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?
Dagonee
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Just feel it, Dag. Just feel it.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
It actually sounds like it will be really cool.
Except for that "take it down in 16 days" part.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
That sounds awesome.
I don't get it but it sounds awesome.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Except for that "take it down in 16 days" part.
Exactly. That's the part I really don't get.
Eve's going to explain later, but I'm still skeptical.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
The unveiling was on all three network new shows tonight. It was alright, I don't know that it was worth $20 million.
I liked Christo's piece where he surounded on island or islands with colored fabric--It looked neat from a plane.
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.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I liked Christo's piece where he surounded on island or islands with colored fabric--It looked neat from a plane.
It looks like two vaginas.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
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.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
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.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Danzig, that page made my day. Thank you! Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
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".
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Yes, they did the unbrellas in CA, and again in Japan.
Danzig, that was a very funny page. I miss Calvin and Hobbes, thanks for the link.
[ February 12, 2005, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
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.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
A large part of that $20 million must have been used to purchase LSD. Jeez. At least the umbrella thing was somewhat whimsical.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Don't worry, folks - if I get my way, postmodernism is going down in a flaming ball of fire.
Join the movement! Who's with me?
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
*waves hand about wildly*
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
:goes to clean flamethrower:
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
*applaud Annie*
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
add me to the list of Philistines on the sidewalk (that has to be one of my all time favorite Hobbes lines)
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
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.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Though I tend to agree with you about a lot of postmodern art, postmodern music is generally rather interesting. I think, anyway.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Where did artists get THAT much money?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Dagonee
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
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.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Christo footed the entire $20 million bill, and swears that it's art as an event for the populace...
but he sells all his sketches as fine art and one of them fetched $800,000.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
*dies*
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
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.
Posted by bunbun (Member # 6814) on :
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.
That's my two cents.
Bunbun
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*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.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
[ February 13, 2005, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
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.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
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. Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
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.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: I don't think it is deep or significant or enduring, but I think it is quirky and amusing
For $20 mil, I expect significance. Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
Why?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Because with that amount of money, there are many many significant things that could be done.
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
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?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: For $20 mil, I expect significance.
Interesting that no one uses that arguement for Hollywood's "artistic" endeavors. . .
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
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.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
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.
AJ
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
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.
[ February 14, 2005, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
So, you're opposed to all frivolity, or only when other people do it and more people enjoy it?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yes, Kat, that's exactly what I'm saying.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
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.
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
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 ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.)
That's my guess.
Dagonee
[ February 14, 2005, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Dag - I'm with you.
I saw this on TV -- and although I have no problem with them DOING it -- I just don't get whatever "message" they think it conveys.
I have a hard time thinking of it as "art"
But -- hey, if they want to do it -- it's a free country. Just don't expect me to understand it.
Farmgirl
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
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.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Good point, Dag.
So let me rephrase that to: I don't think $20 million is that extreme of a figure considering the context. I also think it is far less a waste of said resources than at least a hundred other things that cost similar amounts and have debatably even less significance.
For the record, I'm a bit of a fan of Christo. I love the idea of large installation pieces. I wish I could to go NYC to see this piece. From the photo, it looks beautiful.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't think $20 million is that extreme of a figure considering the context. I also think it is far less a waste of said resources than at least a hundred other things that cost similar amounts and have debatably even less significance.
I agree. The community-building aspects alone give it some worth, regardless of artistic merit.
Of course, the Superbowl has community-building aspects, too. Probably less per dollar, though.
Dagonee
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Don't know about that. The superbowl reaches something like 600 million people.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yeah, but the cost is way more, and I think the community aspect is a little diluted outside the actual participating cities. I could be wrong, though.
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
Does television really bring a community together?
I read an article that reported a study where it was discovered that people who were regular television watchers percieved themselves as having more friends than reality reflected. Bonding with the Friends is not the same as bonding with friends. For this installation, in order to experience, people get out of their house and go to park with other people, everyone seeing the same installation, and then discussing what it meant. That seems more community-building than anything experienced through the television.
[ February 14, 2005, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Football does - it's talked about during the week, people get together to watch, they go to games. Fantasy football leagues usually have social interaction as well.
