barney one would seem one of the more appropriate.

-Toilet Dcuk

[Antoine Doinel]

Toilet Duck, that is wonderfully erudite and compelling defense of your position. I understand Barney wanting Drawing Restraint to remain "pure" and be appreciated - as much as it can be - as a whole. But getting IFC Films to theatrically release it in North America - with an ad and press campaign to boot - seems to be a bit of a tease at best and a cash grab at worst. If Barney really wanted his work to be experienced as a whole, why not create a Drawing Restraint exhibit or show in which DR9 can be appreicated and understood alongside the other artifacts that complete the work?

At least with Christo, the entire Gates project was on display. Not a portion, but the entire work.

[toiletduck!]

But getting IFC Films to theatrically release it in North America - with an ad and press campaign to boot - seems to be a bit of a tease at best and a cash grab at worst.

Touche. And to be honest, my idealism is definitely showing through in the past few posts. Barney has a commercial vein that undeniably runs much deeper than that of Christo, for instance. While I (or my idealism) am hesitant to go as far as calling it a cash grab, the theatrical distribution, even as a limited release, is definitely a tease. What I don't understand is why more marketing focus isn't being put on Drawing Restraint as a whole. I'd be willing to bet that a large part of DR9's theatrical audience are unaware of the size (possibly even the existence) of the entire project -- I know that I had no clue.

If Barney really wanted his work to be experienced as a whole, why not create a Drawing Restraint exhibit or show in which DR9 can be appreicated and understood alongside the other artifacts that complete the work?

At least with Christo, the entire Gates project was on display. Not a portion, but the entire work.

That's exactly what the exhibition in San Francisco is. DR1-6 and 10-13 are site- (and time-) specific, but video coverage and artifacts are provided, along with DR14 (site-specific to the SFMoMA), the sculpture work of DR8, and daily screenings of DR7 & DR9. While travel to SF for a work of art is potentially a pain in the ass, it's no more to ask than Christo's New York. That, and Barney's work is filling a three month run, as opposed to the two weeks of The Gates.

And not to sound like a broken record, but if at all possible, find time to take a long weekend to SF and check out the exhibition. Unlike The Gates, there probably will be another chance to see Drawing Restraint in its entirety, but why take that chance if you can see it now?

-Toilet Dcuk

[Antoine Doinel]

And not to sound like a broken record, but if at all possible, find time to take a long weekend to SF and check out the exhibition. Unlike The Gates, there probably will be another chance to see Drawing Restraint in its entirety, but why take that chance if you can see it now?

All excellent points and I will say that Barney's track record is very good, and while it took a while, the Cremaster Cycle was screened in Montreal last year (where I am, and it was a success) so I'm sure Drawing Restraint will slowly make its way here eventually.

I guess my question with Barney and Drawing Restraint 9 is more to do with the intentions behind the North American theatrical release and even the soundtrack release. I mean if Barney is so intent on context, it would seem that a soundtrack CD would be completely and utterly out of the question. Even working with Bjork - surely he must've realized he would've created perceptions about his work from people who had no idea about his work previously and just purchase the soundtrack or see the film and leave utterly confused.

[Tommaso]

I mean if Barney is so intent on context, it would seem that a soundtrack CD would be completely and utterly out of the question. Even working with Bjork - surely he must've realized he would've created perceptions about his work from people who had no idea about his work previously and just purchase the soundtrack or see the film and leave utterly confused.

Absolutely true, and I was one of those viewers who had no idea about his work before. But is that a bad thing? Everyone at one point in their life will be new to somebody elses work, and I for one am quite happy to have seen my first Bergmans, Greenaways or Tarkovskys at a time when I did not know anything about them and had no preconceptions. Perhaps this is why DR9 caught me so unawares: I was expecting a rather dull artsy kind of video-taped film by some visual artist who only got the public interest for it because his famous wife happened to compose the music (and most Björk fans, btw, did not like the cd at all). And what a pleasant surprise it was then to see the film, which worked for me although I only read afterwards that it was part of a larger cycle of works and that it probably was not intended as an indiction of whaling first and foremost as I assumed when watching it....

