The Imaginary Sculpture of Matthew Barney

The American artist Matthew Barney considers himself a sculptor, but an acceptance of the methods and mediums that Barney employs in his art as "sculpture" requires a rethinking of the term. The historical concept of sculpture as an ideological monument embodying a religious or political...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Benitez, Rosalie Claire
Other Authors: Michael Crespo
Format: Others
Language:en
Published: LSU 2002
Subjects:
Art
Online Access:http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-0416102-184739/
id ndltd-LSU-oai-etd.lsu.edu-etd-0416102-184739
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-LSU-oai-etd.lsu.edu-etd-0416102-1847392013-01-07T22:47:54Z The Imaginary Sculpture of Matthew Barney Benitez, Rosalie Claire Art The American artist Matthew Barney considers himself a sculptor, but an acceptance of the methods and mediums that Barney employs in his art as "sculpture" requires a rethinking of the term. The historical concept of sculpture as an ideological monument embodying a religious or political allegory, or its Modernist revision as an autonomous, three-dimensional object is radically redefined in Barney's use of film, video, sculpture, photography, and drawing to convey a contemporary allegory on the creation of form. Barney's work explodes the structural boundaries that Rosalind Krauss defined in her 1978 essay "Sculpture in the Expanded Field," in which she examined the contemporary condition of sculpture in the practices of artists working in the late 1960s and 1970s. In a later essay of 1990, "The Cultural Logic of the Late Capitalist Museum," Krauss proposed that the "aesthetic experience" of viewing art has been replaced by a "simulacral experience," as a consequence of works of art being assigned an "asset" value rather than a cultural value. Barney's primary use of film and sculpture to create one work of art commands simultaneously "simulacral" and aesthetic experiences of the viewer. The artist's epic CREMASTER project (1994-2002) exemplifies the conceptual leap the viewer must make in accepting the work as sculpture. Barney reassigns the formal properties of the mediums of film and sculpture in reverse, so that his films are treated with a physical presence in three-dimensional space as bodies or sites, while his sculptures, in their materials and allusions to the preceding films, are characterized by ephemerality. In the context of a cinema or museum, the work maintains an aesthetic experience, but a whole experience of the work as sculpture can only be "simulacral" and exist in the viewer's imagination. Michael Crespo Mark J. Zucker Susan Elizabeth Ryan LSU 2002-04-17 text application/pdf http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-0416102-184739/ http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-0416102-184739/ en restricted I hereby grant to LSU or its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or in part in the University Libraries in all forms of media, now or hereafter known. I retain all proprietary rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation.
collection NDLTD
language en
format Others
sources NDLTD
topic Art
spellingShingle Art
Benitez, Rosalie Claire
The Imaginary Sculpture of Matthew Barney
description The American artist Matthew Barney considers himself a sculptor, but an acceptance of the methods and mediums that Barney employs in his art as "sculpture" requires a rethinking of the term. The historical concept of sculpture as an ideological monument embodying a religious or political allegory, or its Modernist revision as an autonomous, three-dimensional object is radically redefined in Barney's use of film, video, sculpture, photography, and drawing to convey a contemporary allegory on the creation of form. Barney's work explodes the structural boundaries that Rosalind Krauss defined in her 1978 essay "Sculpture in the Expanded Field," in which she examined the contemporary condition of sculpture in the practices of artists working in the late 1960s and 1970s. In a later essay of 1990, "The Cultural Logic of the Late Capitalist Museum," Krauss proposed that the "aesthetic experience" of viewing art has been replaced by a "simulacral experience," as a consequence of works of art being assigned an "asset" value rather than a cultural value. Barney's primary use of film and sculpture to create one work of art commands simultaneously "simulacral" and aesthetic experiences of the viewer. The artist's epic CREMASTER project (1994-2002) exemplifies the conceptual leap the viewer must make in accepting the work as sculpture. Barney reassigns the formal properties of the mediums of film and sculpture in reverse, so that his films are treated with a physical presence in three-dimensional space as bodies or sites, while his sculptures, in their materials and allusions to the preceding films, are characterized by ephemerality. In the context of a cinema or museum, the work maintains an aesthetic experience, but a whole experience of the work as sculpture can only be "simulacral" and exist in the viewer's imagination.
author2 Michael Crespo
author_facet Michael Crespo
Benitez, Rosalie Claire
author Benitez, Rosalie Claire
author_sort Benitez, Rosalie Claire
title The Imaginary Sculpture of Matthew Barney
title_short The Imaginary Sculpture of Matthew Barney
title_full The Imaginary Sculpture of Matthew Barney
title_fullStr The Imaginary Sculpture of Matthew Barney
title_full_unstemmed The Imaginary Sculpture of Matthew Barney
title_sort imaginary sculpture of matthew barney
publisher LSU
publishDate 2002
url http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-0416102-184739/
work_keys_str_mv AT benitezrosalieclaire theimaginarysculptureofmatthewbarney
AT benitezrosalieclaire imaginarysculptureofmatthewbarney
_version_ 1716476469279981568