What does everyone think about the orange things in Central Park?

[imenja]

I don't live in New York, so I'm only seen it on television. Do people like it? I find it really boring. I don't see why they couldn't have done something more interesting with the colors or shapes.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Pretentious, silly and ugly.

:puke:

[Clark2008]

101. You know, I like orange.

I like orange because that's my alma mater's school colors.
I like orange because, with my olive skin, auburn hair and hazel eyes, it looks good on me.
I like orange because it's the color of the Ukraini resistance.

But, I don't like manmade giant orange curtain rods botching up otherwise beautiful scenery God (or the gods of Mother Nature, if you prefer) has continued to be allowed to grow in the middle of a city that's chocked full of OTHER manmade delights that we can enjoy.
Thank God (or the gods of Mother Nature), it's not permanent.

:hi: ocelot.

[Warpy]

2. I like his work, generally speaking

I think it shows a great sense of fun.

I'm sure financial constraints ruled the shapes.

The color was dictated by the grey winter weather in NYC this time of year.

Remember, art isn't supposed to make sense. It's supposed to make you feel something. How did you feel when you walked through those gates?

[Maven]

3. Bored, actually.

Sorry, I just didn't think it was groundbreaking, provocative, or particularly stimulating in any way. It was supposed to evoke a "golden river" through the park...so?

[Hissyspit]

30. Temporary transfomation of familiar surroundings

Better than a golf course, any day.

[jdj]

116. is it temporary?

I really thought it mars the park. I want my nature natural, I don't want orange curtains to walk under.

I thought maybe the orange was a Bush protest (Ukraine election) thing.

[BurtWorm]

61. A golden river through central park?

Dogs and drunks do that every day of the year. ;)

Actually, I kind of like it. It's not great or brilliant art, but it has le tout Central Park visitors buzzing about it. It's a community-enhancing work.

[KurtNYC]

69. Disappointed - wrapped Central Park

I've had mixed feelings about the Christo Gates project in Central Park. When I first heard about it, it seemed like a reasonable idea -- force people to look at Central Park in a new way, free public art and create some excitement during what is usually a short cold month.

Then I heard they were doing the whole park (2.5 miles by 1/2 mile) and that seemed a bit much. Then I heard that the installation, exhibition and removal would span a 3-month period, which again seemed like a long time to disrupt the atmosphere of Central Park.

Personally, I think Frederick Law Olmsted was an artist. At the time Central Park was designated, they held a contest and most of the submissions were along the lines of English parks meaning straight sidewalks, formal planters, right angles and flat spaces. Olmsted went completely the other way -- NO right angles ("nature abhors a straight line"), no flat rectangular spaces, no raised formal planter. After rigorous debate, Olmstedt won out and after years of labor Central Park as we know it was created. It was a revolution in landscaping and design. Olmstedt had the vision to create Central Park out of swampland and boulders. On average the elevation of every square foot of CPk was changed by 6 feet! (meaning swamps were filled in, mounds were created extensively) The park brings nature to the middle of the country's biggest city. By design, when you walk down the steps from 59th Street into the park, you are visually separated from the city. The park takes you in and wraps you quickly. People fell in love with the concept of the design and Olmsted went on to design other great parks including Prospect Park, Fink Park (Seattle) and Parc du Mont Royal (in Montreal). Demand for Olmsted's work lead to more than 3,500 parks in the US and Canada being created by Frederick and his progeny.

My point is that Olmsted worked his butt off to bring the country and nature into New York City in such a way that it celebrated nature and yet in the sense that the landscaping and the location of every tree was designed, it was totally artificial. The Dairy and the Sheep Meadow testify to how much city dwellers yearned for the country or at least viewed it as relaxed and wholesome. In 150 years it has only gotten more important to us. We just finished a 10 year, multi-million dollar re-seeding program. And I love the park just as it is.

Enter Christo. I wanted to like this project. Saffron. Flowing moving patterns. Warm fabric, glowing in the sun. All that. I went by the park last Thursday before they opened the cocoons and let the fabric out. Walking in from West 81st, you went through a series of square frames. It was like a video game. The straight frames at regular intervals emphasized your motion as you walked through them.

I went back on Saturday. They had most open and were still opening some at about 11:30. The harsh video game thing was softened by the fabric in almost constant motion. Walking under the same frames, now there is thick orange fabric, which has the sheen of plastic (since it is) and looks high tech. Your view of the park is frustrated by the each panel as you walk through. On longer stretches you want to look to the side. It is disorienting. A woman near me remarked that it was making her dizzy. It struck me that this was in a way like his wrapping projects -- Christo frustrates your ability to see something familiar and of cultural significance (eg. the Reichstag). This leads the viewer to want to unwrap the object. We recognize the form of the wrapped Reichstag but can't see the Reichstag and perhaps this makes us want to see it more. The Gates have a similar effect. While not totally obscuring the details, the Gates break your view of the park into confusing chunks and your expectation, IMHO, going in is that you will see the orange Gates as art and not the park.

