Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Matthew Barney...

http://www.cremaster.net/#

From what I've seen, I personally do not like his films. It's probably because I don't understand them. Some of his stills are crazy-psycho-cool, but I don't like the films after watching more film clips and trailers. Reading on the official website however didn't clarify anything for me. He talks about the cremaster cycle and pre-sexual development and how that represents to him a state of purity. That's an interesting thought, but I feel as if his films in no way whatsoever portray these ideas! Well, other then his diagrams which, even if they're strategically placed or formed out of grapes or people or horses, are so literal and straightforward. Boring! I don't know if I'm missing something crucial, but I personally am just not a fan by the slightest means.

8 comments:

sara pendleton said...

I'm not particularly interested in him either. I've seen art films in galleries, and I love experimental movies but not like this... ugh. His films are a little long and maybe a little self-righteous. Ok, this is going to sound terrible judgmental but I think it's kind of unfair that he has so much money to make films when amazing DIY filmmakers operate on little to no budget. So I guess it smacks of someone not earning their fame, everyone in creative fields usually has to start out as a little guy and work forward... like dire poverty and cold-water-flats and 5 rejection letters a week kind of deal. Then you make it, you get casted, you get published or put in a gallery or even get a film in sun dance and it's great. If you skip this process I guess it feels like you cheated somehow. His films loose the DIY feel I guess I associate with art house films; they're too polished, too expensive. I think that whenever an artist has to tell you what he/she was trying to do, and you miss it completely, that's it's never a very positive sign; if you're work doesn't say it, then don't try to explain it, everyone's already missed the point which could be good or bad but in this case I don't think it's such a good thing. It's hard to be weirder than Bijork but he did it... that's kind of an accomplishment. (wow, completely bad-mouthed this guy just now, sorry...)

alyb said...

I agree, I think the reason that I do not like his art is that I do not understand his work. I do think that it is very interesting that he is involved in all of his art in the sense that he acts in his films. I also like the way he makes his costumes/characters. I think they are incredibly intricate and interesting but his work as a whole has relativly no effect on me.

Ravin S said...

He is an incredibly detail oriented artist, but I think that the broader theme is somewhat left out. I obviously haven't seen enough of his work to make a proper judgement thought. I would like to see what is going on with the goat man photo, that one looks crazy.

christine said...

I'm not a big fan of His work either. After reading this, I get what he's trying to do but I honestly can't see how his work means that. It's just bizarre, confusing, and as you said, boring.

Mallory said...

I agree. I think his films are so jumpy that it is hard to follow any story line. The stills from his films are cool because they snap shot certain images that come out as very detail oriented. However, I could not sit through any of his movies and enjoy them

mere said...

I thought his movies were kind of star wars-like. why couldn't any other scifi movie be considered art if his is?

sara pendleton said...

I'm a little impressed anybody can sit through one of his four hour movies, it doesn't really seem like they'd attract a lot of people. Yeah I wonder what's going on with goatman... or how he came up with some of this stuff like murder and Mormons and horse-ballet...

ParkerC said...

I don't see how the cremaster can be made into the grand symbol he makes it out to be. But, as far as comparing his work to Star Wars, I don't think that can be compared. Star wars isn't art, just an awesome movie series