quote: Last week, as a group of University of Michigan graduates played touch football in the snow behind New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art, Dan Hennes, 26, eyed a Central Park walkway lined with steel planks and triangular orange markers. Perhaps "they're marking where not to plow?" he asked.
Not quite. Until this week, those planks and markers have been the only tangible evidence the public has had of "The Gates, Central Park, New York, 1979-2005," the much-ballyhooed art installation by New York artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude that took 26 years and a reported $20 million to create. Starting tomorrow, 600 workers will install 60 miles of vinyl poles to join 15,000 steel bases, creating 7,500 16-foot-tall gates along 23 miles of walkways throughout the park. At the top of the gates, bundled up, will be 1,089,882 square feet of saffron fabric. On Saturday, weather permitting, the cocoons will be opened to reveal fabric panels hanging seven feet above the ground. On Feb. 27, the gates will be removed and the materials recycled.
The world has a mere 16 days to see what all the fuss is about.
Can someone explain this to me? $20 million for a 16 day art project that consists of ... what, exactly?
posted
By making it temporary they are heightening the experience. It would be interesting to see regardless, but only exhilarating to see because there will be only a short chance. It is the same reason people find flowers that bloom rarely so fascinating, even if they are no more beautiful than much more common flowers.
Plus, I doubt an installation like this could exist reasonably intact through more than a few weeks of even fairly mild weather. Better to take it down while it still shines in the first blush of its creation rather than wait for it to be brought low.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I find Christo to be one of the most over-rated and least imaginative artists of all time. But my opinion is colored by the fact that his art, in general, consists of taking inherently and/or naturally beautiful places (high mountains, desert scenes, and now Central Park) and wrapping them in brightly covered fabrics.
Sure, it's on a grand scale, but it really doesn't seem to add beauty or meaning to the place. And Christo doesn't expect it to. We aren't supposed to understand it, get it, or whatever.
We're just supposed to experience it.
Well...seems to me I could approximate the experience with a roll of Saran Wrap (it comes in colors now too!) and some fence posts.
In fact, I'd like to see an artist inspired by Christo take that pompous ass and wrap him up in burlap.
The only "artist" more insufferable than Christo is his wife Jeanne Claude.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate Christo. I'd launch into a tirade about how all he does is wrap things in fabric for a few days and everyone hails him as an artistic genius, but that's already been done for me. Suffice to say I don't think he's a genius, and I despise "modern" art in general. If you hang a broken telephone on a wall, you are not an artist. You're an idiot with a broken telephone.
Give me Titian or Vermeer or Donatello any day. They were artists.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is he the guy who set up all those umbrellas in CA? I saw that. I thought it was a nice change from cows, but not my kind of "art".
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My coworker has been wanting to go to NY and see this for months. She decided she couldn't afford to, especially this time of year.
I have been politely non-comprehending of this "art" since September. Dags, I'm totally with you on the not-getting-ness.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A large part of that $20 million must have been used to purchase LSD. Jeez. At least the umbrella thing was somewhat whimsical.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
add me to the list of Philistines on the sidewalk (that has to be one of my all time favorite Hobbes lines)
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I would think you'd be in support of this, even if you don't think the actual content is interesting. The artists paid for the entire project themselves. There were no taxpayer dollars used. The artists even paid for the extra police presence.
Not that I'm telling you how to think, of course. However, considering your position on public funding for the arts (as I am aware of it, correct me if I'm wrong), this kind of thing should happen more often.
Posts: 1357 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Though I tend to agree with you about a lot of postmodern art, postmodern music is generally rather interesting. I think, anyway.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, I would think you'd be in support of this, even if you don't think the actual content is interesting. The artists paid for the entire project themselves. There were no taxpayer dollars used. The artists even paid for the extra police presence.
Not that I'm telling you how to think, of course. [Wink] However, considering your position on public funding for the arts (as I am aware of it, correct me if I'm wrong), this kind of thing should happen more often.
Oh, as long as they're not blocking use of the park (and it doesn't appear that they are) I have no problems with it. I just don't get it.
posted
Nope, they're not blocking off anything, although the park was packed yesterday.
I'll be taking pictures next week (meta-art!), probably early Sunday morning. When I get them developed, I'll try to post them online somewhere.
Posts: 1357 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to their website, Christo and Jeanne Claude are really environmentalists whose art calls attention to the environment.
Oh, and it's not "wrapping" but "surrounding," you bunch of philistines.
The art installations are handled by paid personnel almost exclusively. Wages are either at union scale for skilled labor or "just above minimum wage" for unskilled labor.
So...at least Christo and Jeanne Claude are better employers than WalMart.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's the really neat part about Christo and Jean-Claude: they do what they do just because they want to show the world beauty and joy. They don't accept grants or donations--they pay for everything themselves through the sale of thier work. It is true that thier work is very expensive, as the result of thier popularity. How this is a problem, I am not sure.
The work they undertake has elements of urban design and planning, which accounts for the scale. The temporary aspects of thier work is designed to generate a sense of urgency. The "point" as it were, is best described in thier own words:
quote:Christo & Jeanne-Claude's works are entire environments, whether they are urban or rural. The artists temporarily use one part of the environment. In doing so, we see and perceive the whole environment with new eyes and a new consciousness.
The effect is astounding. To be in the presence of one of these artworks is to have your reality rocked. You see things you have never seen before. You also get to see the fabric manifest things that cannot usually be seen, like the wind blowing, or the sun reflecting in ways it had not before.
The effect lasts longer than the actual work of art. Years after every physical trace has been removed and the materials recycled, original visitors can still see and feel them in their minds when they return to the sites of the artworks.