People seem to like the high views better. There was a line to get up to Belvedere Castle on Sunday and there were relentless helicopters on Saturday morning. Christo told us all that the way he wanted us to experience the work is by walking through it, all of it. And walk through it again when the light changes or when it snows. To me, the best views are sideways, when you can see lines of orange curtains running at different levels.

Someone on local TV this morning said it had all the artistic merit of "toilet papering someone's house." And I think my reaction is similar. I have resisted calling the color saffron because to my eye the color is just plain orange; orange like you see on traffic cones. In the drawings there is more of a red tint to the color which takes it closer to the color of flames. Next, the fabric of the curtains is a horrible plastic. It would have been far better IMHO, if the fabric was organic (like a heavy cotton canvas) and was unevenly dyed in saffron, a warm red-orange saffron. Then there are the frames. They are 16 feet tall and about 5 inches square and they are covered with orange PVC plastic. I can only think that the lack of organic materials and colors is intentional. The Gates do not improve Central Park and I don't think that was the intent. Christo put right angles and shiny plastic into a park that abhors such things. He diminishes and frustrates our experience of the park with 7,500 plastic frames. It is like he is torturing the park to show us how much we love the park and have taken it for granted. The park will seem to look better than ever perhaps when the garish orange plastic is removed. When right angles are banished again from Olmsted's park.

More on the birth of Central Park: http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/20030721/200/464

[regnaD kciN]

95. FINK Park???

People fell in love with the concept of the design and Olmsted went on to design other great parks including Prospect Park, Fink Park (Seattle) and Parc du Mont Royal (in Montreal).

Uh...that's Frink Park.

By the way, pretty much the entire park system of Seattle is the result of an Olmsted master design...but one made by Frederick Law Olmsted's sons, rather than the father himself. Here's a link to the story of the "Olmsted Plan": http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/parks/parkspaces/olmsted.htm.

[MADem]

100. The Daily Show headlined it ....

...Piles of Sheet.

Have to say I agree with that assessment.

[imenja]

112. that bit was great

right on target. Conveyed perfectly my feelings on the work and Colbert seemed to reflect quite well some of the posts below.

[Hissyspit]

114. Yeah, just what we need. The Daily Show parroting typical MSM response...

to any coverage of contemporary art. I expect something deeper of them. (Although, 'piles of sheet' is cute...)

DISCLOSURE: I did not see the segment.

[imenja]

121. it was hardly parroting

and if you didn't see it, you can hardly denounce it as such. The MSM coverage I've seen has all been laudatory: Nightline, 60 Minutes. That is what prompted my original post. I wondered if I was the only person in the world who found it uninspiring. What the cable hacks have said on the subject, I have no idea. Watch the repeat of the Daily Show at 11:30 pm EST tonight. If you are an art snob, you will doubtless be offended. The piece, however, is smart. As an art supporter, you can hardly ridicule Stewart. From what I can see, his work is far more relevant than Christo's very dated installations.

[MrModerate]

73. Not all art needs to make sense, but . . .

Not all senseless things are art.

[tuvor]

4. I have to reserve judgment unless I can actually be there to see it.

New Yorkers have no idea how lucky they are to have so much art so nearby.

[BrklynLiberal]

7. I believe that is the best response It is meant to be experienced live.

To see it in a picture is not to experience it at all, and is no way to judge it. It is not meant to be "seen". It is meant to be experienced.
For those of us lucky enough to be able to walk around Central Park and walk under the gates and see and feel the flowing of the orange material, and see how it all blends with the surrounding woods and with the cool, crisp winter air, and all the people browsing, and children running through them, and skating, and laughing, and talking, and smiling at each other and just sharing the sheer joy of being there..in what is a once in a lifetime experience..it is beyond description.

I guess I can understand your finding it boring...but that is because you are not there.



Here is a map of the area in the park that was covered by the gates. There were 7500 gates and it was 23 miles of paths

[illflem]

5. Haven't seen it in person

but think it looks cool.
Like row of dominoes ready to be tipped over.

[regnaD kciN]

93. I think it looks nice, too...

...that color is just the right touch for Central Park in February, when "leaves are brown, and the sky is a hazy shade of winter."

[latteromden]

6. I like it. But then again, I like totally random things.

Like this!

[Jacobin]

8. Fortunately, they do not appear to be permanent

extravagant whimsy.

[tcoursen]

9. Seems like a waste of money to me

Not only is it temporary ( 16 days I think ), it cost several million dollars I think.

Waste of money in my opinion.

[newyawker99]

49. Hi tcoursen!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[tcoursen]

77. Thank you

thank you for the welcome

:)

And happy valentines day.

[Rose Siding]

21. I think so, too.

Quality of life, the finer things- all important, but...

21 million. I hope he hired some of the homeless to work on it.

[Hissyspit]

28. NOT A WASTE OF MONEY O.k., let's get this straight...

and yes, he hires people from various walks of life.

O.K. Let's get this straight. Christo and Jean-Claude pay for the ENTIRE project. They raise money through sales of his work and documentation. The money would not be there if the art work was not there. The money from this will fund the next project, and so on and so on. The money is spent in various ways.

Republicans hoard and Americans waste billions all the time. Art is not a waste of money. Mariah Carey's "Glitter" probably cost much more than this project.