That Christo analogy is quite good, I agree, but still: doesn't Barney apply a certain approach to art to an art form that by its very nature follows quite different rules ( which includes mass production)? In this respect I find the differentiation between 'filmic art' and 'art film' not quite convincing, although you could use 'art film' as a description for certain tendencies in especially European cinema which attempt to be art but never quite manage it in your view (pick any European film director you don't particularly like, I have no one special in mind... ). It would then only be a description of a certain inferiority in quality as opposed to 'filmic art'. For me a true 'art film' is synonymous with 'filmic art', and I would use 'filmic art' for any filmmaker/film who managed to create a piece of (visual) art in the broad sense of the term: Greenaway, Cocteau, Pasolini, Tarkovsky, Jarman.... (again: name any director here you particularly like, who placed particular emphasis on the visuals, and who did not compromise with Hollywood schemes ).

As you say: DR9 belongs to a greater scheme of different art works, but the same is true of Greenaway's "Tulse Luper Suitcases" (also not available on DVD, but for very different reasons), Cocteau's films, or even Pasolini's (the Trilogy is almost inseparable from "Salo" as its counterpart). The great quality of all these films is that they can work on their own although they are part of a greater context, and thus also are available individually.

[toiletduck!]

And what a pleasant surprise it was then to see the film....

That's very good to hear, as my thoughts tended to lie with Antoine's line of reasoning. When I saw DR9, I was not terribly well-initiated with Barney and had absolutely zero awareness of the Drawing Restraint project. I came out of it quite frustrated -- aware that what I had just witnessed had a deep importance and meaning to Barney, but I had no fucking clue what or where it was. I hadn't written off Barney, but I had definitely lost the initial interest that had brought me to the theater. Not long later, I just happened to be in SF for a day looking for a cheap way to spend the afternoon. I also just happen to be a contemporary art enthusiast anyway and just happen to have reciprocal member benefits at the SFMoMA through the MCA Chicago. I stopped by to see what was to be seen, and just happened across Drawing Restraint. The effect, as is painfully obvious, was revelatory, but in line with Antoine's thinking, how many people are going to leave DR9 and stumble across the entire project, as I luckily did? Hopefully, more first time viewers have experiences closer to yours, but I can't help but feel that without any mention of the project as a whole in the marketing approach, the largest demographic leaving the theater are going to be pissed-off Bjork fans. Which is a scary thought.

That Christo analogy is quite good, I agree, but still: doesn't Barney apply a certain approach to art to an art form that by its very nature follows quite different rules ( which includes mass production)? In this respect I find the differentiation between 'filmic art' and 'art film' not quite convincing, although you could use 'art film' as a description for certain tendencies in especially European cinema which attempt to be art but never quite manage it in your view (pick any European film director you don't particularly like, I have no one special in mind... ). It would then only be a description of a certain inferiority in quality as opposed to 'filmic art'. For me a true 'art film' is synonymous with 'filmic art', and I would use 'filmic art' for any filmmaker/film who managed to create a piece of (visual) art in the broad sense of the term: Greenaway, Cocteau, Pasolini, Tarkovsky, Jarman.... (again: name any director here you particularly like, who placed particular emphasis on the visuals, and who did not compromise with Hollywood schemes ).

I apologize for a lack of clarity on my part. I in no way intended for 'filmic art' and 'art film' to be more than a classification. In my use of the terms, 'art film' is not intended to be a denigration so much as a qualifier. This is a shady line to walk, I am aware, so you'll have to bear with me, but, for me, an art film is a film with a focus on art. Like the excellent list of examples you provided, an art film goes beyond typical Hollywood lines of thought, putting a focus on not only the visuals, but how a film can speak thematically through aspects other than a formalized plot. This can work successfully or horribly not: to me the term merely describes the intent a filmmaker presents through his medium (or what is primarily his medium in a couple of those examples). The term filmic art is, to me, even harder to define, if that's possible. In Barney's case, I use the term because DR9 just so happens to be on film. I would apply the same logic to works of Bruce Nauman and Bill Viola. These pieces are not an attempt to use the medium of film (or video) to create art, so much as creating art through (or occasionally in spite of) the medium. The best example that I can provide of a filmic artist with in the generally accepted 'film community', as opposed to the 'art community', would be Stan Brakhage, although I think that to a certain extent Brakhage's output could be divided amongst the two. DR9 does differ in these examples in that Barney in no way employs a (post-?)modern awareness of the medium. However, in Barney's case, the mere fact that he is not primarily a filmmaker by classification seems to insert his films in this category (the man has created a work of art that just so happens to be on film).

