I know you’ve heard of them. Everyone has heard of them. I’m going to see them on Sunday.
I always found Christo’s stuff kind of amusing (even though I’ve never seen any of his things in person). Christo’s wrapping and cloth projects never seemed earth-shattering or whatever, but I find them very entertaining, whimsical. I mean, he WRAPPED THE REICHSTAG. The photographs of that are inSANE. He’s obviously a nut, but – duh – he’s an artist. Only a nut would actually surround an entire island with flourescent pink cloth. But you know what? Those pink-wrapped islands looked really cool to me. I thought it was funny, and it also created what was, for me, a startlingly beautiful image. It turned the landscape into something strange. I like it. I like people who do wacky weird things – merely to please themselves. (I guess I don’t care for people who kill kittens merely to please themselves – but I like that Christo, for whatever reason, likes to wrap things up, likes to do HUGE projects … and he DOES it. I love nuts.)
I don’t think Christo has found a cure for cancer. I don’t think that Christo’s gates are indicative of the socio-political dichotomies in our shifting cultural paradigm. I don’t think that what he has created is on par with putting a man on the moon or discovering penicillin. No. I think it’s an art project on a large scale. I think it’s a cool thing to do in Central Park – it is something that makes New Yorkers look again at their familiar surroundings, seeing new things, I think it’s a cool community project. On an enormous million-dollar scale. Maybe it won’t add up, maybe it’s NOT cool, maybe it won’t look as cool as the PHOTOS do (that’s the general consensus from my friends who have gone – I think the photographs are spectacular – but a lot of people say it’s not as cool in person) … but that’s okay. I am not going there to look for the Meaning of Life, I am going to see what the heck that nut Christo is up to now!
What really strikes me is the ANGER that The Gates has generated. I’ve read some truly hostile posts about it. People seem to think that … the Gates should be ignored? Dismissed? Not discussed at all?
I can’t tell where the hostility is coming from. I mean, whatever – you think Christo shouldn’t be taken seriously. Fine, then, don’t take him seriously. Plenty of people don’t. I barely do – I just think his stuff is fun to look at. There are plenty of “artists” who are taken seriously by the art establishment and I think these artists are full of shit and do not deserve the press they get. But I still think art, especially a project of The Gates’ magnitude and scope, deserves to be taken seriously, to be CONSIDERED, shall we say, even if the end-opinion is along the lines of: “It doesn’t work for me.” And so the hostility seems unwarranted and weird to me. I don’t know – why does the fact that some artist fills Central Park with orange gates AND that it becomes a huge event – piss people off so royally? I can only guess.
Perhaps they don’t like the hoity-toity tone of a lot of art criticism. I myself don’t like it. I never read art criticism, because I can barely figure out WHAT THE HELL THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. Art critics are a boring lot.
But I still think that a project of this size, done by an artist of Christo’s magnitude, deserves to be taken on its own terms and deserves to be taken seriously. Let’s go and look at it, and ask questions about it. Let’s see what it might mean. To us. Let’s walk around, and stare at it. Let’s ponder what it might have to say to us. Let’s not snap our minds shut like a steel trap and assume that everyone who is into it or who wants to discuss it is a pretentious blowhard. I’m not defending The Gates – a lot of people I know and respect have gone and were disappointed by them. Somehow, what the photographs showed did not translate in real life.
But the rest of the commentary I’ve heard? It sounds jealous, and mean-spirited. Close-minded before the piece is even considered. “Ah, look at the pretentious ‘artistes’ being all pretentious …”
I don’t get the hostility. People sound downright pissed off at the fact that this project is considered news-worthy AT ALL.
If someone goes to see The Gates and has some kind of epiphany – why the fuck does that piss someone off? I don’t get it. I may go, and be like: “Oh my God, I see the world in a whole new way …” It might happen! I am not going to the thing with a closed angry mind. And if I do have an epiphany, does that mean I’m a fucking moron? People respond to art for their own reasons. I don’t respond to modern dance at all. It does nothing for me. But I have friends for whom modern dance is not only their profession, but their calling. They leave dance recitals literally in tears. I don’t get that. But I love the fact that they HAVE that response. I think if people love The Gates, that’s awesome. I think if some people don’t love The Gates that’s cool, too.
What’s up with the cranks?
Ah, whatever. Let them stew in their own cranky juices and grumble about this event to themselves. Have a nice life, folks.
