Olmsted rolls in his grave over Christo's Gates

[KurtNYC]

My impression of the installation is that it is purposefully at odds with the environment of Central Park -- day-glo orange, plastic, right angles, totally unnatural. This writer for Slate uncovered another piece of Christo and JC's cavalier attitude toward Central Park and it's architect:

I'll leave judgment of the aesthetic merits of art installation in Central Park to the art critics, but a comment by Christo and Jeanne-Claude caught my attention. They have written that the name of their project comes from Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux, who called the various entrances to the park "gates." In fact, the idea of naming the 20 pedestrian entrances to the park after popular professions, such as The Farmer, The Engineer, and The Miner, came from a committee that included neither Olmsted nor Vaux. What struck me was not the factual error, however, but the attempt to enlist the 19th-century makers of Central Park in this modern project.

From the beginning, Olmsted and Vaux strenuously opposed all attempts to introduce art into the park. In their Greensward Plan of 1858—the competition entry that won them the commission—they wrote that while it would be possible to build elegant buildings in the park, "we conceive that all such architectural structures should be confessedly subservient to the main idea, and that nothing artificial should be obtruded on the view." They considered art a similar distraction from the restorative purpose of the landscape and kept statues out of the park.

http://www.slate.com/id/2113445/

I guess the author is alleging that JC is ignorant of Olmsted's true role (or that she lied). In either case, how sad.

[Burma Jones]

1. This is why it is temporary

Very temporary. And installed when, odds are, there are fewer visitors to the park than say, in May............

[gratuitous]

2. The display is going to be up for what, 16 days?

Can't imagine anyone getting all that up in arms about it.

[KurtNYC]

5. 3 months of set up and tear down

on every pathway in the whole park.

But the point is that someone who puts their art on top of someone else's art should do so with the utmost respect and reverence for the original work. But these 2 have misrepresented Olmsted and accused the agency in charge of maintaining the park of "extortion" while they defile the park with orange plastic and sell their $65 coffee table book.

Olmsted = Si Christo = No

[gratuitous]

10. *Shrug*

I don't consider Central Park to be a place of especial reverence or holier ground than any number of other places on this good Earth.

But Christo better stay away from my Cascades! And if I seem him sniffing around Multnomah Falls . . . well, let's just say I probably won't be buying him any pecan pie.

[madrchsod]

3. christo`s art in the park is

a big joke. a big joke on the city of new york and the "art" bureaucrats who think christo is a "great artist". there is nothing artistic about putting up orange car wash curtains

[Stephanie]

4. Why is there so much negativity around this project? It's so cool.

What's the beef? It's temporary. It's an installation. It looks different every single day. It's incredible that they managed to get it done at all. Yet it's evoked this strange anti-art attitude, which I think was really more deserved by the painted COWS the city allowed to be placed all over town a few years ago. What explains the backlash against this project?

[NewInNewJ.]

7. I agree

My husband and I are going to see it this weekend.

[KurtNYC]

For myself, I don't believe that anyone should

put their art on top of someone else's. And I don't see that attitude as anti-art; I see it as very pro-art. Central Park is artificial. Every area was landscaped, every tree selected. It is Olmsted and Vaux's art. I don't think anyone should piggyback onto their success in creating that space.

I don't see this as much different from someone drawing on the Mona Lisa or putting high fashion clothes on the statue of David. It is disrespectful to the original artist.

There is absolutely no reason this had to be in Central Park. It could have been done on a golf course. I'm pro art and pro-artist and in this case I believe that Olmsted should be defended from Christo.

[Stephanie]

11. There is art all over the park.

There are hundreds of sculptures and structures not designed by Olmstead. It's a false argument. And of course this installation would not be the same on a golf course. You know you don't believe that.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

12. Kurt that is not true

a lot of the boulders were there already. In fact, it is why Central Park remained undeveloped- it was mostly unbuildable!!!
Olmsted didn't have to do much, he was workng with what was already there.