I know it seems like I'm splitting hairs, and for that I apologize. I believe that the big problem is the use of the word 'art' in these terms, a fault of the English language. I do not intend to diminish the artistic value of traditional films -- my use of 'art' is only meant to refer to the media of the visual arts, not Art as a concept.

On a slight tangent: I also find this claim particularly interesting:

That Christo analogy is quite good, I agree, but still: doesn't Barney apply a certain approach to art to an art form that by its very nature follows quite different rules ( which includes mass production)?

Quite frankly, no. Mass production is only a part of film as a business model, not film as an art form. In fact, in most other art forms, mass production is a very specific artistic choice, loaded with meaning. How odd that film would find itself in the opposite situation: in order to focus on the nature of the form in relation to what can actually be construed as Art in terms of the 'original', a filmmaker would be forced not to produced copies of his film until the idea of an original becomes meaningless, but quite the opposite -- create a film that stands on its own, that is the direct output of the artist and, as a result, is the only 'real' version of the film. (Open question: Has this this been done within the film community? It's an exciting idea, but not one of which I am aware of any occurances.)

I'm fairly certain that we are no longer in the realms that we intended with this discussion, and completely certain that I no longer have any idea where I had originally planned to go with this post. We also seem to be the unholy three playing this game. That being said, march on, Tommaso (and Antoine, if you're still with us) -- this is by far one of the most envigorating discussions I've been a part of on this board.

-Toilet Dcuk

[Tommaso]

Hopefully, more first time viewers have experiences closer to yours, but I can't help but feel that without any mention of the project as a whole in the marketing approach, the largest demographic leaving the theater are going to be pissed-off Bjork fans. Which is a scary thought.

Indeed it is, and I wonder who it was that went into the cinema here in Germany (where Barney clearly is less well known than in the States). I doubt it was the Björk fans, though, because they were mostly pissed-off by the soundtrack already. I really don't know, but there's probably a small circle of art/film enthusiasts that are going to watch anything that looks mildly promising. And actually, the promotional stills DID look exciting (which had nothing to do with Björk appearing on most of the them).

an art film goes beyond typical Hollywood lines of thought, putting a focus on not only the visuals, but how a film can speak thematically through aspects other than a formalized plot.

This is a very fine definition indeed, although it might emphasize the non-narrative aspect too much. It would exclude Tarkovsky, for example (except "Mirror", perhaps). But as you say: let's not struggle over mere words.
Nice that you mention Nauman and Viola. I haven't seen Nauman yet, but Viola is one of those directors (I hesitate to call him one, really) whose work I feared Barney's would look like. If he does not, as you say, attempt to use the medium with which he does art, why does he use it at all? Everything I have seen by him (just two or three films, admittedly) were complete failures from a filmic point of view. I know too little about contemporary art to be able to see whether they work as 'visual art' in those circles, but let me be conservative and allow me to say that I have doubts about artists who do not know do justice to the medium they use, regardless of the intention or the concept behind it.

However, in Barney's case, the mere fact that he is not primarily a filmmaker by classification seems to insert his films in this category (the man has created a work of art that just so happens to be on film).

And this is the point where I would disagree. This last bracketed sentence of yours would be a fine description of Viola (or at least a fine defence of Viola), but the whole sentence is not necessarily totally true of Barney. What about Pasolini or Cocteau? Are they no filmmakers because they happened to have been writers as well? Are their films not to be classified as films but are novels or poetry instead? Although Cocteau would perhaps subscribe to this view, it seems obvious that Barney has not just created a work of art, but he has also created a film and has shown that he can use the medium as well or probably better than most other directors now, and that would describe him as a filmmaker in my view (whereas Viola would not be one, then). That does not exclude that Barney is an artist (in the sense of 'visual artist') as well.

I do not intend to diminish the artistic value of traditional films -- my use of 'art' is only meant to refer to the media of the visual arts, not Art as a concept.

