after watching alison chernick's portrait of matthew barney in no restraint, i'm still not sure how i feel about his work. it is impressive in its complexity, execution and overall beauty. but it leaves me feeling annoyed, just as the cremaster series did. my kneejerk response is to be turned off by the deeply coded narratives, with their difficult and obscure layers of references.

again, though, they are such pretty films. if i take them straight on as surrealist art pieces i can stomach them, but every time i hear barney speak about them i become more turned off of his work. and that's no criticism of him, as he is a clear and engaging speaker who is thoughtful about the nature of his art. it's that every time i learn about how obscure and strange the references are i get more annoyed. solution: i think i will stop listening to him talk about his work and just enjoy it for the strangeness that it is.

or do i find something absurd about the resources expended to elaborate these ideas? i suppose it's modern day opera aspect, constructing a delectable (and presumably extravagantly expensive) visual and intellectual diversion for the art elite. if he has the necessary connections to finance these projects, then why not? it's no more absurd than the insane resources spent on a hollywood blockbuster. hell, if i had access the kind of capital he does i'd probably execute some pretty outrageously weird projects as well.

so back to my previous solution: i'll just shut up and enjoy the eye candy for what i get out of it.