I'm sure Christo and Jean-Claude probably contribute to charities, although I don't really know. I know they suggest alternatives in art funding to government grants, corporations, and selling out.
Check your logic.

[MrModerate]

60. Not saying it's not their money to waste . . .

Just that there's about 8.3 million better things you could spend the money on, like tiddly-winks sets for iguanas, or importation of additional white sand to White Sands, NM.

Christo's work has always been pointless, indulgent, artless, and an insult to the environments in which it appears.

At least he's consistent.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

62. Umm... Christo's work is all about the environment in which it appears.

The work is meant to focus attention on the environment. It is meant to make you MORE aware of nature and its beauty.

but congratulations on completely not getting the point.

Running Fence

[MrModerate]

66. And the rapture is s'posed to lift me up to heaven . . .

Doesn't mean it's going to work, though.

I GET the point. And then I reject it for the claptrap it is.

[Hissyspit]

68. Large-scale environmental works are as old as society...

And I would rather have a bland Christo project, then another GODDAMN golf course, for me to look at from the air, when I'm flying, for Republicans to waste greens fees and club fees on when they could be spending it on tiddly-winks for whomever.

The fact that you have to think about this when you don't want to could be argued to be a point to the work.

[MrModerate]

71. At least Christo's stuff is temporary . . .

While golf courses seem to last forever

[indigobusiness]

84. All art is temporary...

including golf courses.

[Hissyspit]

64. O.K. One more time... LOGIC

If they didn't do the projects, the money would not exist with them, therefore there would be no money for them to spend. The people who work on the projects would not get paid.

And they do give to charity. Which they wouldn't be able to do if they didn't do the projects.

[MrModerate]

67. OK . . . Art for makework's sake . . .

Not as pernicious as some schemes, I suppose.

However, I reserve my right to make fun of the work itself, since it's so lame.

[Hissyspit]

70. Hmm... All art is Art for makework's sake?

Something WAS produced. I am actually not as impressed with it as I was hoping to be, but it was severely limited in conception by the location.

[ElectroPrincess]

91. I concur with MrModerate ...

And submit Exhibit A for inclusion to the record:




Hardy har har hair! :puke:

[LiberallyInclined]

106. are they paying for the extra police presence?

and the diversion of police manpower from other actual duties?




...didn't think so.

[Stuckinthebush]

131. 21 million is his to waste or use or invest in any way he pleases

But how about a project that costs a fraction of that and the rest goes to inner city kids for art education?

That would be a much better and timeless use of his money.

[Hissyspit]

37. Fortunately? It has nothing to do with fortune. It is by design.

...and what's wrong with whimsy?

[LiberallyInclined]

109. nothing's wrong with whimsy...

but these things are about as "whimsical" as a highway construction zone or a slalom ski run.

[DireStrike]

10. Pointless.

[peacetalksforall]

11. Gorgeous. I wish I was there. Brilliant. The Christo team make

great art experiences and memories. Bravo!!! Bravo to Bloomberg! Saffron is a spiritual color. Color of preference for Buddhists. I think they officially called it saffron. Right?

Did you hear how some in Germany think the memory of the building associated with Hitler, the one wrapped in white, seemed to have changed after being a Christo art piece?

[LiberallyInclined]

107. saffron?

try flourescent orange.
a colour that has disgusted me for a long time-
i always used to assume that orange paint must be the cheapest colour to make, because it was used so extensively in stores like k-mart and zayre.

look up pretentious in the dictionary and you'll find christo's picture.

[Crazy8s]

12. A big waste of time and money

I'm always amazed at what is deemed 'art', and the amount of money wasted on such 'creative' stuff. I think someone who profits from going around covering buidings, hillsides and such with endless bolts of material is one heck of an artist--a scam artist. As Barnum indicated, there's a world full of suckers out there. But hey, at least the curtains were orange!

[DoYouEverWonder]

13. Beats blowing a billion a week

in Iraq.

I lived in Miami when Christo did the islands in pink. It was great fun and the local economy benefited greatly.

[KaliTracy]

18. he used his own money, NY paid nothing, and no tickets are needed

and they paid their workers...

so how is it a scam?

From Christo Jeanne-Claude website:

"To all visitors of The Gates
There are no official opening events
There are no invitations
There are no tickets
The work of art is free for all to enjoy
the same as all of our previous projects....
http://www.christojeanneclaude.net/tg.html

From The Age
<snip>
"The Mayor of New York, billionaire art collector Michael Bloomberg, is a friend of Christo and Jeanne-Claude. Last year he gave his blessing to the project, provided the artists paid for it and paid a $US3 million fee to use the park.

Christo and Jean-Claude say they will make no money from the project itself, since the exhibition will be free but they make money from selling Christo's drawings of The Gates."
<snip>
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/02/08/1107625207891.html?oneclick=true

[noamnety]

26. Aside from providing jobs

they also are meticulous about recycling and leaving an area as clean as when they started. Or, when they wrapped the islands, cleaner - they picked up the cost of removing 40 tons of trash from the islands before that project.