No problem at all, we have the same problem here with the term "Kunst" or "Kunstwerk" (the first is most often used to describe visual arts, the latter refers to 'all art').

How odd that film would find itself in the opposite situation: in order to focus on the nature of the form in relation to what can actually be construed as Art in terms of the 'original', a filmmaker would be forced not to produced copies of his film until the idea of an original becomes meaningless, but quite the opposite -- create a film that stands on its own, that is the direct output of the artist and, as a result, is the only 'real' version of the film.

Yes, and basically that is what Barney seems to intent, but: why this insistence on originality and 'individuality' today, after Warhol and after John Cage? That is precisely why I said Barney is following a sort of late 19th century aesthetics in this regard, the whole concept of art for arts sake or art for the selected elected, rather. It seems he tries to preserve his control over the work AFTER it's completed in a too inclusive way. I could understand it better if he said he did not want it on dvd because home-viewing does not have the same impact as cinema viewing and would thus distort his work of art. But he does not give this reason, he does not talk about DR9 as an artefact or work of art directly in this respect, but he seems to talk about a generalized concept of art being endangered by the mass release of the film. And I believe this particular concept is outdated, although it's the one that art sellers would want to uphold, because it's the only concept that allows them to get their ridiculous sums for the works they sell.

well... it seems my rambling has led me far astray as well: from the original questions to a not very well-proven indictment of the art industry Anyway, hope you don't mind ...

[portnoy]

Guys, I think we're overthinking Barney's decision not to release Cremaster as a DVD set - it's simply money/exclusive rights issues. Museums pay massive prices to show museum film installations. The museum I work next to paid at least $15,000 for a ten minute Bill Viola DVD, of which there are only five copies in the world. Charging (as Barney would, considering he's one of the most in-demand video artists in the world) upwards of $20,000 for an exhibit, he's probably held by contracts and obligations to not then turn around and sell $100 copies of the exact same thing to consumers.

In other words, mass production is anathema to the basic economics of what Barney does.

[Tommaso]

In other words, mass production is anathema to the basic economics of what Barney does.

This is precisely what I meant with my finishing statement about the art sellers above. And Barney obviously then is not one of those (rare) 20th century artists who intended to break through the elitism and exclusivity of these circles, but wholeheartedly embraces them for monetary reasons (if not for others). I do not blame him, for the world is as it is. But if you ask me, I just prefer Beuys or Cage.

[toiletduck!]

I haven't seen Nauman yet, but Viola is one of those directors (I hesitate to call him one, really) whose work I feared Barney's would look like. If he does not, as you say, attempt to use the medium with which he does art, why does he use it at all?

The concept of classifying Viola as a 'director' actually strikes me as quite odd. Again, semantics, but I think this sort of thing gives us the slightest of glimpses at the (quite) different approaches we have to this nebulous little grey area we've stumbled across.

I don't question the fact that Viola, Nauman, and most other video artists don't use the medium as would be considered proper for cinematic purposes. What I mean by Viola, et al. not using the medium might have been better expressed as embracing the medium. The difference between Tarkovsky and Viola (well, one of the many differences) is that Tarkovsky embraces the medium in order to reveal his vision, while Viola embraces the vision that he has unleashed through the medium. This is not to say that Tarkovsky's vision is any less important to him than Viola's, but simply that cinematic qualities are more important. Your implication seems to be that these cinematic qualities are a vital component of the medium. I would argue that the necessity for a work on film (of any sort) to be cinematic is no more essential than for a painting to be pretty. (I don't intend to dumb down your argument, but, you know, brevity at all that.) I wish that I was well-versed enough in Viola or Nauman to start name-dropping specific examples, but alas and alack. However, in any Viola work, the intention of the artist's choice of medium is in no way to be cinematic. It might be to draw focus to the medium's potential and power as an artform, or that the medium provided the most ideal way to portray an otherwise hard to view occurance (i.e. open heart surgery, in one of my favorite pieces), or simply that it is the only medium that allows for sight, sound, and movement all at once. These are all examples of 'using the medium' in the most basest sense, but not using it in a cinematic style. Which is also a good example of how I draw the line between director and (visual) artist, or 'filmic art' and 'art film'.

