Friday, August 30, 2013

Mathu Andersen is better than Matthew Barney. aka Why the Fine Art world gets ignored by me.

Most of you won't know who either of these people are. They're both talented, fierce, and I respect both of them. Both of them make fantastic work. Im just frustrated that one is known in the fine art world as an artist, and one (the one I happen to like more) is not. This is the main reason why Im not interested in modern art. There is too much hypocrisy and fakery (eye roll I know). If things were "fair" both would be famous and have work in museums around the world. One of them has had a show at the Guggenheim, is probably a millionaire, and gets respected as a genius in a very LARGE circle and the other is actually equally as talented, or MORE talented in my opinion because he actually does the work HIMSELF, but has far less accolade, cash, and clout. The reason for this is pretty simple, one is straight and thats easier for the masses to swallow. Being straight and white and a male genuinely does give you a b-line to respect, because there are simply no "distractions" its VERY easy to understand this type of guy. We've all been trained to hold this as the "starting point" for what is normal. (Eye roll again but its true). Im not saying Mathu Anderson isn't as well known or respected because he's gay BUT I do think that he is far less known because of the simple numbers game of the masses and their understanding. Both do very similar transformational work, Mathu does it all himself though and thats why I feel Mathu should be more respected and why I say he's "better". ( I can stare at and study this image for hours) Im saying it for the sake of backing him up and giving him some "street creds" and the same treatment Matthew Barney, I feel, receives heaps of. You of course can't say "This art is better than THIS art." I said that just to be controversial in order to gain your interest in reading this, but I also believe it. I do THINK I can say one is more honest then the other because Mathu actually took the time to master the craft to be able to create the illusion where as Matthew just pays someone else to do it. Both are valid but one has a lot more heart, to me at least, and that makes for honesty. Matthew Barney dates, or dated, or is married to, I really don't know, Bjork and gets that "art star clout" I sorta hate. Im actually a fine arts graduate of Cal Arts and feel I know the art world pretty well, as much as I want to, and I feel like Mathu Andersen is getting the short end of stick. I mean, I don't know the guy. He probably could CARE LESS about clout, fame, and money,and he should, but I DONT. I think he should have MORE! I think HE should be heralded, I think HE should have a show at the Guggenheim but he WONT because people won't take someone who does "drag" seriously. Mathu is the man behind Rupaul, that alone will have him discredited by most in the art world because they're rotten cunts who really aren't interested in art but are interested in a bullshit fame game and you'd be surprised that the art world is surprisingly gay UNFRIENDLY. The art world doesn't want "ghetto art" they don't take art made by people they can pigeon hole and put into a minority group seriously because its too "specific" for them. Matthew Barney is not gay, as cliche as it is he's a straight Ivy League white guy acting weird and doing a great job of it so people take him seriously. If he was gay It would be much more difficult for him to be noticed because he would be pushed in a pile of artists that don't need to be considered. Though if you called him a special effects make up artist, something he designs very well, he would also never have the accolade he has today. His work doesn't come from any "minority" angle so its easier for the masses to swallow, its weird but NOT FOREIGN. Mathus work is FOREIGN. Its harder for someone to understand work by "an OTHER" and when people aren't understanding something they pigeon hole it as fast as possible so they CAN THINK they understand it. Mathus work having a gay edge therefor causes people to place it "over there" instead of accepting it as work they SHOULD understand. They can easily push it to the side because if they had to not only try and comprehend their world but every other "minorities" work/world they would basically lose all control and not have the same sense of clout and standing themselves and would lose their place in their concept of the world basically. "To consider you, makes me disappear" This is how MOST people regardless of age, sex, gender etc think. So therefore the numbers game (90% straight 10% gay) really does come into play. The ego wants as FEW mouths to feed as possible and to have to recognize others existence is horrifying to most people I think, unconsciously. Its hard enough managing your own life let alone accepting the existence and need of others. So no there is not some anti gay agenda in Art but because gay is a SUB CATEGORY anything tagged like this gets subjugated and filed away under "unimportant other that I don't wanna deal with because its too much work". The sad part is IT ISNT, in fact its EASIER NOT having to place everyone and everything in some kind of place. Its unfortunate that because of this need to basically keep others "down" to retain sanity a lot of "true" art is being sidelined and they're missing the great talent, beauty, and wisdom of the kind that Mathu Andersen possesses and freely shares with the world.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I usually agree with you but this is one time I think you are off the mark. I think the real reason is that Mathu started working in a commercial world (makeup for fashion, modeling, etc) and the art world has a very hard time accepting commercial art or fashion as "ART".....I dont think its a sexuality thing otherwise open artists such as Warhol would not have gotten anywhere. I also think there is an "intent" that is wildly different animals here even if you find similarities in the work