Yeah, you're right in some ways... though I wasn't dissing Bjork for her lack of academic creds... I suppose her elaborately mannered style just rubs me the wrong way (and Barney's doesn't) - I saw her perform in the Sugarcubes (and liked her best then), bought her first two or three solo albums and wasn't so enchanted - Maybe I need to give her a fresh listen...

bjork is amazing in her own right and i'm eager to see what she does with the new barney film (assuming any of us ever get to see it, that is).

for what it's worth though, i think bepler's work is superb and lends a tremendous amount of support to the films as cinematic works of art (vs video art sculptures). anyone trying to follow in bepler's footsteps will have a tough time living up. and i'm trying to imagine the cremaster films with the sort of artsy electronic pop songs (however original those songs may be within the context of their genre) that i associate with bjork and i just can't see it. of course i doubt that bjork would do what we (or i, given that i'm not a close listener of hers) typically associate with bjork . . .

as for accessibility, i'm afraid i don't see anything inaccessible about bepler. in fact, i think a case could made that the music is much more accessible than the films themselves. the c2 soundtrack, with its atonal choirs, is, i take it, supposed to sound creepy & alienating and the c3 soundtrack is positively gorgeous in many places. the drones, the rich gaelic vocals . . . ah . . .

all of this raises another question for me, though . . . to what extent do folks consider barney's work a kind of pop art? i don't at all -- i think he incorporates a lot of pop elements in his sculptures, but i see the art itself taking place on a purely virtual, formal, almost mathematical level. curious as to what others think, though . . .