Barney, however, is the bitch of the bunch, because, as you mention, he does have a great handle on the cinematic qualities of film and also obviously puts a good deal of stock into them (pun fortunately not intended). While you take this as an indication of Barney as filmmaker, I tend to lean towards Barney as artist, offering up his mixed media work and DVD reasoning as my arguments. And while, yes, there certainly are economic issues weighing on this decision, I can not toss it aside as "simply money/exclusive rights issues."

why this insistence on originality and 'individuality' today, after Warhol and after John Cage? That is precisely why I said Barney is following a sort of late 19th century aesthetics in this regard, the whole concept of art for arts sake or art for the selected elected, rather.

I follow your argument that Warhol brought the focus away from individuality, but I think there are two arguments running parallel here. Barney's film is no more individual than one of Warhol's Monroes, in that there are as many identical prints of DR9 circulating as Warhol has screenprinted of Marilyn. However Warhol's originals, as unfocused on individuality as they are, still go for as much (most likely much more) than any of Barney's work. By speaking of releasing DR9 on DVD, we are bringing up an entirely different beast. A DVD release of DR9 would be the equivalent of Warhol flooding K-Mart with thousands of screenprinted Marilyns for home consumption. Yes, you can by a print of a Warhol piece and hang it on your wall, but the fact remains that it is not a Warhol. The unanswered question is whether a DVD of DR9 is or is not considered an original Barney. Barney, and I would say the mass public, would say yes, thus dimish the (artistic and/or monetary) value of the work as a whole.

You're argument that this is art for the elite, is valid and one that I unfortunately do not have time at the moment to counter, but the phenomenon of originality and its value in art is not one of the past, and not only due to monetary value (as seen in the work of Christo, amongst others).

This seems a little disjointed to me, and if it reads that way, apologies, but it was hurried, and I really must get back to work. Hopefully, I can touch on more later.

-Toilet Dcuk

[Tommaso]

What I mean by Viola, et al. not using the medium might have been better expressed as embracing the medium. The difference between Tarkovsky and Viola (well, one of the many differences) is that Tarkovsky embraces the medium in order to reveal his vision, while Viola embraces the vision that he has unleashed through the medium.

This is something I do not quite understand. Do you mean that in Viola it's more like an approach of 'let's see what happens'? I think of Man Ray perhaps and his way of putting nails on the film strip and then exposing it (which would be an 'uncinematic' way of using film). Whereas for Tarkovsky it would not matter whether he made a film, wrote a book or composed an opera as long as he is able to express his vision, which came before he sat down to produce the film? If that is what you have in mind, I would disagree, simply because I think that Tarkovsky's particular vision probably cannot expressed any way other (or at least: better) than in the way he did it, that is via film.

Your implication seems to be that these cinematic qualities are a vital component of the medium.

Yes, that is important at least for me subjectively, that's why I'm interested in a particular film. I would not say it is analagous to a painting being 'pretty' or not, though, as that would rule out the larger part of 20th century painting of course for most viewers who would nevertheless admit that a painting can be painterly although it is not 'pretty'. The points you make about Viola's intentions are very valid, of course. Only that for me (and that agan is totally subjective) the results as far as I saw them were not very interesting (unlike Man Ray's experiments, for example).
And the whole discussion, as you rightly point out only came up because Barney is indeed the 'bitch in the bunch' and uses the medium in a 'filmic' way.

A DVD release of DR9 would be the equivalent of Warhol flooding K-Mart with thousands of screenprinted Marilyns for home consumption. Yes, you can by a print of a Warhol piece and hang it on your wall, but the fact remains that it is not a Warhol. The unanswered question is whether a DVD of DR9 is or is not considered an original Barney. Barney, and I would say the mass public, would say yes, thus dimish the (artistic and/or monetary) value of the work as a whole.

Where is the difference? I do not believe that the mass public would think of a dvd as an original Barney more than it would of a print of Warhol. A dvd is not the original, and if Barney makes six or seven copies of "Cremaster" or DR9 for a limited audience of art collectors, they are still replicas. Just as in Warhol there's just one original (the original painting, or series of paintings), so it is with film in my view: there is just one original, and that is the original negative. If he sold that to an art collector, fine!

