Quote:They're a showcase for all his other work. You realise he classes himself as a sculptor? It's best to look at the films in this way, they're experimental, so regular notions of pacing aren't really relevant.
Yes, I know he doesn't exactly regard himself as a filmmaker, and that he has a different background, and his films being financed by art-oriented people, etc.
What I meant by pacing weren't "regular" notions of pacing - whatever that is (I hope you are not thinking of hollywood or such), but the films own rhythm. Every film has one, and I tend not to like Barney's too much. But I think he is most successful with rhythm in his longest film Cremaster 3, so I think this has nothing to do with fast cutting opposed to long static shots, etc. It's just the intrinsic pace.

Straightforward is imo his cinematic presentation in matters of technique or plot. He doesn't make a long approach to describe situations or use much subtext. I find him very direct. He confronts you with situations and events. They are basically what they are, not much mystery added. 
But you make it sound like I don't like this. I'm rather pleased with this (I think this would be something in common with Hitchcock).

The precision would be something unifying, as I think Barney is also very precise with what he does, and he also likes intercutting close-ups. And they both use formulas and their own symbols. But while Hitchcock's films feel enclosed to me, Barney's sometimes breath more freely. But again both seem to be egomaniacs. 

subtle:
So slight as to be difficult to detect or describe; elusive
that may describe his ideas presented, but not his filmmaking to me (as stated above). But the value of ideas isn't the value of film.