Unrestrained

Recently, a copy of Matthew Barney's 2005 movie Drawing Restraint 9 leaked onto the Internet. Barney's been bootlegged before, but, as far as I've seen, never like this: the copy of DR9 is virtually pristine. Where as the contraband copies of his Cremaster cycle are washed-out, improperly framed, point-the-camera-at-the-screen-and-press-record affairs, this copy of DR9 is clearly a dub. When played via DVD on a TV, it looks perfect -- this is the at-home experience that Matthew Barney doesn't want you to have.

Barney has been adamant about not releasing his art films on DVD. I'm fairly sure that he's said this for years to a number of interviewers, but here's a fairly compact run-down of his philosophy, as told to Glen Helfand in an SF360 interview from last year:

They cannot be distributed as DVDs because they originally sold as limited-edition art objects. If a sculpture is in an edition of six, you can't make more of them. It's not right for them to be available to be owned in an unlimited way after they've been sold in a limited way. I have the right to do theatrical distribution of the films, which I've done with 'Cremaster' and 'Drawing Restraint 9.' In Paris, they have now, for the second time, brought back the series. It's certainly a better condition to see it than on a monitor.

First of all: no shit, it's better to see movies in the theater. It goes without saying that home-viewing isn't ideal -- why is it that everyone else can deal with this and Matthew Barney can't? But really, what bugs me the most about this is the equation of sculpture and film, simply because a sculpture is not a film, and shouldn't be treated as such. Different media call for different measures, DVDs are not art objects, and if you're working in a popular field like film, you should respect its order and not impose your pseudo-iconoclasm on it.

Besides, upholding art-world elitism and cultural segregation isn't very iconoclastic at all, now is it?

In this year's IFC documentary Matthew Barney: No Restraint, Barney's live-in girlfriend and DR9 co-star Björk explains that Barney sees himself primarily as a sculptor, and that his films are made to serve his sculptures (much like, to use her example, the way magazine photo shoots serve her music). If only he had the same level-headedness! Barney's unilateral vision of media exhibited in his quote above makes so much sense when viewing his films -- when he stopped merely documenting the athletic process of his early work (he'd set up a sort of endurance obstacle course that would require him to, for example, scribble on a piece of paper on the ceiling while doing a pull-up) and started creating narratives, he seemed to take on the assumption artistry yields filmmaking, and not the other way around.

Because really, he's not a filmmaker, he's an image compiler. His film work, while full of stunning, singular images, is arrogantly long-winded. The leak of DR9 is the best thing that could have happened to it, as it allows you to watch it on DVD on double speed, and gives you the chance of appreciating a movie that unfurls slowly enough to make it too long by half. Seriously, weeeeee getttttt ittttttt. And if we don't, directing as if you're suspended in the goo that's so often the center of your art will not helppppppp ussssss.

If you haven't noticed, I'm happy that DR9 is now out there for whomever wants to see it (it's not like there are droves on pins and needles who can't wait to watch a two-and-a-half-hour abstract concept piece in which two people may or may not transform into a whale, anyway). Ultimately, I think it serves Barney right for setting himself above the pop culture that his film really is a part of, obtuse as it is. The quote from the SF360 piece that drives me the most crazy, isn't the one about why his films can't be distributed on DVD. It's this: "At the end of the day, I want to communicate." Ha! By sequestering his art, he's "communicating" by talking under his breath. Only those in his immediate vicinity can hear him. His main folly is thinking that he could pull off withholding his film from so many -- he essentially thought that he was exempt from technology. Again, it's the unilateral vision that's his downfall. You can't trade sculptures via BitTorrenet. Films are an entirely different matter.

And so, I wonder, now that we can view a nice, clean copy of DR9 in our own homes, is this gooey clam no longer art?

How about this crab?

Is Björk's bush now lacking that artful tang that it had when it could only be appreciated in galleries and arthouses?

Frankly, my favorite thing about DR9's leak is that I now have a hard copy of Barney's wang (NSFW) that I can look at any time I want. Now I can masturbate right along with him! Yay, mutual!