This seems a little disjointed to me, and if it reads that way, apologies, but it was hurried, and I really must get back to work.

Never mind, it's interesting all the way. Somehow I have the idea that we're not so far apart in our opinions, we just happen to disagree about whether a dvd IS a collectible art object in itself. I would definitely say no, although the dvd industry tries to make us believe otherwise. I do collect films on dvd like I would collect books on Rubens: to have a quick reference and for study. It's an illusion created by marketing experts that makes a fetish out of dvds....

[toiletduck!]

...I think that Tarkovsky's particular vision probably cannot expressed any way other (or at least: better) than in the way he did it, that is via film.

I agree completely and I wouldn't expect him to do it any other way. Film is Tarkovsky's strength, and he is able do beautiful things with it. Viola (and Nauman, et al.), on the other hand, is not someone who I would absolutely say is playing to his strength by using film. Not that it's a weakness at all, but he belongs to a relatively young breed of artists -- conceptual, video, installation, whatever you want to term it as -- who use not only a hodgepodge of media to create Art, but also subscribe to the belief that Idea itself can be Art. It's a style of art that is seemingly boundless, and as a result, is still being defined and redefined as new artists/works emerge. Barney seems to have hit the (as to yet) peak of this form, as his work calls up not only this conceptual form, but that DR9, and I would imagine the Cremaster series, are able to stand on their own as high-quality art films (or what have you), without the other media. The question is, which side of the coin does he fall on. Does Barney the conceptual artist trump Barney the filmmaker? Or is Barney the filmmaker's work separate from Barney the artist's work? I tend to agree with the former.

Where is the difference? I do not believe that the mass public would think of a dvd as an original Barney more than it would of a print of Warhol. A dvd is not the original, and if Barney makes six or seven copies of "Cremaster" or DR9 for a limited audience of art collectors, they are still replicas. Just as in Warhol there's just one original (the original painting, or series of paintings), so it is with film in my view: there is just one original, and that is the original negative. If he sold that to an art collector, fine!

An audience may not think of a DVD as an original, true, but they also don't think of it as a replica. As we briefly sidetracked onto ealier, film is a medium that has little concern with the deification of the 'original'. An audience (and especially the mass public) has absolutely zero interest in how many generations the print they are viewing is removed from the master. As long as it doesn't look like ass, they're happy. But I still contend that this is a result of film as a business rather than film as an art form. The more prints available = the more tickets available = the more money available.

If a filmmaker premiered one print, refused to make more, and toured the nation with that sole print, I would be fascinated, but I think the overall response would be dismal at best, damning at worst. There's no way that Hollywood would support it, and even the 'mainstream' underground would be hesitant. It would hailed by (at least some of) the extreme underground subversive motherfuckers, but who outside the film world pays attention to them? Hell, who inside the film world pays attention to them? I am constantly amazed at the discoveries I find through others on this forum, but aside from a select handful of regulars, it's a little scattershot even here. Point being: film (even the indies and underground) still plays by business rules and anyone bucking that trend is not going to be met with terribly favorably. If these aforementioned conceptual artists can bridge that gap and tear down some of the marketing schemes established as fact (as Barney is in some sense doing), I'm all for it. Not because I necessarily hate marketing, or I agree with the fetishism of an 'original', but because, as far as art is concerned, anything established as fact is ripe for the tearing down.

-Toilet Dcuk

[Tommaso]

Toiletduck, just a quick note (before I leave for holidays) of thanks for making your points clearer . Though I still think that Barney the filmmaker (perhaps unintentionally) outdid Barney the conceptual artist, it's of course perfectly valid to see it the other way round, which then of course entails accepting the non-appearance of commercially available dvds. But you have made Viola's approach clearer to me, and I guess it's my personal difficulty or lack of interest that I did not feel very taken by his films.

An audience may not think of a DVD as an original, true, but they also don't think of it as a replica. As we briefly sidetracked onto ealier, film is a medium that has little concern with the deification of the 'original'. An audience (and especially the mass public) has absolutely zero interest in how many generations the print they are viewing is removed from the master. As long as it doesn't look like ass, they're happy.