I’m going to see The Gates on Sunday. It may not be the be-all end-all, it may not cure my broken heart, it may not show me the way, the truth, and the light, but – er – that’s not what I’m looking for. It’s an event and I want to participate. I’ve seen the photographs of Christo’s projects before, as most of us have, but I’ve never seen one in person. I’m excited to check it out.
One more thing: Just to make myself clear: I am not saying that The Gates shouldn’t be criticized. No. If the project doesn’t work for the critic, then the project doesn’t work and should be criticized – but AS ART. A lot of what I’m reading seems angry that the project exists at all. That’s what I find annoying.
You’ll enjoy them. The photographs are far more classically beautiful than the Gates themselves (we do love photographs; they soothe us), but they communicate little of the sheer whackadoodle temerity of going through with something like this. I thought it was an absolute hoot, and had great fun watching the watchers, which is the part that doesn’t show in pictures. There’s something detached about the imagery, which is very different from the reality of it.
My take on it here, if you’re curious. I don’t give away the ending: no spoilers. 8>
I was wondering when, not if, you’d post on this Sheila.. I’ve (of course) only seen photos of The Gates.. they do look intriguing.. and the reviews I’ve read have been mixed.
The ‘pretentious artistes’ will be a factor in the criticism.. it always is.. It may in part be that, as I understand it, the costs are being met by, and recouped by, the artists themsleves – not quite belonging to the City. And it’s temporary.. part of the appeal of The Event, I guess.
I’ve not been completely convinced by the Christos’ previous work that I’ve heard of.. I liked the idea of their Reichstag wrap.. as an undertaking it was impressive.. but once they had conquered the technical challenge I wasn’t so sure.
Definitely worth seeing The Gates while they’re there.. If I was in NY I’d certainly be wandering through them. And it’ll be interesting to hear what you think of them.
Linus –
That’s pretty much how I view Christo, as a “hoot”. I don’t know why, I just do … I think “whackadoodle temerity” is also an awesome term, and that’s why I think the project is interesting.
A lot of people seem to resent that he has the “temerity” to have done this at all. And that’s what I don’t get.
I’m excited to wander through them – I hope it’s a nice day.
I like your post, Linus. :) “I wish they were 40 feet tall.” :) I like it.
I’m wondering if early morning might be the best time to see them … or later afternoon – The photos I see seem most spectacular when the light is low in the sky, rather than high-noon
I hope you get good weather too. The Gates don’t do much by themselves, so eventually you start posing them against the landscape and watching the light on them and through them; it’s non-directed time, and if it’s bitter cold or wet you’ll have a very different experience.
One way or another, though, I suspect that no one who sees them will ever forget them, whether the memory is tinged in whimsy or rage. It is, indeed, a hoot.
Linus
“I wish they were bigger”
Yep.. (from the photos) I’d say make them wider.. stretching across the paths.
Years ago, I saw Christo as a symbol of everything that’s wrong with modern art, a goofy guy being paid large sums of money to do patently absurd things. But over time, it started to dawn on me that his projects are generally a lot more honest, interesting and fun than most modern art. The guy has a certain charming audacity about him – I mean in today’s world, very few people dare to think as big as he thinks. Sure it’s a gimmick, but a gimmick done well can be a lot of fun.
Have fun, red. Kinda wish I could take that stroll myself…
Peteb – the Gates do run all the way across the paths; they are custom-sized, and each one fits pretty exactly edge-to-edge. (They’re also mounted on little braces so that no drilling damage was done to the walkways or the adjacent ground.) They’re each 16 feet tall or somesuch, and walking through them I just had this sudden vision of having them be like bridge towers. “Now that,” I said to myself, “would be hella cool.”
Not exactly in those words.
Red, it looks to me like most of the pix are early-morning images. I was there in afternoon (I’m not a morning guy) and I think you’ll find having the sun one direction or another is pretty entertaining but probably not all that critical. Central Park has lots of contour, and one way or another you’ll find ways to play with the light. But since you’re an early riser, I’ll bet morning would be pretty splendid.
I’m with Mike: I saw Christo as a shallow and infuriating parasite at one point. I’m comfortable saying I was pretty much dead wrong about that. Yves Klein, now, well, don’t get me started, a couple of the famous ones still piss me off righteously.
“they are custom-sized, and each one fits pretty exactly edge-to-edge”
Linus, ah.. it wasn’t clear from the photos that they varied in width.. and I guess it makes sense not to damage the ground alongside the paths.. I still think I’d like to see them overstretch the pathway on either side.. more of a suspending the fabric over the path than framing the path.. but it’s a minor quibble from afar and, likely, far removed from the artists intention.
