Well, if you've seen one of the films and you're still curious as to what its appeal may be, maybe you have more of an interest in it than you would like to believe.

Lots of people like the Dave Matthews Band. I can't stand his whiney ass. I have no interest in knowing why other people like him - I just know for a fact that I don't.

The Cremaster Cycle is difficult viewing. It's not easily categorized and it's easy to dismiss as a vanity piece(and that dismissal is not altogether inaccurate). I took the bait and engaged with it, and I found it to be fascinating and visually amazing. After doing a little reading on the symbolism and themes of the films, I was even more interested.

But that's just me. Results may vary.

i agree with you that the Cremaster project as a whole can be viewed simply as a huge, expensive exercise in self-indulgence - but on what a scale! part of what i like about it is that sheer audacity.

this may or may not apply to your own experience, but i think a lot of the frustration people have when encountering Barney's work stems from trying to figure out what all the elements "mean" (i.e., the "rebus" method of looking at art, where the work is nothing more than a puzzle which the viewer is supposed to be able to figure out), instead of treating it purely as spectacle, which i think is the best way of looking at it. it's like trying to comprehend a dream - you can figure out what some of the elements signify, but what you remember most is the feeling it leaves you with when you wake up. the whole is somehow greater than the sum of its parts.

that said, anyone's reaction to a work of art is always a subjective one, so no big deal if the "visual poetry" of Cremaster isn't your thing. i feel the same way about the work of John Currin, to use another example of an artist over whom a lot of critical ink has been spilled lately: a lot of people i know really love it, but it just bores me to tears most of the time.

Ok... this one I can respond to- and note, I'm only responding to present facts, and I totally respect opinions held-to.

Barney produced 5 very expensive films... and somehow, they needed to be paid for. He recieved some (ok, a lot) of grant money... for the Isle of Man one, money from England. For the others... not sure, though not enough to cover all production expenses.

Acknowledged... it does compromise the integrity of an art-piece to over commoditize it, and perhaps his sale of sculptures and such did just that. He did it however, to generate income to finance later films in the series... and/or to pay off debts incurred in making the series. Personally, I think it's quite a creative way to make $$$ to further pour into the art- and not restricting the art by grant monies *not* available to American artists.

Perhaps the bigger problem, is that artists like Barney can self-sustain through abundant grant money in countries like Amsterdam... tho in the USA, can't survive if their art isn't marketable to the "above the sofa" consumer. The sculptures therefore, fulfil the "above the sofa" purpose (or as is the case with sculptures, in-the-vestibule), and best provided Barney with much needed income to complete and pay for the whole project.

As far as all of this discussion goes- critique is by all means a positive, and no good if on a scale of 1-10, most of the criticism lodged is all between 8 and 10. Non-elite opinions especially seem to be the best... as they're the least 'jaded' by the pretentions of the art community.

Thanks for raising the questions, Sean!