Actually, football does a lot of community building. It's what I like about it most.
Dagonee
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
Dag, have you read/seen Friday Night Lights? I grew up twenty miles from Odessa, Texas, and I can testify about the community-building aspects of rooting for the home team. I think it is more effective when it is the local team, though.
[ February 14, 2005, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
I like that this thread has veered from not-getting-ness to 'significance' and 'offensiveness' (or at least, indignation), and back.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet: Christo would define this thread itself as part of the art 'event' or experience.
His museum exhibits recording the wrapping of the islands, etc., display not just photos and plans, but also the letters of correspondence with public officials, cancelled checks, court dockets, and so forth.
I find it stimulating to consider the entire process and infrastructure of such an effort, starting with a creative idea (whatever one's views of its merits or originality) all the way to a mounted police officer bemusedly on crowd-control duty on a winter's day.
We all have grand dreams and ambitions. How many are fulfilled? This art stretches the boundaries of how we view the impact a human can have on the world.
The extravagance of the pricetag and the scale of the spectacle is very much part of the point. Yes, it has an aggrandizing, 'advertising' quality to it -- yes, Christo is part of a cult of personality, which by definition overstates his 'value' and 'significance,' but it is in some measure a calculated construct: a LIFE that is a kind of artwork itself.
quote: On the other hand, I don't think I've ever seen so many people in the Park in February.
I believe this is significant. You may say: those people are duped; or those people are just curious; those numbers don't validate the work or lend it significance. But importantly, they do.
The things in this world that move crowds to congregate (as we are here) and look and wonder, gibe and quest and scoff, that make people's hearts soar or sink... are of only a few kinds:
Sure, this one falls into the entertainment category. But not entirely. It is in a class of its own. A kind of experience -- community experience -- mostly benign -- that reechoes in the collective consciousness, alters perception, sparks debate.... Is that art? I hope so. I'd like to think art can have that kind of impact. What other kind of impact should art have?
One last point -- and it's the only thrust regarding 'modern art' generally that I'll parry here: I would never try to persuade someone to 'appreciate' or like modern art. But consider: So much (so VERY much) in this world consists of being persuaded of one truth. Advertising, of course. Politics. And so forth. Yet a great deal of art in the so called modern era deliberately leaves itself open to the individual's interpretation.
For one thing, this is courageous on the artist's part. It removes the entire effort from the conventional dialectics of cause and effect, value, success.
For another, it frees the audience. I like having my mind freed. In the midst of the barrage of persuasion we live in, I kind of like being told, "here's something extravagant, spectacular, silly, and beautiful -- take it or leave it."
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Maybe more effective, yes, when its local, but sports DO community build in a broader sense then rooting for the local team. Aside from which, local community building is important.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
As someone who's never cared for sports, I can testify that people talk to each other about sports. A lot. A lot more than I'd ever care to hear.
Most of the people who talk about Christo are "art" people. That's a very small percentage of the population, especially when you compare it to how many people like sports to one degree or another. I'd say that sports--and especially the Superbowl, the biggest sporting event in the United States--have much more value as "community-builders" than anything Christo has ever done in his life.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But, sports have consumed far more resources than Christo has, so in that context of KarlEd's point remains.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
In my house, sports in general, and the Superbowl in particular, are definitely NOT community-building events. They are television events that cause one of us to leave the room and find something else to do.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
But they also PRODUCE far more then this art project will, in terms of economic benefits.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Sure. I just don't think the disparity is obvious enough to conclude which one has a better per-dollar benefit without a lot of calculations and data gathering. And what fun would that be. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
They will produce more? I see the art involved here creating huge amounts of work for people to assemble it, for people to make the materials it is assembled out of, for security people to guard it, for photographers to photograph it, heck, for art professors to talk about it.
It is very hard to determine which of two things "produces more" in any complex economy. If anything, this sort of work likely "produces more" then most luxury goods, because it is money being injected into the general motion of the economy by going to mainly low margin producers (of the materials) and "blue collar" workers of various sorts. Money spent on high margin luxury goods circulates at a much higher percentage in a rarified circle, where the money goes from one person who has a lot of money and keeps most of it to another.
![[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)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)