Where to begin? It seems the common thread in this weeks readings involves the confusion created by Barney’s self proclaimed denial of normative gender roles, and his desire to achieve an undifferentiated embryonic state. This idea of the undifferentiated human embryo represents the ultimate potential, and it is Barney’s desire to return to this state through discipline. For Barney, perfection of form equals transcendence, the ability to return to the embryonic state of equilibrium. This idea is described in the Spector article, “his characters are born from psychological constructs; they are personifications of inner, largely unexplored topographies. In this way they are all facets of a single organism, iterations of one system seeking equilibrium.” But, to whom do these “psychological constructs” belong? It is important to note this project is Barney’s fantasy. The “battle” is acted out in space, but that space is meant to represent an internal struggle. Could it be Barney’s own struggle? How does the idea of competition function in the Cremaster Cycle? What exactly is Barney’s work critiquing? These are some of the question I was left with after reading the Spector article.

Many of these questions were addressed in the Smolinski article. The gender mutability in Barney’s work is attributed to performance, and Smolinski references Judith Butler’s ideas of gender performitivity. Smolinski equates Barney’s characters with Butler’s ideas regarding the queering potential of drag. Bringing Butler into the argument seems misplaced. In Butler’s conception of gender performance the performance exists in opposition to gender norms. The performance occurs in spite of and in opposition to the sex of the individual performing, the outward motivation seeming to be a stronger identification to gender rather than biological sex. In Barney’s films gender seems to function more like a disguise, a means to an end. There doesn’t seem to be a political statement at work in the Cremaster Cycle, at least no statement that exists outside of Barney’s personal project. Is it ‘fair’ that Barney’s work is criticized for not adequately addressing the complex nature of gendered identity? What is Barney’s responsibility to this debate (considering the thematic elements in his work)? Is Barney even trying to expose the nature of gender performitivity, and if so, to what ends?

As for the Keller/Ward article, I found the assertion that Barney’s work was somehow problematic because it adopted a Hollywood blockbuster mode of presentation a bit offensive. Keller and Ward, in fairness, do point out the high/low binary established by Barney when referring to his work as “sculpture (as opposed to film),” but what critical position is established by this identification? The article criticizes barney for rehashing the same tired Oedipal struggle of 1980s hero films, and the idea that the outcome does not reinvent the idea of Oedipus seems unforgiveable. However, These are the same films that informed Barney’s ideas of normative masculinity. Should Barney not be allowed to draw from these sources when making his own ‘sculptures?’ The tone of this article was a bit offensive, and the almost mocking statement:

“Now, of course, Mathew Barney should not make work other than his own; we would wish this freedom on artists everywhere, and neither can we criticize Barney’s work for not being art or film of a particular kind. However, art happens in contexts.”

It seems like the main criticism of Barney’s work in this article is exactly that the work didn’t conform to the expectations of an art film, favoring the Hollywood blockbuster instead. I agree that art happens in contexts, but if that is going to be your closing shot maybe a more concrete idea about the context in which we should encounter the work would be helpful. Using Guy Debord to call Barney’s work a bunch of ‘gobbelty-gook’ seems childish.

There are a few questions that I’m left with from these three (four, if you read the optional) articles. When an artistic project reaches a conclusion are we as an audience supposed to be left with definitive answers? How should Barney attempt to address ‘masculinity,’ an idea that seems completely ubiquitous and at the same time beyond definition? Finally, What the hell is Mathew Barney’s deal?! Anyone else have any ideas about this stuff?!