I'm just kidding -- I really don't hate Barney. I'm curious what his response will be to the leak, if he responds at all. I wonder if it'll show him how ultimately silly his decision was to keep it intangible in the first place. Will the translucent and thick jelly ever be wiped from Barney's vision?

P.S. This fake commentary on the DR9 trailer is best thing to come from Barney's work that I've ever seen. There is a place for art in pop culture! I learned that from YouTube!

Comments

[Washington Cube]

Bjork? Wax. And when they've tackled your nether regions, get them to do something about your brows.

[joe]

also want to add that i think you are making a lot of assumptions. some people enjoyed DR9, myself being one of them. i didn't find it long winded and would not want to watch it on fast forwards (besides the gorgeous pace of the film you wouldn't be able to experience the great audio on fast forward) i'm thinking that maybe its just not your thing? i don't think this is a case of art world elitism either. while he chose film as the medium, why must it fit into your (rather narrow) defintion of how a film should be, behave and be distributed. he is the creator of the piece - why can't he do what he wants with it? are there not other possiblities for his intentions other than elitism? the film clearly wasn't made with everyone in mind (otherwise Matt Damon and Jessica Alba would have played the leads) and i don't think it has to be made with everyone in mind (it would probably have been much less interesting). i also think much of what you are saying about barney is assumed. i don't know that DR9 being leaked is directly related to any mistake (or folly as you put it) on his part. for all we know he's happy it leaked. i guess i feel a bit protective because it seems like you are picking on him unfairly and not giving credit where credit is due. an opinion is one thing but much of what you are saying is pure speculation. why is it a fault of matthew barney or the "folly" of his art that it leaked onto the web? what mistake has Britney Spears, Missy Elliot or Radiohead committed that resulted in their work being leaked? i don't think so. i also don't think it can be assumed that it was barney's decision alone to not release DR9 on DVD. did it occur to you that it was the request of the investors of the film? or that the investors wouldn't have given the money to produce the piece if it were something that were going to be sold commercially?

[bells]

opinions are like assholes; everyone has one.

[Brian]

LOL @ Bjork's bush.

Wild and unruly thing, isn't it?

[fourfour fan]

Check out artists' Tina Takemoto and Jennifer Parker's guerilla performance at the opening of Matthew Barney's Drawing Restraint at SFMOMA at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oy3p12NeqPI
It's hilarious--why not throw his and Bjork's bizarro racial appropriation in the mix while we're discussing his tripe, er, art?

Tina Takemoto (aka Björk-Geisha) and Jennifer Parker (aka Matthew-Whaler) presented unsolicited performances of fan dancing, lipsynching, samurai whaling, and chopstick hara-kiri during the opening
of Matthew Barney's "Drawing Restraint" exhibition at the San Francisco
Museum of Modern Art in response to Drawing Restraint 9, a recent film featuring Barney and Björk as "occidental visitors" on a
whaling ship in Japan.

[Courtney]

Oh my god..."I want a pony's child." I am crying!!

Rich, thank you for being so random and introducing me to so many things I would have never come across normally...

[e.i.]

I saw Drawing Restraint 9 in San Francisco and thought it was cool.
Where can I watch it on the web???
I didn't notice any links.

[mariootsa]

dear 10-year olds who read this site:

women actually have pubic hair naturally (just like men!), and when hair is placed into water, it billows out. get over it.

[starstattoo]

I wonder how much of Matthew Barney's golden-child status in the art scene has been because of his work and how much of it has been because he's a former J. Crew model who still looks amazingly hot.

Maybe his entire career is a performance piece, a satire on the fact that beautiful people can get away with more shit than normal-to-fugly people...

[theidlereceptionist]

I'm unfamiliar with Barney's work but that spoof was worth it's (metaphorically sculptural) weight in gold. Ha!!

[DeFargo]

There were low-res rips of the Cremaster DVDs floating around a few years ago. These were not crappy webcams, but (due to the sheer gigabyte size of the entire Cremaster series) whoever ripped them decided to make the files a smaller and more reasonable size for file-sharing.