And most of their materials are recycled. The fabric is often used for things like sandbags for flood control, aluminum is melted down for cans, and I'm sure they will find a good use for the wood from the gates.

[bloom]

54. It seems like quite a liberal concept, really...

art that is available for all (instead of just the wealthy).


People invited to participate. It becomes a community event. The art often highlights and uses natural elements like the wind.

It's not permanent - so people who don't like it shouldn't have to be all that put out by it....

[imenja]

87. I like that aspect of it

that is open to the public, free to enjoy by all.

[Crazy8s]

99. Okay

so he makes his money selling drawings of things and places he covers in bolts of material. I'm still not impressed. I doubt he would be doing these art performances (or be able to do them, for that matter) if he wasn't profiting from them. The fact that people want to buy drawings of places covered with material shows that Christo has locked onto a good thing. I still think that's an awful lot of money to be wasted on something so frivolous and temporary.

[KaliTracy]

104. I'm not in NY, but I've been there before. It seems this is about how

people interact with the art that makes it art. The majority of people will be in a postitive space in themselves as they experience it -- which in turn will put others in a positive space, as smiles are contagious usually. I'm not there to test my theory, so I'm only guessing.


He's an artist, of course he's going to sell drawings. This is something he's planned for over 20 years.

Sure, it might not be your cup of tea, just as some people can't stand John Cage. And that's your perogative.

However, if I were in NY right now, I'd go. And after I walked for a while absorbing it for myself, I'd look around to see how others were interacting with it, too.

[Grey Ranks]

14. Burn the Money!

It cost $20 million, what a waste. They could of done something useful with that money. Not that art isn't important, but that shit ain't art!

[Hissyspit]

32. It is what it is. Art is just a word:

"culturally significant meaning, skillfully encoded in a sensuous affecting medium" - Richard Anderson, anthropologist

"human expression/effort to counteract, supplement, alter, or counter the work of nature." - American Heritage Dictionary

"human ability to make something" - Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary

Christo's work explore the distintion between sculpture and architecture, the permanent and the temporary, the revealed and the unrevealed - all serious consideration of artists in the modern world.

[Serra]

15. Central Park looks great...

at least from what I have heard. A friend of mine went in and saw it and loved it. I'm planning to see it next week.

[noamnety]

16. I love it

I don't believe the goal is to do "something interesting with the shapes." I suspect the shapes aren't the squares so much as the ephemeral quality of how the fabric shifts in wind, and how it bends to the paths in the park.

I love the play between the urban and the environmental in all his work. He's "inflicted" his art on the existing scene, by some people's reckoning. But he had to form his art around the scene, the art is molded by the environment as much as the environment is transformed by the art.

Beyond all the words, though, I just like it, in a "wow that's neat" kind of way, and I'm sorry I'm not there in person to deal with it. His art is partially environmental, and I am missing that completely, but also it's partially conceptual, and I'm glad it's caused so much debate. Art should be an event sometimes, not just a knickknack hung on a wall that matches your sofa.

(he's not profitting from this, the sale of the prints from this one are all going to a NY charity.)

[imenja]

19. the artists say the point is simply to make something beautiful

Obviously beauty is subjective, but I don't find it visually appealing. Apparently it's been in the works for twenty or thirty years, and it does look like something created in the 1970s. If New Yorkers enjoy it, that's the important thing.

[noamnety]

20. Do you believe the artist when he says that? nt

[imenja]

23. I don't see any reason to disbelieve them

I'll take them at their word. Have you noticed the color is the identical shade of the woman's (Jean Claude?) hair? It's evidently her favorite color.

[noamnety]

25. It doesn't really matter if it's her hair color

I don't understand why people are even mentioning that. (With apologies to Olbermann) it's like drudge reporting on Dean's wife deciding to keep her practice instead of move with him, so what?

Do you believe him when he says there was no symbolism at all to his wrapping the Reichstag?

[imenja]

38. I mention it because it fits their conception of beauty

She obviously finds the color beautiful. Some might find it hideous. I rarely watch cable news, so I have no idea what Keith Olbermann said on the subject. I heard them make the comment about beauty as the objective in regard to Central Park. Whether or not they intentionally mislead the public on the reasons for their work, I couldn't possibly say. I tend to take people at their word unless given some reason otherwise. The audience often imparts meaning to art different from that intended by the artist. Your own reaction may exemplify that.
In addition to the Reichstag, they've draped the Grand Canyon, a Florida island, and placed a bunch of market umbrellas in California and Germany. It all cases they use synthetic fabric. I can't imagine their reasons for all of these public displays are identical, despite the repetition in style.
While his work is architecture rather than installations, I find Santiago Calatrava's public works infinitely more interesting and beautiful than Christo's. Again, this is entirely subjective. But if the point is to create beauty, I am entitled to my own opinion of what is beautiful.
http://www.calatrava.com/

[ElectroPrincess]

89. Her hair color is mentioned because it was *screaming* orange

translucent. That's a color one just can't ignore. If my pre-teen came home like that, we'd be doing some "corrective color" work on it toute suite! LOL

[ElectroPrincess]

88. Yes, my hubby warned me that although

he liked me experimenting with red hues added to my light brown hair, if I should ever reach her shade of pumpkin-like red-orange" he's a running for the hills - YIKES!