[KurtNYC]

14. I beg to differ

The soil was inadequate to sustain the trees and shrubs Olmsted and Vaux planned, so 500,000 cubic feet of topsoil was carted in from New Jersey. Earth was manually dug up and huge boulders blasted out. Lacking modern machinery, all materials and debris had to be carted in and out on horse-drawn carts. By 1873, more than 10 million cartloads of material had been hauled through the Park. This material included more than 4 million trees, shrubs, and plants, representing more than 1400 species that lay the foundation for what is today's Central Park. Thirty-six bridges and archways were built and four man-made water bodies, fed from the City's water supply, were created.

http://www.centralparknyc.org/thenandnow/cp-history/cphistory1858-1878

On average the elevation of every square foot of the park was changed by 6 feet. Building the park was an enormous and expensive undertaking which took more than 14 years to complete. I don't see how this squares with your assertions.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

18. I was talking about the rocks

He didn't "build" mountains- the rock was there. He cut away (blasted) at what was there, and yes, he filled in (much of what was swamp). They carted in the soil becuase nothing would grow there (at least not the specimens they wanted).
The reason the open land was even there is that nobody could build on it it was so rocky and swampy.

[Bridget Burke]

Some art can benefit from further enhancement!

Houston's new monument to Bush the Smarter received a festive addition of red paint recently.



Unfortunately, it's probably temporary.

Central Park will not suffer from the temporary decoration. It's NOT the Mona Lisa!

[Hamlette]

16. Thank you Stepahnie!!!!!

I would give ANYTHING to go to NY right now and see this incredible art. I am ashamed of this country that it is provincial. I'm even totally pissed at KO for dissing it non stop last night.

Those pictures are beautiful. Thanks for posting them.

Open your mind and your eyes can see. The gates are beautiful.

That said, I do think I would pause if this were to be a permanent exhibition. But its not.

It's a good question: "why are Americans so negative about this?" I think few get abstract art at all which is a shame.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

6. Witold Rybczynski is an idiot

and I know, because I have been suffering through his writings for years. JC said "gates"- nothing about the names.
The intent of Christo's work is to emphasize the beauty of the landscape through contrast. Meanwhile, the Japanese Torii are being cited as the precedent, blogs are abuzz with this, and the NYTimes published a letter yesterday stating as much.

If anyone knows how to relate man to nature it is the Japanese...

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

And Olmsted's futile attempts to maintain absolute control of the landscape are just the hubris of 19th century romanticism.
Besides, the later Prospect Park in Brooklyn is considered to be his true masterpiece. This is all much ado about nothing.

[bloom]

9. "much ado about nothing"

I agree.

Sheesh - can't people have a little art around once in awhile.


Maybe we're supposed to go to other countries to find it? :shrug:

[indigobusiness]

15. Agreed. What a load.

We need less antiArt

and more antiWar

[KurtNYC]

17. What I love about DU is that when you are

misunderstood, you are misunderstood right away.

My point was that Olmsted is an artist; Christo is an artist also but he should either be more respectful to earlier artists or do his work from scratch.

More respect for art is not at odds with anti-war.

[jilln]

8. nothing artificial??

Aren't there sidewalks, and benches, and a tribute to John Lennon, and buildings already?

[DoYouEverWonder]

13. This was the same crap

that the spoiled sports got on about when Christo wanted to wrap the islands in Miami pink and that was a much more environmentally sensitive situation. In the end, it all worked out and most people enjoyed the show while it lasted.

Besides, I'm must more concerned with the destruction of Fallugah and Mosul at the moment, to get all worried about a 'temporary' art exhibit.

[Ripley]

19. Really DYEW. I'm kind of shocked at the anti-art people on DU.

Sheesh, as an artist, I always thought liberals understood Art and would support it. You don't have to like his temporary exhibit, but honestly why the hell would Olmstead roll in his grave? How about Biltmore that has thousands of tourists ogling around that? Would he spin because of the marketing of that home and grounds?

It's just art folks, calm down.

[eleny]

20. If the park can handle roller bladers in hot pants it can handle this