Totally right, of course. I would only contend that the 'mass public' would also not be very interested to travel to NY or Spain (or wherever it is) to see the original 'Guernica', which however does not lower the painting's status (and money value!) as an original artwork. I really wonder why that should be different with the original negative (or even limited theatrical prints) of Barney's film.

Point being: film (even the indies and underground) still plays by business rules and anyone bucking that trend is not going to be met with terribly favorably. If these aforementioned conceptual artists can bridge that gap and tear down some of the marketing schemes established as fact (as Barney is in some sense doing), I'm all for it. Not because I necessarily hate marketing, or I agree with the fetishism of an 'original', but because, as far as art is concerned, anything established as fact is ripe for the tearing down.

Completely right of course, but I always wonder whether such an attitude of 'denying the system' does not still give credit to the system simply because it relates to it by denying it. In short: it's less revolutionary/rebellious than it appears. In my personal view a Tarkovsky film is much more subversive because he simply did not give a damn and ignored the pressures and only followed (or tried to follow) his own vision. In the case of "Andrej Rubljow" it is said that he even intentionally made the film longer because he KNEW they would want him to cut out something, so that - after that indeed happened - the film would still carrry his vision as he intended originally.

[toiletduck!]

I recently attended Cremaster 1, 2, 4, and 5 (3 is next week), and my reaction is similar to that after the first viewing of Drawing Restraint 9. If I were Barney I would be very proud of these works, but I'm still on the fence about how exactly I, toiletduck!, feel about them.

But I actually came on here to discuss the review blurbs announcing the films in the Chicago Reader, which I think is quite pertinent to the discussion between Tommaso and myself. All five received unfavorable reviews (1, 2, 4, and 5 from Rosenbaum; 3 from Fred Camper), and what's interesting is that the reviews primarily attack Barney's (mis)use of rudimentary cinematic techniques. Rosenbaum repeatedly takes Barney to task for poor editing and Camper goes on to say that purveyors of avant-garde film see through Barney's popularity to his lack of "cinematic 'basics'". This seems to be a great pedestal for me to try and elucidate the points I feebly approached earlier of film vs. art and the potential overlap of the two.

It seems improper to me to criticize Barney's pieces for a lack of cinematic elements, as Barney obviously did not intend for these to be pieces of cinema, which in a vicious circle, is shown through his lack of interest in cinematic elements. I still maintain that the man is a visual (and conceptual) artist, so of course the Cremaster Cycle will not have masterful or even impressive editing, as editing is not a factor in visual arts (or for a closer parallel in this instance, photography). Knocking Barney's editing techniques to me is as absurd as knocking those of Mapplethorpe.

Cinematic basics are rules that apply to film as an artform. Barney, I object, is not using film as an artform, but simply as an object -- a blank slate. It's a taut example, I know, but one wouldn't describing Robert Smithson's work as 'landscaping', just because he positions environmental artifacts for a visual effect. The same goes for Barney -- just as artwork involving a canvas is not necessarily a painting, every artwork involving film stock is not necessarily cinema. A different set of rules apply to these works because they are of a different form -- a similar point to one brought up in the Harmony Korine thread recently, which was interesting to me as it was an approach I hadn't applied to Korine.

Which isn't to say that the man gets automatically gets a free pass and justification for whatever he creates. But if we are going to judge, we should do so based on what the works are attempting to do, not what they are unconcerned with.

-Toilet Dcuk

[Gregory]

Shouldn't there be some overlap between visual art and cinema? Do you find Barney's Cremasters essentially different kinds of things from films by Joseph Cornell, Man Ray, etc.?

Here is the capsule review by Camper:

Vintage Chryslers collide over the lobby of the Chrysler Building in a balletic demolition derby, a woman cuts up potatoes wearing shoes with blades attached to the soles, a man on an operating table has a tiny wheel instead of a penis, a bevy of beauties enjoy a bubble bath at the Guggenheim Museum--all this and more is on display in Matthew Barney's 182-minute picture show about power, impotence, and violence in American culture. It completes a series of five "Cremaster" films and videos that have made Barney an art world darling. While elegant, it's also bloated and pompous: the absence of any cinematic "basics"--compositions that interact on plastic and rhythmic levels--may explain why few people acquainted with the history of avant-garde film consider Barney a major figure.