Reminds me of the time I put a "sunset glow" henna on my hair ... with similar orange tinge results. Good news folks = Your local Beauty Supply store stocks what's equivalent to Orange-OUT Shampoo. :silly:

But this lady's an ART-ist! That's alright. :-)

[imenja]

90. it really is hideous

and so unflattering. You can only get away with that shade if you are under 25. It makes you wonder about her criteria for beauty.

[Hissyspit]

96. She probably dyed it in celebration of the project.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

17. I'm going to check it out tomorrow..........

I'm looking forward to it.

[Stephanie]

40. I'm going to go back tomorrow

and again next weekend

[Bluebear]

22. The still photos left me very cold however---

when I saw a live video on the news with the things undulating it was far more interesting.

[Dorian Gray]

24. I think it's kind of cool...

But I liked it when NYC had the Cow Parade much better! That cracked me up, and I'd get all excited, like a three year old kid, every time I spotted a new cow in the city! (I'm such a dork!)

[thebigidea]

124. indeed! Saw those in Chicago... my favorite was the David Lynch one...

that I think never actually made it to the street:

[cmd]

27. 177 million per day in Iraq

I'll take the gates any day. If you want to complain, complain about the 177 million that kills people; not the 20 million that give joy.

[Hissyspit]

29. Thank you!

$200 Billion+ we didn't have to spend. Tax-payer money. Christo and Jean-Claude use their own money.

[Starlight]

31. They're hideous. I had no idea this was supposed to be "art."

I seriously thought they were markers for a construction project. And I complained about how unsightly they were even for that. :thumbsdown:

[Hissyspit]

33. See my Post #32 above.

[Hissyspit]

34. Anyone see the Maysle Brothers 1976 documentary Christo's "Running Fence?"

It's about an hour long. Fascinating and fun. Gives much insight into their work. I prefer Running Fence to The Gates, and insight preferable to knee-jerk judgmentalism. It is moving to see the ranchers whose land is used and who are initially resistant to the idea, come around and end up supporting Christo and Jean-Claude, enjoying the finished work.

[Stephanie]

41. Yes the Maysles documented all the projects

He is doing this one too - they have crews out there.

[derby378]

35. Keith Olbermann hates them with a passion

Why can't people just leave Central Park well enough alone? We've got White Rock Lake right in the middle of Dallas, and I don't see this guy trying to cover it in pink Saran Wrap.

[Hissyspit]

36. Central Park will be no the worse for wear. They are temporary.

I was disappointed in Olbermann and his "what's considered art nowadays" rant. Would expect that from close-minded right-wingers.

[librechik]

51. good idea. All artists should just stop making art.

The world is just fine the way it is. What does anyone need with new imaginative ideas out of somebody else's mind? If someone didn't already think of it, and make something out of it, then what business does anyone have thinking of something different that I might not like? Let's just leave well enough alone. This goes double if I don't like the art.

Oh, and especially, by the way, don't bother going to Texas to make art either. Texas is already so beautiful and perfect and cultured that an artist would be wasting their time to try to improve on it. Besides, there will be plenty of Texans there to stop you.

Welcome to America!

[derby378]

81. Oh, come on

I got nothin' against artistic vision. I don't have any problem with trying to realize such vision, either. Even if I'm not a particular fan of Warhol or Pollock or any of those guys, I can at least grasp some idea of where they're coming from and develop an appreciation for their own visions.

Perhaps I should wait for the finished product. Maybe I'm just being a laid-back art snob or something.

[otohara]

76. Well, Then We Should All Hate It, Cuz Keith

hates it? Gawd, what are we, art hating republican's?

[liberal43110]

39. I think it's beautiful

Art is important to humanity. The Cristos refuse all corporate sponsorships or donations directly to their installations. They pay for them because they are the art they want to share.

And I think the gates are lovely.

[foo_bar]

42. it feels like a slalom

Where's Spencer Tunick when you have $20 mil?

[ICantBelieve]

58. Yes!

[evlbstrd]

43. As an Artist...

I have a problem with Christo.
He covered the walkways of a park here in Kansas City in 1979 with the same saffron fabric. OK, it was kinda cool, but more a media event than art. (I'm not down with "performance art" and that's how I'd classify this. It's theatre or it's not.)
Moreover, one of his tenets is to gain the cooperation of all the governmental bodies involved in approving his projects. Upon gaining such approval, he would abide by all regulations or restrictions imposed upon his installations.
In the 80's, he built a project called Running Fence in California. It was a winding, meandering "fence" of, you guessed it, saffron fabric, following the contours of the California landscape for miles and miles down to the Pacific Coast. His original proposal called for it to run down onto the beach and into the surf. The state environmental agency objected to that end point and specifically prohibited him from installing the "fence" on the beach and into the sea.
Well, Christo installed the fence through the countryside as planned, and when he reached the shoreline, he decided that he would run it into the sea anyway. He violated the law and his own artistic statement.
And his "drawings," which he sells to fund his projects? Pure crap, IMO. I've seen them. Most are mechanical reproductions.