Not exactly my cup of tea– I go to the park to see the trees and other general forms of nature often covered in cement.
But, apparently they raised all of the funding privately, so more power to them. So long as this sort of thing isn’t taxpayer funded, and eventually gets taken down, it’s interesting to see something different.
I generally look at Central Park as a place for walking, trees, exercise, sports, a little trip to the zoo or a walk along the water, plus an occassional concert.
A bunch of orange drapes hanging along the path? Not my cup of tea and not something I would have approved were I in charge of the Parks Department.
But I’m not and Mayor Bloomberg is.
Color is important. I suggest you see The Gates sometime the sky is grey, or at least as void as possible.
When I was sick the first time, I had a neon pink peice of posterboard on the wall facing the end of my bed. Nothing written on it. It served as a pop of color first thing every day and I really think it helped me get well.
Generally, I’m bugged by Big Artistic Pronouncements but this one actually kind of appeals to me:
1. The “fun” element. It’s fun. It’s kind of silly. We don’t have enough “kind of silly” in our lives. The whole “whackdoodle temerity” of it. (I like that phrase). It’s kind of an “it can’t be done” sort of thing and Christo and Jeanne-Claude went out and did it. (I guess, I tend to have more sympathy/fondness for the people who go out and DO stuff rather than the people who come up with lists of reasons why it can’t be done).
2. It’s not gonna be up forever. The people who don’t like it, who think it clutters up the Park, don’t have to live with it for the rest of their lives.
3. It was privately funded. I’d probably roll my eyes if my little town wanted to (say) tack an extra quarter-cent sales tax onto everything I bought so that some artist could come in and say “Ok, this is the vision for your town.” But if some rich person, or a consortium of corporations, wanted to pay for it, fine.
4. I’ve not been to New York, and I won’t get there while it’s up, but the pictures and video I’ve seen, it actually is kind of pretty and interesting. The fact that the wind plays a role in the sculpture – I like that.
5. Did anyone else think of the color of Buddhist monk’s robes when they saw the “drapes”? That was the first thing in my mind.
I don’t know. Like I said, I’ve not seen it in person, and I thought some of Christo’s earlier stuff didn’t work all that well, but from the pictures I’ve seen, it looks kind of cool.
A lot of the stuff I’m reading takes what you said, Bill: “It’s not my cup of tea” – and expands it into: It shouldn’t be anyone’s cup of tea, and anyone whose cup of tea it is is an asshole.
That attitude makes me NUTS.
I actually think most of the guy’s stuff is ridiculous, but it’s not my money, so…
What bugs me are people (usually art critics) trying to make me feel either A) like I must appreciate this as ART; B) Stupid for not getting it; or C) That this SAYS SOMETHING about life, death, the end of capitalism, or the odds on the Sawx repeating as World Series champs next year.
I just want the right to say I think it’s dopey. Mind you, I have the aesthetic sense of a stick, so I may not be the best judge of these sorts of things.
skinnydan:
I guess my point is though – and please don’t take offense – but nobody is trying to MAKE YOU think anything. You may feel like they are, but in reality, they are not. If THEY like it, then why do you interpret that as them saying; “If you don’t like it, you’re stupid”?
That’s where I sense most of the weird hostility coming from … is that these people who are all hostile and pissy about The Gates feel pressure to say they like it. But I think that that’s THEIR problem.
And if I DO go, and find some deep meaning in The Gates – that’s MY experience, I’m not saying: “What the hell is wrong with you that YOU didn’t have a deep experience?” People are PROJECTING that onto others. So what if I go and find that The Gates have something to say about the meaninglessness (or meaningfulness) of life. So what?? Why does that piss people off?
I guess my point is – is that any pressure you feel is self-inflicted. Forgive me – I don’t know you – and I’m really just responding to most of the hostile commentary out there which seems overblown to me.
Of course you have “the right” to say you think it’s goofy. What makes you think you don’t?
I feel no compunction to like Million Dollar Baby even though pretty much every critic on the planet is saying portentously: “This is the best movie the world has ever seen.”
It’s personal taste. Nobody’s trying to MAKE YOU feel anything about The Gates.
People seem angry about SOMETHING ELSE when it comes to The Gates, is my point here. They’re pissed off about something else other than the actual art project.
“I guess my point is – is that any pressure you feel is self-inflicted.”
