Posts Tagged “Mathew Barney”

04w18:2 Matthew Barney Part 2

by timothy. 0 Comments


Good Reads Mailing List | 2004 week 18 number 2 (Matthew Barney Part 2)

Ok, so I know it is totally uncool to be into Matt Barney, and so I have a feeling that I might be lucky if you weren’t disgusted by the subject line and are actually reading this. Here’s the thing: I’m currently working on a new frontpage for Goodreads so that it will be accessible to a RSS newsreader, and the other night I really needed a post to help test out its development. Which means that my thoughts were partially on other things and I forgot one of the best articles of all, Onan the Magnificent, by Roger Hodge.

There is no way that I couldn’t share this article with you, since it is one of the better ones I’ve ever read on Barney’s work, respectfully critical and at the same time able to remind one what is so silly about the Cremaster Cycle. So, in order to bring you Hodge’s article, I thought I should make it worth our while and bring you another serving of thoughts on Barney. Amoung the new selections is the first time I’ve included a link to an audio file. This is the net afterall, no need to for a goodread not to be a goodlisten. It’s a half hour long and Barney lives up to the speculation (posited in that damn National Post review that is for sale on their site and so I can’t direct you to it) that he can’t communicate. Lots of ums and dead air as he struggles for the words to answer the questions, but nevertheless worth a listen if you are interested. The link directs to a webpage, from which it is accessible (RealPlayer required). – Timothy


Onan the Magnificent | Roger D. Hodge
“It is perhaps inevitable that the most heroic artist of our age should appear after the ‘death of the author,’ at a time when the word ‘genius’ has been all but erased, at a moment of unparalleled suspicion and resentment of the achievements of great men, when the very concepts of the good, the true, and the beautiful have been rejected by most advanced critics. To be sure, appreciative reviewers have noticed that Barney represents a crystallization of the techniques, themes, and obsessions of the vanguard art of the last decade or so, and that he shares with his contemporaries a passionate interest in sexual politics, sexual identity, and gross primary sexual morphology. The 1990s, in the arts as in politics, were the decade of the genital, and Barney falls squarely within this strain of recent art. Appropriately, fame and fortune have followed, but Barney’s fame hitherto has been limited to mere celebrity. His work, however, demands not notoriety but awe. What even the artist’s most ardent admirers have failed to recognize is that Matthew Barney is the Michelangelo of genital art, the supreme master of the genre, whose work so transcends the run-of-the-mill video artist masturbating in his studio that he also may be said to bring his tradition to its unsurpassable realization.(1) ”

Cremaster Master | Andy Spletzer
“I started exhibiting my work pretty quickly, right out of school. I had been making work that needed a context, a site. An interesting thing happened right as I was graduating [in 1989]: The stock market crashed and really changed the landscape of the art world in New York. It made the kind of work I was doing interesting to galleries that wouldn’t have normally been interested in it. I was continuing to make work that was site specific, but it was happening in galleries. I did that for a couple of years, and I started getting the itch to get back to very specific places in the world as the primary site for the work. This is what the Cremaster project grew out of.”

Matthew Barney| Alan Murdock
“‘Yesterday at lunch I had a talk with a couple of fellow instructors about the work of Matthew Barney. One instructor couldn’t understand why he might be important to the art world. ‘Who decides? Is it some club on the East Coast that goes through and says who is going to be important? I mean, do you like his work?’ ‘He’s well connected,’ another instructor said. ‘But it’s like Duchamp – you don’t have to like it, it’s more about a visual exploration of philosophical concepts.'”

The Leonard Lopate Show | Leonard Lopate/Matthew Barney
LL:”You must be very pleased when someone has important to the art world as Michael Kimmelman of the New York Times calls you the most important American artist of his generation. Do you take all of that seriously? Doesn’t that put a lot of pressure on you?
MB: Well I think that, luckily, that there are as many reviews that would say the opposite.
LL: So you like the bad reviews?
MB: I they’re important. I think they’re important for a dialogue to take place. That I wouldn’t want the bad ones to go away. ‘”(28:34/31:03)

To remove or add yourself from this list, email

emailed by Timothy on Tuesday 27 April 2004 @ 4:41 PM

04w18:1 Matthew Barney

by timothy. 0 Comments

Good Reads Mailing List | 2004 week 18 number 1 (Matthew Barney)

Those of us on the list from Toronto will understand why this post is all about Matthew Barney and his Cremaster Cycle, since the AGO’s Jackman Hall has made the talk of the town all about the screenings, which began on Friday and continue next week. The decision to send out an issue on him was prompted by reading a review in yesterday’s National Post, which unfortunately is not included here because they have the article *for sale* on their website, which only makes me shake my head in disgust rather than reach for my wallet. Lucky for us, an even better review is available from Sarah Milroy at the Globe and Mail.