[indigobusiness]

44. The Running Fence was white

fabric.

[evlbstrd]

45. My bad,

the rest stands.

[imenja]

46. I agree that the installations look very much alike

They also seem to use the same kind of fabric, whether orange (it's plain old hideous orange), flamingo pink, gray, or white. I find them cold and boring.

[evlbstrd]

47. Exactly.

He hits only one note.

[librechik]

52. Yes, that's how we know it's a Christo.

Funny, if an artist isn't repetitive enough to be instantly recognizable, he/she gets called uneven or inconsistent. People are just brainwashed into hating "high brow culture" by Republican spin from long ago. I wish liberals were more aware of how indoctrinated they are with hatred of culture and learning and experimentation, but they aren't. They just go along with the sheep and mock ambitious art projects as crazy or inappropriate.

In fact, I find the brute anti-intellectualism hinted at in this thread most amusing. Guess the message, that art is a direct reflection of YOU, just kind of goes right over some people's heads. Or maybe they sense they're being portrayed and rebel.

Oh well, I spose it's too much to expect people to give blanket support to all and any artmaking activities because they are inherently anti-war. That's what I do. I don't care if it's ugly, pretty, banal or expensive or even tasteless. It is money and energy NOT spent on war, and that is always good.

[imenja]

57. please, your political spin is ridiculous

People have different aesthetic tastes. Because someone doesn't share yours doesn't mean we are brainwashed by Republicans or pro-war. How ridiculous can you get.
I'm not questioning that the stuff is art or that the state should support public art. I simply don't like this work. I don't find it innovative or interesting in any way. Accusing those whose taste differs from yours as being anti-intellectual or right wing is simply ignorant. I'm not a fan of Thomas Kincaid either. I suppose that makes me a fascist.

[indigobusiness]

53. You've got a lot to learn about art.

You call yourself an artist. At best, I'd say you are an art student.

[Az]

55. The complexity of art does not signify its impact

To me the conveyance of emotion signify the degree a work is succesful. If you can reach people emotionally with a simple design then that is effective. This work has an effect on people. I consider it art.

[indigobusiness]

56. Art stands or falls on its artistic merit. Personal bias is unimportant.

Anyone, with a developed understanding of what art truly is, does not fundementally evaluate an effort in terms of likes and dislikes.

[imenja]

59. In your analysis, art is for only for the elevated few

who share your developed understanding. The rest of us, the great unwashed, evidently have no right to experience art or share our opinions of it. If that's the case, why put it in public, in full view of us, the ignorant masses, so unworthy to gaze upon it.

Yours is one of the most pretentious comments I've ever read in my life. So much so, that you accuse a poster whose work you have never seen as not being a true artist. Yet you claim likes and dislikes don't matter. It's precisely this sort of attitude that works against public funding and support of the arts. I imagine you find that acceptable, since for you, the public is unworthy of appreciating art.

Christo and Jeanne Claude claim their only purpose is to create something beautiful, nothing more. Personal aesthetics determine what one sees as beautiful. Every person is free to judge what they do or do not find beautiful. Thankfully, your Taliban-style vision of what constitutes art does not control the rest of us.

[indigobusiness]

82. Art is for everyone.

I commented on legitimate critical evaluation.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

You sound like a Taliban, or at least a redneck. Calm down.

Your claim that "Personal aesthetics determine what one sees as beautiful" illustrates your limited understanding of aesthestics.

[imenja]

86. everyone is entitled to an opinion, even the great unwashed

I resent quite strongly the notion that you alone were able to judge what art is and who is an artist. I'm glad you like the Gates. I hope lots of people have a chance to enjoy it. But everyone does not think alike in this world. I myself don't see any innovation in a 1970s style installation, but if others enjoy it, I'm happy for them. I have never presented my opinion as anything but that, my own opinion. You insist that those who expressed their views are ignorant because they disagree with you. Your proclamations about limited understandings of anesthetists, your denunciation of those who disagree with you, is troubling. If beauty is not subjective, who sets these universal notions? Must Vogue and Playboy call you in choosing their models? You apparently share their very narrow conceptions of who and what determines beauty.

You may very well have a greater intellectual understanding of art than some of us, but art is meant to be experienced, not simply analyzed. Each of us have our areas of knowledge. I expect I know a great deal more about history than you, while others may know more about science or mathematics. Such is the nature of knowledge. We cannot acquire it all. One thing is certain, those who imagine that they have all the answers are the most ignorant of all. Your insistence that others have no right to make personal judgments is, in my opinion, Taliban-like. While you references to me as a "redneck" demonstrates that you are a bigot. Such statements are reprehensible, morally abhorrent, and profoundly ignorant. You need to be called on them. I wonder what you would call me if you discovered I were African-American or Latino? I shudder to think. Bigotry is bigotry, and you clearly demonstrate yours.

[indigobusiness]

94. That's your interpretation of what I said.

Not what I actually said. I was addressing the abstract nature of art and criticism. Your reactionary response is understandable, given your interpretation, but it is misplaced and in error.

You are wildly offbase.