What exactly do think he meant by "compositions that interact on plastic and rhythmic levels"?

[miless]

What exactly do think he meant by "compositions that interact on plastic and rhythmic levels"?

I believe he means the filmmaking itself (editing and compositions working hand in hand to create a rhythm that enhances the films style).

Matthew Barney's films always have great sets, props, make-up and overall design... but he never fully realizes it through the moving images. His gallery exhibitions (and books, in particular the book on The Cremaster cycle) are always much more impressive than the finished films.

oh, and he always seems to cast beautiful women.

[Tommaso]

What exactly do think he meant by "compositions that interact on plastic and rhythmic levels"?

That sounds like film critic 'newspeak' to me, but I guess he talks about rhythmic montage, or even more basic things like Shot-reverse-shots and the pacing that can be created by it. Now I haven't seen any of the "Cremaster" films for reasons discussed at length in this thread already, but in "DR 9" there is quite certainly no lack of cinematic ability or sensitivity. True: Barney never calls attention to the editing itself but prefers very slow moving, almost static but in a curious sense also very fluid ways of building the film and moving from shot to shot. But that is absolutely legitimate, and I have no idea what these critics are talking about, unless the "Cremaster" films are totally different from "DR 9", of course.

And in addition, I find your comparison to Man Ray very much to the point. Highlighting the visuals, and entrancing us in a very special, perhaps unique way. Miless also has a good point about the sets, props etc and underlining his gallery exhibitions. The same could be said about Peter Greenaway, who also is not necessarily a director caring very much for 'moving images' in the usual sense, and actually "DR 9 " reminded me a lot of Greenaway, but Barney's film touched a deeper 'note' in me.

[Gregory]

I understand rhythmic editing, but not Camper's point (nor "plastic"). Editing can cause compositions to "interact" rhythmically, but I don't consider this part of the necessary "basics," especially in the realm of the avant-garde, in which it seems to me any conventions can be tossed out as long as the result is a beautiful, expressive or just compelling. If Barney's techniques are clumsy, ineffective or otherwise get in the way of one's appreciation, Camper should say how they are, and give an example or two. That's the problem with these pithy reviews.
By the way, my point isn't to defend Barney. I've only seen Cremaster 1 and 2, and while I preferred 2 and found it interesting (and also repulsive) it wasn't enough to bring me to a real appreciation of what Barney is doing.

[toiletduck!]

Shouldn't there be some overlap between visual art and cinema? Do you find Barney's Cremasters essentially different kinds of things from films by Joseph Cornell, Man Ray, etc.?

Eesh, those are good questions. You're gonna have to roll with me while I formulate something for them...

On the spectrum of artists whose work spans various media (I'm assuming that was the reason for these particular examples), I actually would consider the Cremasters almost polar opposites from the work of Cornell or Ray, both artists whom I have a deep appreciation for -- and much more than Barney. I see Cornell's shadowboxes and Ray's, well, everything as a separate beast from their films. Oh, there's certainly a similar philosophy employed and, especially with Ray, a similar style, but each individual work and each individual film, along with the collected filmography and the collected photography and the collected sculpture, et al., demands to be treated on it's own terms within the great picture that is Cornell or Ray. Barney seems to have attempted to create one epic tapestry (or two, in Cremaster and Drawing Restraint, but having seen both in their entirety, I would argue that they would also mesh well enough to be taken as one). While any given piece can be viewed and appreciated individually, there's a greater mythos intended by the collected work to the point where a critique of any single film or work by Barney seems petty, much like a critique of a single Warhol soup can.

Having said that, I must admit that the conceptual side of Barney's work appeals to me, while the emotional and physical often leaves me unaffected. I am endeared by what Barney is doing and the fact that he is doing it much more than I am by the final product.

I was going to attempt to tackle your first question, Gregory, but I don't want to provide unwanted verbosity over a misreading. Could you clarify what you mean by an overlap in visual art and cinema? Are we talking in critique, creation, or is the overlap a distinct piece in and of itself? Or (which is probably the case) some other intention which I haven't even touched on? It's a beautiful subject and I really want to force myself to try and make some sense out of my gut reactions, but I'd prefer to do it while speaking towards your points as well. Thanks!

-Toilet Dcuk