Maybe that’s often so, but not necessarily. I mean, it was completely tongue-in-cheek and not meant to be nasty when I said my first reaction was to revert to Bostonianism and say it was retarded. The more I look at and think about it, the more I actually like it. I doubt I’d ever take anything particularly profound or meaningful from it, as I think it’s just silly, amusing and fun, but I don’t have anything against anyone feeling more than that.
But I have actually been told I’m some kind of horrible philistine for not appreciating its “amazing brilliance.” This by someone who has also said, with a perfectly straight face, that Boy George is a genius.
Dude, I hear what you’re saying, and I’ve experienced that too – like I’m a horrible person because I was un-moved by some movie or whatever – but that’s the other person’s problem, man, not mine.
You like what you like.
You can walk around with a chip on your shoulder because you didn’t “get”, say, the glory and wonder of Magnolia (or any other movie which is, perhaps, not mainstream) … and mutter to yourself, “All those snobs just like that movie because you can’t understand it and it’s so pretentious and it’s just ‘artistes’ jerking off…” That’s how people actually talk sometimes. It’s ridiculous, it sounds so jealous and small. I mean, hey, if that’s how you want to walk around, that’s your choice.
I’m saying there’s a choice here. It’s up to YOU. Nobody is MAKING YOU feel anything – you choose it.
Sorry to get all deep, but that’s what I sense in the hostility.
I may be totally wrong, but I feel like some people are pissed off when art is taken seriously at all. They have a filter for artists – they can’t even write the damn word without putting scare quotes around it. It makes them ANGRY.
Oh, and Boy George IS a genius.
End. Of. Story.
“But I have actually been told I’m some kind of horrible philistine for not appreciating its “amazing brilliance.” This by someone who has also said, with a perfectly straight face, that Boy George is a genius.”
That’s the part I personally react to. I’ve seen Christo’s stuff. Some I liked – I think “Gates” is kinda cool, the Reichstag bit was kinda fun, and his project to completely encase the Brooklyn riverfront in grime seemed to be a complete success. Others, not so much – the island bit kinda rubbed me the wrong way.
But it’s the attitude that so many “art fans” have, the one that J-Po wrote about yesterday that I linked in my blog – “if you don’t get it, then you’re some sort of benighted clod”. Yick.
I see a lot of that.
However, the pix I’ve seen of “gates” – I’ve done a lot of checking since yesterday – DO look cool. Wish I was in NYC!
But why put art fans in scare quotes? If they’re art fans, they’re art fans. Regardless of whether or not you agree with their taste. You know? I can’t stand Lucian Freud. I cannot STAND that guy’s art and I think the response to it is overblown and … I guess he makes me mad. But … I don’t know. If people like it, people like it – who am I to say whether or not their admiration is genuine? I have no idea. I am not them.
Art fans can indeed be incredibly obnoxious – I am not disputing that.
So what? A lot of people think I’m a philistine because I am not a huge Rolling Stones fan. I don’t “get it”. Therefore, I am evil and also stupid. Music evangelists are worse than art fans. I try not to let it get to me though – I try not to have a big fat chip on my shoulder about music and music fans – just because I dig the Beatles better than the Stones and have had a lot of people (even on this blog) give me self-righteous shit for it.
People have a chip on their shoulder about art. It pisses them off. They write “art” and “artists” in quotations because they can’t even bear that anyone takes it seriously – they MUST let all of us know that they do not. They have contempt for the endeavor itself.
I’m not saying anyone on this blog qualifies in this realm – I’m just writing what I sense out there in a lot of the commentary right now.
I don’t give a crap what other people tell me I should or should not like. That’s THEIR problem, if they get all self-righteous about it.
Well, you’re probably right, but it’s hard to take and just wave off and dismiss when it comes from family who I’ve known all my life, but who also think of me as practically a leper because I’m a Republican. It’s all tied together. I wish I COULD just shrug it all off.
DaveJ – wait a sec, wait a sec. Republicans aren’t lepers? They aren’t??? Woah. NOW you tell me.
I agree that it is difficult to wave that stuff off … I’m right with you on that. I’ve seen pieces of CRAP theatre in New York, highly praised by EVERYBODY, in a kind of self-congratulatory way, you know, like: “What a wonderful work … how wonderful it is that New York supports theatre like this … good for us, good for us …” And then I see it and nearly die from psychological boredom.
And I wonder what I’m missing. And it feels like my criticisms would be HIGHLY unwelcome in that environment.
I still know that it is MY choice though. Everyone can tell me, over and over and over, how I need to like THIS, and I need to get THIS from THAT piece of artwork … but I just don’t care. It’s my choice. I will make up my own mind.
