Added: 4 years ago
From: jubraneos
Views: 61,388
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (52)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • BAD ROMANCE!

  • i love mathew barney =D if you watch the film carefully you will find the hidden message and yes there is a sense behind all that ;D but i thought it was called 'the order' ? or is ist just another name for it ? =D

  • Comment removed

  • A bubble is abushi. hemneko sends a Japanese bubble to matthew.

  • matthew barney > lady gaga. (even if she's still fierce, art beats pop.)

  • @inmywonderland07 Then who the hell wins with Pop art?

  • Looks like this was shot in the gugenheim

  • Id love to be sticking it to Bjork

  • now this is some "art" i can get into!

  • ??????★★★★★-- -- --

  • Barney loves to play on gender stereotypes amongst other things.

  • id say farts is arts and baloney is money

  • yes it was the limited version, sold seperately to , well rich people I guess, I doubt we will ever see the $100,000 version, and in fact its a nasty concept to delinate art aceess with social wealth, quite a dickhead this guy is,, pfft his art is shit anyway I think they got ripped off

  • love all thing Barney

  • maybe this is the paradise but is THIS art?? ;D

  • I would submit that while it is cool to watch, it is not art, and that can be said about all of Mathew Barney's work in my opinion. The guy is a douche bag who is infatuated with dicks and vagina's.

  • You don't even know what art is.

  • nice stupid comment there, you fountain of knowledge, you...lol, alright.....and how would you know what I know? Did I offend you when I wasn't talking to or about you? Perhaps you don't even know what art is, but I wouldn't make any assumptions, because I don't know you. So the next time you're feeling psychic, keep it to yourself. PS. can you name any of Barney's other works? do you know anything about him?......

  • Why do idiots, when confronted with their idiocy always respond with "You don't know me!"? We know enough about you to see your jealousy and sexual repression that drips out from your comments. No, I don't know you personally- and I'm happy like that. I'm fine sitting in my office rolling my eyes that another moron feels the need to weigh-in on something they could NEVER even hope to match in artistic achievement.

  • Why do retards, when confronted with opinions, start shitting and pissing all over themselves in a fit of rage? I am glad that you have a working comprehension of what opinions are, I am glad that they actively affect your day. I am also glad that you don't have a job(sitting in your office my dick), as I am sure you are incapable of completing the most unimportant of tasks. So, I guess I am glad that you feel fit to judge people intelligence based off of 400 letters on youtube. You are a winner

  • your right, since I will never make a movie, I am incapable of telling if one is good or not. You are truly a master of intellect. That is probably why critics don't exist, and no one has ever thought something sucked. I hope this helps you realize that your a twat. Unless your just a little kid(which I have strong suspicions of), in which case, you'll get smarter as you grow, I promise. No one is as dumb as you forever.

  • Anything placed in a artistic context is art. You can call it bad art, but it's still art.

  • good response, though I would say that art is subjective. What you may call art, I might not. Whether or not I find something artful should not hinder your appreciation of it. We all have different tastes.

    PS, who's to say what an "artistic context" is? People can claim all sorts of thing are art, but it's up to the viewer to decide.

  • Artistic context I would say is dependent on the artist, not the viewer. I myself don't particularly like Barney's work, but I would never agree whether it is art or not. He has given us some art, that's for sure, but I don't know if it's good art.

  • point taken, but like I said, people can claim anything is art, and people can claim anything is not. Its a system of opinions, but it's good to see someone articulate them well.

    In my mind, art and a piece of art are two different things, any drawing or painting is technically a piece of art, but art is much larger than just the drawing or the painting itself. It is left to opinion as to what art really is. Would you consider all films as art, or just the ones with the sole intent to be art?

  • Ah I see where you're coming from. You think of art as less of a process and more of a conclusion - less of what it is trying to be, and more of what it actually achieves. I see art as a less definable and broader term. So, rather than argue semantics perhaps we can both conclude that these films are simply empty expressions :(

  • an absolutely acceptable conclusion, Ive had a nice discussion with you. Thank you.

  • @CorianderCivar Art must first be created or altered by the artist so although an objet trouve may have aesthetic or thought provoking value it is NOT art.In my view there is good and bad art in all eras of art and in my view art can be rated with regards to many factors,In a democracy we should be open to a variety with regard to artforms and interpretations but in most of the best galleries I see an increasing preferewnce for the pretentious and work often lacking genuine ability..very sad

  • @CorianderCivar I agree, but I hate when people take advantage of the idea of art. I mean sure you can splatter paint on a canvas and call it art, but the minute people put up a blank white canvas or put toilet (it's been done before) in a museum and use "who's to say what art is?" to get away with it, it kind of pisses me off.

