Re: [thingist] barney at the guggenheim

On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, t.whid wrote:

> I only make the jealousy argument when a critique is vague or lacking
> as was the case of a-nd's post.

Which is complete drivel as your lack of ability to perceive
why he brings up narcissism or his lack of justification
really is no "reason" for empty speculations of the negative sort.
If you were indeed trying to question that, why didn't you
ask the question directly? Why didn't you state "I find your
critique lacking in evidence re: Barney's narcissism."
But no, you have to invoke the "defensive" by waving the flag
of some questionably existent "jealousy". It would seem rather
that you're bringing your own "jealousy" here–down to the
jealous defense of Barney himself. That my dearest is self-
projection, and hitting below the belt.

> It was 'narcissistic', how? It was opaque, why?

Nevermind your insistence that such things are perceivable
with your brain and expressible in words. Standard + ultra
standard response of the "talking heads".

> The crit basically came down to, 'My group didn't like
> it.'

No, the crit was what he wrote. Not what you sum it up as.
That is not to say I am attaching any value to it whatsoever.

> If there was a reasonable crit to respond to,

Especially the sort your limited brain can wrap around to.

> siting specific qualities (or lack thereof) of the art then I would
> respond to those points, presently on the list there aren't any.

The desperate grip on real time–past, present, and future, is a sign
of those marked as prey.

Those who ceaselessly debate the life out of everything they touch,
endlessly dissect information and pronounce their conclusions with
airs of self-importance and greatness, these are also ripe prey.

> > Barney's "success" has been artifically created and maintained not
> > unlike a
> > "pop star" in the recording biz.
>
> You could give this criticism of any popular artist.

That in no way invalidates or is even a relative point to what
was written, besides mechanistic reactions to appear "intelligent"
by knee-jerk opposition along standardly programmatic lines.

> Once collectors or institutions have an investment in an artist then
> there are all sorts of financial pressures to make sure that artist's
> work maintains it's value. It becomes a conspiracy that none of the
> conspirators need to talk about.

Such as the "conspiracy" that US Museums and increasingly others
don't get sufficient funding from benefactors and governments, and
are driven to act as whores to the "popular revolution" which is
driven by vehicles of parties interested in the general public's
aquired training to bend over and pay for being spanked. The entire
reason why Barney can do what he does is because he peddled out his
own ass long ago and is a very convenient tool–but like the rest
of "them" he fancies it's him doing it, and so do you go on carrying
his flag, and more than likely cause you'd love to be in his position.

> > He was created as a brand with a strategy.

As is the current "tendency" of artistic "kultur". You no longer
have "benefactors" to push you around–now it's all hidden behind
a veil of "elitism" and illusions that really really you're oh so
independent–give the ape a brain, and it's already calculated
everything and achieved "freedom of will". That is, in case it's
not clear what is being written, Monsieur Gutenberg made everybody
G-O-D.

> > But as I've stated before there is definitely something to the guy
> > other
> > than what has unfurled in the Cremaster Cycle. I doubt much of what
> > he's
> > accomplished so far will stand the test of time except the fact that
> > he had
> > a great "exit strategy" as in The Powell Doctrine.
>
> I guess we'll see if he lasts (tho I don't think you believe that to be
> a test of great art anyway, part of MTAA's problem is we don't give a
> shit if our work lasts longer than a political joke. )

MTAA's "problem" among many is that they don't have the guts to look
at neither their problem–that is that they're swimming to their necks
in blood and mommy's milk–and hence are completely escaping in their
brains with the added value of turning themselves into "instruments"
of abuse, latest example of taking advantage of the rhizome subscriber's
base. What a shame that it never gets "heard" that in a situation of
abuse both the parties get debased.

> I still can't think of another artist of his generation that could have
> pulled off an installation in the entire Gug.

I can. And in fact, there are some. There are even ones younger
than Barney who have exhibited in entire museums "bigger" than the
Guggenheim and far older / reputable than the Guggenheim at a younger
age, and been less of crass tools to top it off. Your "ignorance"
is no justification of the idolatry, but then again seeing as how
idolatry rules the situation anyhow, beyond any "justifications"
and "reasonable" explanations–which you so fervently demand of others
but really are not ruled by yourself despite your reasonable guy
pose (yet another standard programmatic knee-jerk)–allow me to
"explain" exactly what you're doing–you're demanding idolatry by proxy
using Barney as an excuse–what a shame for the "problem of MTAA".
The very very poor MTAA.


> > He's an awful lot like
> > his current squeeze, Bjork. Is there anyone out there who actually
> > likes her
> > records past the Sugarcubes? But everyone loves Bjork anyway.
>
> no, she sux after the Sugarcubes.

Sweetheart, you couldn't touch Bjork's potential in a million years.
Which is why Mr. Barney is interested in her anyhow–that is, he's weak
and he needs her energy to run his "crusade".