Barney is an over-rated, over-paid, and over-hyped poseur.

[Beketaten]

I think those who crowd around with such superficial anatomical comments, or willing accusations of "pretension" are the ones missing out on these slower, more beautiful things in life, because they are too busy being sensitive by weak cultural standards.

Kudos to both artists, because they recreate aspects of my wordless dreams I thought were gone forever.
And they're HAWT, people. HAWT.

Yeah. I have more fun loving it than you do hating it.

[ieijjoiioj]

I guarantee Beketaten wears a beret and -doesn't- laugh at himself when he looks in the mirror.

*finger snap* serious, baby.

[So...]

"It's not right for them to be available to be owned in an unlimited way after they've been sold in a limited way."

Uh, okay, so how many times have I seen that stupid soup can on a poster? How many reproduction David statues are sitting on end tables (or in front yards) all over the world? Is he saying that art should only be available to those who can afford to pay exhorbitant prices for it?

This is why I the words "art" and "artist" make me crazy. They make things sound so much more important than they really are.

[Andrew]

That parody is freaking amazing. But then I caught a glimpse of the part of the movie with Björk and Barney at the moment they sink under the water, and it looks cool enough that I just have to see the real thing.

heheh Björk and Barney
two plus two is four
fourfour?

[gail]

i think matthew barney's a hack. if i dress up as a goat and "act all transgressive-like" will you give me $100,000 for my vhs tapes? anyone? 'cause i'll totally do it.

[doug]

I love your writing, Rich, and I love your hilarious and savvy take on pop culture, but I think that as was stated above, maybe this film is just not your thing, and I think that your lambasting of it might be a bit misguided. I'm personally not a huge fan of Barney's, and there is no question that what he does is completely driven by narcissism, but then again, so is pretty much anything that anyone you write about does, so I suppose that can't be your complaint. I do, however, get a bit annoyed when people always equate art with entertainment and popular culture, or expect exactly the same things from them. I don't expect US Weekly to read quite the same as James Baldwin, but I can enjoy them both the same; meanwhile, the way you define film and art might be a bit narrow-minded. My point is, if your argument is about exclusionary methods of distribution, make that argument- it's a potentially valid one. I would, however, be wary of confusing that with a judgement call about what artists are and are not allowed to call their work, unless you are informed or open-minded enough to engage in discussion about it. I think your platform could be a great one to discuss all different kinds of culture and how they speak to a contemporary people, and I'm just slightly disappointed to see such a knee-jerk assessment from such a smart and talented writer.

[art, schmart]

Whoa, Doug, I'm an artist (BA, MA, MFA--the whole 9), and I would suggest that art is open to every kind of interpretation--are you really suggesting that art can't be discussed in US Weekly terms (ie., "entertainment and popular culture"), that somehow it's above that level of discussion because it's "art?" I was thrilled to see a post about "art" on this blog--it's all consumer culture, and it makes total sense. I would say that any art that requires something extra to understand is art that has probably failed. But then if everyone "got" it, a whole lotta theorists would be out of work, no?

[Nonplussed]

Incidentally...
Why such Buffoonery over a lush bouffant Ladygarden?
Isn't it wierder that a naked rip-stripped paedoVag is considered more desirable?
Ho hum.

[Topher]

DS9 was utter garbage. It made my brain bleed. Blowholes!

[Buffalo]

I totally agree with the notion of his ridiculous elitism. Elitism isn't art, it's the exact opposite of what art should be. Art is about communication and connection with other people, not withdrawing into yourself... might as well keep all the creativity in your head if that's how it's going to be!

I actually am one of those weirdos who has been on pins and needles to see this film (literally since 2005), and now I'm going out of my mind trying to download the damn torrent :( Can only find ones with a handful of seeds. Two days and I'm only at 5%. If you know the best and easiest way to download the film, please contact me via www.buffaloheart.com (not trying to drive traffic there, just don't want to give out my e-mail)