  • @zeogle What's important about that kind of art, is that it's approaching the idea of art from an angle that we are not brought up to perceive. We think of art as technical, therefore something that isn't technically impressive can't be that good. The point of putting your name on a urinal and calling it art is to challenge our ideas and concepts of art, to make you think in a way that you didn't before. The fact that it annoys you is making you think about what you're looking at - that's po-mo!

  • @CorianderCivar But there's nothing to think about! I'm all for challenging the ideas of art. That's why I respect when someone like Bansky does it with Exit Through the Gift Shop (if you haven't seen that it's a great film and I highly recommend it). And sure, when the first few people started putting random objects in museums to change perspectives of art, that was interesting, but if people keep doing that it cheapens the idea of art. If everything can be art then nothing is. (Cliche, I know)

  • @zeogle Hmmm well I think the only thing that has truly cheapened art in the previous century is the commodification of art, where only "good" art is expensive art. And unfortunately that overturn began to happen around the time this kind of art started being created. Exit Through the Gift Shop is an excellent film, and I think you should also see Mona Lisa Curse (it's on youtube) to really understand what's wrong with art! But I also respect your opinion.

  • @CorianderCivar Agreement with pretty much all points. I'm not saying that all dadaism is hurting art, but some people's abuse of it is at least hurting it in some way. And I will definitely be checking out that movie!

  • @zeogle There were many brilliant DaDa artists, a lot of illustration, screenprint etc wouldn't exist the way it does without DaDa.  *rolling eyes*

  • @zeogle Banksy is way overrated, very generic, and you have to look at when "people started putting random objects in museums to change perspectives of art", it was a philosophical change of perspective, different thinking constructs, absolutely NOTHING cheapening about it.

  • NOt it nathing

    (no entendi niuna wea!!!)

    xD

    of:chile

  • I wanna to be there acting there. I´m an actress on the inside, though you can´t believe it, hehe.

    And that´s so Bjork... I don´t find the word. It´s a fantastic creation.

    Matthew Barney, I didn´´t know you 10 minutes ago.

    Watch my videos.

  • was this in the gugenheim!?!?!

  • yes. nyc. the whole film takes place there.

  • Not the whole film, just the section entitled "The Order" (which is the only part of the cycle that is available on DVD). The rest of the film takes place in various locations, including the Chrysler building.

  • it's harvest season. enjoy the fresh crops.

  • To the girls "Hello, my name is Matthew Barney, i'm artistic and want to shake the very core of filmaking and i'm the writer/producer and director of this film. So what i'd like you lovely ladies to do is GET YOUR FUCKEN TITS OUT AND GET IN THE BATH!!!"

    I hate this arty farty stuff.

  • im an art student and i think barney is an elitist with petty self indulgent crap. btw the guy is totally self worshiping in all his pieces.

  • I've heard that Fellini too was a very indulgent fimmaker. Can you share your knowledge of why you think Barney is self-indulgent? Is this your opinion or do art institutions generally dismiss Barney's work as such? Why do you think this trait is a bad thing? Isn't all art self indulgent in one way or another? (not trying to be mean, I'm genuinely interested in your opinion, as I've heard this assessment repeatedly of Barney's work, and I wanna know what I'm missing).

    Thanks.

  • I cringe looking back at my old comments I still agree with what I said but I came off acting a prick. Read about his past performance pieces i.e. climbing around naked. Hes an ex male model and most his work seems like it.

  • O I've got some pretty cringe-worthy comments too!!

    Perhaps he treats his modeling experience as a faculty to his art making, just as he would use petroleum jelly or the Guggenheim architecture, it's just a form. I think there's no harm in using it in his art. There's something very pagan about bodily beauty that Barney seems to tap into with his obsession with the cultic world..and he's a pretty good looking guy, so the physical involvement in his art is perfect I think.

    Anyway, thanks. :)

  • good point, barney is ripped. and all art is in a way self indulgent, plus this video series is the cremaster cycle, clearly barney is exploring this notion specifically within his own self. im not sure the video would have the same effect if barney choose to cast an actor in the parts he plays. Barney doesn't overly idolize himself in these either, you find him in clips that completely strip him of any power in some scenes. Only partially narcissistic

  • bjork would have eaten them

  • i bet matthew barney got laid with all of them

  • what a great comment

  • @asiguere Actually, he probably didn't. I'm doing the last film of the Cremaster Cycle with Matthew right now, and there isn't much actor-director interaction.

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more