There is another review, slightly irreverent in nature, that was written by yours truly two years ago for the Instant Coffee Saturday Edition, after seeing two of the films as part of that year’s Images Festival; and this marks the first time I’ve ever included some of my own thoughts in the Goodreads list. – Tim


The art of the male mystique | Sarah Milroy
“When people look back at the work of the American artist Matthew Barney in 100 years time — and they will, Barney being one of the signal artists of our times — you have to wonder what they will make of it. His Cremaster Cycle is an epic series of five films, and it is nothing short of hallucinatory, a seven-hour-long immersion in one of the most dazzling imaginations any of us is likely to come up against any time soon. […] Barney places himself at the centre of this investigation; the films, made between 1994 and 2000, are self-portraiture on an epic scale…”

Nurture boy | Katy Siegel
“It’s mildly annoying that so many reviews and articles about Matthew Barney’s work begin in a confessional mode, with a ritual throwing up of hands. (Aren’t critics supposed to use their expertise to help us engage difficult work?) But it’s also understandable. The ‘Cremaster’ series layers biology and history, multiplies and divides; like any thick, opaque text, it drives the critic either to wax vaguely lyrical or to perform iconographic contortions, numerology, advanced exegesis. But beneath all these spectacular particulars (and with work like this, you always run the risk of the artist rolling his eyeballs at your ‘insights’), the art revolves around a fundamental conflict. Matthew Barney is better than you – and he’s sorry. His studio feels like a high school woodshop, and he dresses down, not in the worker drag of the artist flaunting his machismo, but rather in the T-shirt-and-jeans camouflage of the seriously above-average guy. Writers often note, with varying degrees of suspicion, his aw-shucks reluctance to claim the public sphere, to play the part of the great artist in either the sullen or the glamorous mold. Barney is elaborately nice, despite the fact that he is much better looking than you, much more successful, a much better artist with a much more interesting life (inner as well as outer, apparently). At the same time, he obviously has a riotous urge to excel, to succeed, to play and act in the world. The clash of these contrary, impulses – reticence and self-assertion – is central to his work.”

Cremaster 1 & 4 | Timothy Comeau (scroll down a bit)
“I feel that Barney’s films benefit from their exclusivity, by the fact that we’ve all read about them, but not all had the chance to see them. Like the dream sequence in the Big Liebowski, they would become trivial rather quickly if Barney exposed their ambiguous symbolism and made them available at Blockbuster. Movies with line-ups rule, cause at that point they’re an event. These two had quite a lineup, and participating in this must see aspect I found more enjoyable than the films, which were mediocre.” Article Date: May 2002

Master of ceremony | Daniel Birnbaum
“BAYREUTH CAN WAIT: Matthew Barney’s CREMASTER cycle is a Wagnerian vision for the new millennium. It started, in CREMASTER 4, 1994, with a tap-dancing freak–half glitzy performer, half goat–dressed in white. With great care, the soft hands of three monstrous muses attached prosthetic gadgets to his elegant shoes–not since the early Andy Warhol has an artist spent so much energy on footwear. And it’s not only shoes in the traditional sense that play a central role in Barney’s work, it’s strange devices attached to the feet, tools for ritualistic practices and occult communication. In CREMASTER 3, 2002 (the recently debuted, last-to-be-realized installment of the pentalogy), a woman with crystal legs is suddenly transformed into a catlike creature, possibly in heat; a lovely lady with blades on her feet dices a roomful of potatoes, for reasons that will remain forever obscure; an elderly enchantress secretly lifts ceremonial instruments with her toes. Surely one way to enter Barney’s work is through the rich world of fetishism.”

matthew barney versus donkey kong | Wayne Bremser
“Despite the popularity of the Cremaster films, only a small percentage of museumgoers have ever seen an art film. After twenty-five years of cultural relevance, video games still do not have a serious place in museums and galleries. Cremaster 3 is important not only because it has attracted a wider audience to an art film, but also because it is one of the first works of contemporary art to incorporate video game narrative. […]Both Barney’s Entered Apprentice and Mario climb structures modified from what architects have intended. In the Chrysler Building Barney ascends the elevator shaft, which exposes the building’s innards. In the rivets degree of Donkey Kong, Mario must climb around an exposed, unfinished structure, walking over rivets to remove them. The perfect disorder of the titled girders in the ramps degree of Donkey Kong, transformed by an enormous jumping ape, match the perfect order of the ramps in Guggenheim rotunda, created by the most famous American architect. A climbing rig allows Barney to scale the rotunda, bypassing the ramps.”

Matthew Barney Needs Slaves |
“Wanna work for 20 hours a week — for no payment whatsoever — for Matthew Barney, one of the top-grossing artists in the world? On the plus side, you might have some good Bjork sightings — on the minus side, she might beat you down like that Thai reporter.”

Long links made short by using TinyURL (
To remove or add yourself from this list, email

emailed by Timothy on Sunday 25 April 2004 @ 2:28 PM