[Az]

63. Art either reaches the individual or it doesn't

Furthermore the artist cannot control how or what of their work reaches the audience. And whether the viewer likes it or is repulsed by it, it is still an emotion and conveys something.

If the artist is succesful then their work conveys to more the sense of what they wished it to. But sometimes even their own work may convey something they had not deliberately intended to. Thus some may find in it something beyond the intent.

Art is not a definivite closed loop. It is interpretive. It is based in technique as well as communication. It is many things. Easy to descibe is not one of them.

[indigobusiness]

83. No art can penetrate a closed mind...or preconceived notions.

Art operates on many levels. An open mind has the best opportunity to participate in those levels, whether obvious or obscure. A closed mind has no chance.

People, that judge this work at a distance, are not being fair.

[evlbstrd]

97. What's your problem?

I critiqued Christo's violation of his own stated ethic in public installations. That gives you the right to question my status as an artist? You've never seen my work or spoken with me.
My personal opinion on the quality of his "drawings" is just that. What's yours?
No point in simply throwing stones.

[indigobusiness]

119. Your dogmatic assertion that "it is crap"

is a problem, but it's not mine.

Opinion is one thing, declaring opinion as fact is another: it is dogma. You do not serve art with your commentary, whether or not you qualify as a legitimate artist. Which is doubtful, as the nature of your statements indicate you are a pretender.

[thebigidea]

126. surely you see the irony of what you're saying here?

you haven't even bothered to look at his art before labeling him a pretender.

that comes off as oh, a bit dogmatic, wouldn't you say?

[indigobusiness]

128. There is no irony.

The nature and attitude of the commentary are not borne of an artist's spirit.

Many pretenders make things that look like art, but are not the work of artists.

[thebigidea]

129. sure, but can't you see how that applies the other way around?

"Many pretenders make things that look like art, but are not the work of artists."

couldn't someone say that about Mr. Orange Gates as well?

why is your opinion of art more valid than his?

why is his dogmatic assertation bad, but your dogmatic assertation that many artists are not even artists at all good?

who are these pretenders? name a few.

ideally, pretenders you've actually seen work by - as opposed to someone you disagree with on a message board who doesn't need to actually have any work for you to write off as a pretender/student/etc.

[indigobusiness]

130. My statement was no dogma.

It addressed the fact of requisite artist spirit.

Name a few? I'm not here to bicker, if you choose not to even try to see my point, that is your choice. Everyone has opinions. The important thing is the character of the discussion, the terminology is often not enough to cut through the babble. Anyone can claim to be an artist, but an artist spirit cannot be faked.

There was no mention of any disagreement, on my part, only a defense of art and artists in the abstract.

Phonies are easy to recognize, and genuine artists are, as well. The work is another thing entirely.

[thebigidea]

132. well, who are the fake artists? is it too much to ask?

"only a defense of art and artists in the abstract. "

you're not defending art and artists in the abstract when you claim some are pretenders and students, sight unseen.

just tell me who you think is a fake artist, and we'll see if its any different than someone saying they don't like Christ-O's work.

Isn't it obvious that what might be fake to you is someone else's brilliant epiphany? That what you might consider beautiful, someone else might think is a bit of tacky 70s trash?

There is a massive hole in your argument you could drive a mack truck carrying the full collection of Andy Warhol's wigs through.

[GiovanniC]

65. The Thing Is That the Media Attention

and the disagreements and the discussions are all part of the art.

You are a part of Cristo's artwork. So is Olbermann. So am I.

[evlbstrd]

98. Yes,

also a part of his aesthetic. Another aspect of the involvement of all parties, government, arts institutions and the public in the creation of his work.

[Kinkistyle]

48. They are a symbol of Bloomberg's hypocracy.

I personally don't take issue with the art itself, but it is a big sign of Mayor Bloomberg's hypocracy because he turned down giving protestors a license to assemble in the park because of the poor "grass", but he lets Christo build his artwork there and people in walking all over the place.

Horrendous.

[Padraig18]

50. I think they're pretty cool.

I remember when they wrapped the Reichstag.

:)

[makhno]

72. Worthless

Got dragged there yesterday by some friends of mine. Pointless bourgeois art installation, elevated to middlebrow cult status by the NY Times Arts page. What is the social and cultural significance of this so-called art?

[Bridget Burke]

74. Not ALL art has social & cultural significance....

But some does! Down with the bourgeoisie!

[the_spectator]

85. Why must you be such a Grump?

"What is the social and cultural significance"? I'm sorry, but I'm still old-fashioned (or 21st century) enough to still believe that Art CAN be about "Beauty and Joy", as Christo and Jeanne-Claude put it. (By the way, those used to be the ONLY things art used to be about.)

Get out of the 20th century, please - art DOESN'T always have to be about Meaninglessness, or Irony, or World Crisis, or the Moral Bankrupcy of Western Civilization, or the Depradations of Patriarchy, or anything else like that. Art doesn't have to always make people feel uncomfortable, or guilty, or small.

Walked all the way through the park on Saturday, and Sunday. Will go again a number of times before this all ends. It is beautiful, and people are happy! Conversations between strangers are breaking out all over, people are looking, seeing, feeling and thinking with a buoyancy unprecedented for a mid-February day outdoors in New York.