It's my understanding that Christo and Jean Claude have an extremely loyal following, including people who volunteer to help put up the work, and people who like to experience the works when they are unveiled. I've got to say, I love the idea that someone would go to this length to help me appreciate the world more. For free. I will likely never be able to afford a sketch, but I will apparently always be able to literally walk into thier art without paying a red cent.
I will go on record as saying I have no problem with any of this. I especially admire thier emphasis on financial independence and that they're doing thier own thing in a way that people can appreciate. As opposed to say, Andres Serrano, who submerges religious articles into urine, among other things, while being funded by the National Endowment for the Arts.
If you're going to pick modern art to lampoon, there's alot out there to complain about. Picking on Christo and Jean-Claude is, in my opinion, like making fun of the Easter Bunny.
posted
*cough* I probably shouldn't say this around an armed lapin, but I have no problem with making fun of the Easter Bunny.
As far as these artists, it's not that I think they're doing anything wrong. I'm just not convinced they are doing anything of significance -- let alone anything worth the obscene amounts of money that get thrown at them.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:it's not that I think they're doing anything wrong. I'm just not convinced they are doing anything of significance
This is a good summary. Maybe I'd think differently if I saw one in person. Certainly, if one is ever done near where I happen to be, I'll go see it to test this theory. And to watch bunbun's reaction - one of her best qualities is her ability to find beauty and share it with me. But I am unmoved to venture out of my way to do so, at least on my own initiative.
I'm a big fan of the financial independence, too.
Now I'm wondering what the copyright implications are of taking pictures of it.
Dagonee Edit: And rivka, bunbun stopped being the Easter Bunny during the Holiday Wars.
posted
So they don't charge people to let them wrap things in fabric. Yay for them. They're still just wrapping things in fabric and deceiving the countless hordes that this meaningless activity somehow makes them "artists". No, I have no respect for Christo and Jeanne-Claude. And if the Easter Bunny came to my house, I'd roast him and eat him with an apple glaze.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've got notepads full of doodles at work. Anyone interested? Jatraqueros get first dibs. Next stop, Sotheby's.
I was going to say that those islands in Florida look like 3 oil slicks, but Irami wins for pure shock value. Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like it. I like surrounding the park with fabric. I don't think it is deep or signifigant or enduring, but I think it is quirky and amusing and, for a moment, makes the audience look at the world differently.
To get the same experience, lie on your back on your bed and look at house upside down. I like being jolted out of the normal mode of seeing things sometimes. And if that jolt is accomplished by something beautiful, all the better.
Startlingly beautiful is art.
I have complete scorn for the entire trendy art world, so I can't say if he is worth the cost of his sketches. That entire market is based on percieved value, so it's like asking if designer clothes are worth the price. If someone is willing to pay it, then it's worth it. If you separate monetary price from artistic value, then his selling prices are less irksome.
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because with that amount of money, there are many many significant things that could be done.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's their own money, and they make it from people who think it is worth it. They aren't spending your money.
Do you ever spend money on things you find beautiful? Why not do much more signifigant things with it?
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Karl, it's one of the objections I have to Hollywood as an entity.
Kat, you're right, it's not my money. But when it's done this publicly, I think it becomes open to criticism. Especially since this reeks of advertising, but is being sold as a public service. And I try very hard to be careful about what fraction of my money goes to frivolity.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
They had a thing on this last Friday on my NPR station. I'm too lazy at the moment to try to find the archive, but they described the art as 'gentle disturbance'. Not so disturbing that you go "YUCK!" but just enough so that you look at everything differently.
posted
What is art, except that which the observer decides is art? How many unknown, failed artists were more technically competent than some of the greats, yet could convince no one of this greatness?
Isn't this the whole kernel around which the ole ball of yarn that is Modern Art is founded?
Sure, it's an obscene amount of fabric, at even more obscene cost. Modern art tends to be an "active" art though, in requiring the observer to initiate the process in their mind. Some times it works, some times it doesn't.
Personally I hadn't heard of these folks, at least directly, ever, and I've gone to few modern art displays, but I can respect that their trying to interact, rather than lecture, to their participants, though, like much conversation, it can be banal, or even offensive.
-Bok, has nothing against modern art, at least, nothing more so than "classical" art.
posted
So, you're opposed to all frivolity, or only when other people do it and more people enjoy it?
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To clarify my above remark, why is this particular (debatably) "waste" of money getting such flack?
What is the significance of the NFL? Much more than $20 million is arguably wasted in that endeavor.
What is the significance of a Broadway production? A luxury yacht? An Adam Sandler movie?
I can think of a hundred things that can cost much more than $20 million dollars that are far more offensive uses of the money than Christo wanting to bring a moment of peace/joy/whatever to the people of NYC.
And in context, a large installation in the largest park in one of the world's most prominent cities, with all the safety considerations, police involvment, and the materials themselves, $20 million dollars really isn't that extreme a price tag.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If they spent $20 million on a private jet, would you be as upset? That takes public air, requires use the use of the public airport, and wouldn't benefit anyone else. Would that be better?
Added: Or, what KarlEd said.
[ February 14, 2005, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:To clarify my above remark, why is this particular (debatably) "waste" of money getting such flack?
Because we're in a thread about this piece of work, not in a thread about a Broadway production, a luxury yacht, or an Adam Sandler movie? (Edit: or a public jet.)
posted
I think... I think it not meant to convey anything, but rather alter the way other things are conveyed. It's like each audience is given a pair of orange-covered glasses and dropped 10 feet into the ground. It's beautiful not because of it's own light, but because by that light, your perception of everything else has changed.
Like...uh, like the green outlining of the Jesus in a Pancake from the other thread.
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
However, considering your position on public funding for the arts (as I am aware of it, correct me if I'm wrong), this kind of thing should happen more often.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