Is it such a crime to make people happy?

[foo_bar]

113. the power failure two summers ago had a similar effect

Conversations between strangers are breaking out all over, people are looking, seeing, feeling...

NYC is a moving canvas of projections and desires, so anything that hacks up a different color on it could be considered performance art. To me, the exhibit is less meaningful than a free Simon&Garfunkel concert in the park, but I can't judge someone else's hard fought minimalism lest they wrap the Empire State Building in a condom.

[otohara]

75. It's Called Art

you don't have to live in NYC to call it by it's real name.

[imenja]

78. It's called the Gates

but I didn't remember the name when I was writing my post. Obviously it's art. Does that really require affirmation?

[superconnected]

92. just because it's art, doesn't make it good

I've seen better.

[progressoid]

79. For environmental pieces I prefer Andy Goldsworthy

Christo is a lot more about flash and publicity. Kinda like Warhol.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

80. I like what I see...

Unfortunately I am not in NYC to experience it first hand, but I live in N. California which has been home to a few of Christos' pieces.

At first I didn't "get" them, but now I can fully appreciate their mirroring of/interaction with the environment they exist in.

I think it would be a blast to experience The Gates.

[Mr.Green93]

102. Makes me want to

Go to Home Depot.

[theboss]

103. No sillier than any other recent public art spectacle

I do wonder whatever happend to just building a statue.

[Bridget Burke]

122. Hey, a statue of Bush the Smarter was erected in Houston recently...

It was just decorated for St Valentine's day, in a splendid example of community involvement with the arts.



(Or maybe that wasn't the reason for the red paint.)

http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2005/02/37372_comment.php

[thinkingwoman]

105. by the definition of art

I learned in college (that art makes you FEEL something--elicits an emotional response), the orange things in Central Park fail to pass the test.

They do nothing for me.

[Hissyspit]

117. Sorry. Art is NOT just about eliciting an emotional response.

It has multitude of purposes, some of which may cause emotional stimulation.

[thinkingwoman]

118. well you would have failed that class

that I took. The prof would brook no argument on his definition. ;-)

[LiberallyInclined]

108. Really Bad. one of the WORST 'public art' pieces. ever.

if that's art, then so is every brake-down lane on every highway construction project around the world.

[elsiesummers]

127. I agree - looks like Home Depot - saw in person over weekend.

My husband thought Home Depot should park trucks around the park to gain free advertisement.

Walking around I would say the installation made the park a far less attractive and enjoyable place to be.
The orange ruins the naturalistic feel of Central Park.

Also - the arches make you want to walk around them and not thru them - so people are heavily straying from the paths and this can't be good for the grass.

I've taken quite a few art classes and been to art school so I'm not some art bashing type - I just thought it really wasn't very good. I think artists do a disservice to art when they turn out crap like this because it provides some sort of basis for those who want to kill off things like the National Endowment for the Arts.

[FlaGranny]

110. Picture a

quiet, peaceful lake on an early summer evening. You are sitting in a canoe. A deer is taking a drink at the water's edge. Birds are singing in the background. Then a powerboat at full throttle screams past. That is the feeling I get when someone "decorates" nature.

[Hissyspit]

115. We decorate nature all the time. Central Park is artificial in its own way

[ernstbass]

111. Looks stupid

[marions ghost]

120. I was there by accident

I didn't go to NYC to see The Gates. I went for other reasons and didn't even know the Gates was opening that day. When I got there I could see hoards of people flowing beneath the arches in a raucus fast-moving processional. The orange fabric luffed like sails in the icy wind. Children riding on adults shoulders grazed the lower edges of the fabric. There was a fairytale magic, a "follow the yellow brick road" association. From a distance the skeletal ribs and people ebbing and flowing reminded me of those Chinese Dragons in New Year parades.

The color: Perhaps there is something out-of-synch in the choice of the vibrant color orange for such dark times as we live in. Perhaps black would have been a better choice, considering the mood of the country. Or white, with it's serious starkness against the grey trees. I am sure that if the banners were black or white that people would have moved more slowly and solemnly through them. Somehow the color made me feel nostalgic. Orange does seem like a color for a more exuberant time, a more progressive time, a more community-oriented time. There is of course the association with saffron robes of Asian monks, but these banners didn't drape like monks robes. They flapped around and ballooned up like pleated cheerleader skirts from the 50's. It was all very uplifting, but only if you were in the mood to be uplifted in these depressed times.

I have seen other Christo works in books, and regardless of whether they are "art", they are memorable. Someday I think we will say, there was a time...when people would do these crazy things, these ephemeral projects, these insane poetic creations with no precise purpose, and marvel at them. Meanwhile NYC is hoping it'll be good for tourism.

[Bridget Burke]

123. I think you have to be there....

NYC is a bit far from Texas.

The project looks like a good excuse for a lot of people to visit the park.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

125. Japanese Torii being cited as the precedent

blogs are abuzz with this, and the NYTimes published a letter http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/15/opinion/l15gates.html?pagewanted=print&position= yesterday stating as much.

http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e3915.html