I have no problem with other people liking stuff I find execrable. It’s still a free country, and if some people think vomit on canvas is art, well, go ahead.
See, if someone says to me “Christo’s work really moves me” that’s no problem. Even if they say “Can’t you see what he’s getting at?”, I take that as an attempt to show me something I can’t see.
What I don’t care for are the people who TELL me what I NEED to see in it, and how much of a moron I am for not getting it. I am smart enough to choose my own tastes, and I just don’t like people getting all artsy-fartsy on my derriere. It’s the art critics I have a problem with, not the art.
Fortunately, in these super-modern days of newspapers with varieties of different sections, art critics are easily avoided.
Yeah, critics suck. In general. I can’t read art criticism or lit crit anymore … They seem to be writing in another language.
I still don’t care if someone says: “YOU NEED TO SEE THIS”. In my opinion, that is the message right now from critics in terms of Million Dollar Baby – and so far, I have resisted. I don’t know. I guess I don’t care all that much if critics need me to see stuff. It’s my choice.
Example: Everyone on the planet appeared to love Forrest Gump. Not just love it – but feel that that movie had the Meaning of Life in it. Critics drooled. People flocked to it in droves. People discussed it. Certain lines became insta-folklore. My view? I hated that movie. Hated. Hated. Hated it.
We’ve discussed this on the blog before … and I know what everyone on the opposing side will say, and I respect that they feel the way they feel … I don’t need to convert them … but my God, there was a time while that movie was playing where if you said, “I hated Forrest Gump”, people would have looked at you with stunned shock and moral distaste – as though you had said, “I adore evil and the ways of Satan and I love bringing Beelzebub to life in every moment.”
I’m exaggerating. But only slightly.
I know why people loved that movie. Fine. I didn’t love it, and felt like the entire world had gone insane. I did not see what the big deal was. It was an odd sensation – going so against the grain – and I got a lot of flak for it. “But don’t you see that THIS is what the movie is saying????”
“Yes. I do see that. I still think it’s a crap movie.”
Hmmm.
Sheila, thank God I’ve finally found someone who absolutely loathed Forrest Gump as much as I did. As for Million Dollar Baby, it wasn’t bad, but I don’t know if ANYTHING could live up to that kind of hype.
DaveJ:
From what I’ve heard through the underground, there are more of us Forrest-Gump-loathers out there.
We just need to lose our fear, and come out into the sunlight.
Hopefully, my blog can help with that.
Sign me up. Defninitely NOT on my Netflix list.
Mind you, I think Tom Hanks is terrific. Just not in that particular “epic.”
I didn’t hate Forrest Gump, but I did find it shallow and precious and altogether too impressed with itself. Which, given the subject matter, was hilariously inappropriate.
And, as it happens, life is not at all like a box of choclits.
The Gates don’t really do much for me either way. I can take ’em or leave ’em. And actually, I can kind of see Christo’s point about the art being part of the process of doing it, gaining approval, waiting out the resistance, and the rest. I think this project was first proposed during the eighties when NYC was going through some pretty hard times and Central Park wasn’t exactly the kind of place you’d want to spend much time contemplating art. The appreciation factor would’ve been rather slim, I think. So, maybe this project is in some way about celebrating the power of time and persistance; if I were an art/social critic I’m sure I could draw a lot of parallels. (But then, who can’t draw parallels?)
My brother has a plan to fly in, see the exhibit with his son (who knows nothing about this plan, although he knows ALL about this project) and fly back all in the same day. He wants to do this on a limited budget. I think that is tempting fate and is, in itself, a kind of art.
I can’t end without defending Forrest Gump. I’m not saying it’s the greatest movie ever, but I did like it. I thought it was clever in its way, didn’t take itself seriously and yet still managed to make some serious points without either making fun of Forrest’s disability or celebrating it.
“And, as it happens, life is not at all like a box of choclits.”
Well, tasteless as I know this comment is, it’s more like a box of chocolates if you’re, um, retarded.
Bernard:
Last time I committed the heresy of admitting that not only did I not like Forrest Gump, but I actually despised it, I was bombarded with emails telling me what I was missing.
They were kind of cute, actually – and I had some good conversations about it, some good back and forth.
But I maintain my position!! I’ve seen the movie twice now … I felt so deeply that I MUST be missing something, that I went back, saw it again, and thought: Nope. Hated it just as much the second time.
Sorry! Don’t take it personally! :)
I didn’t hate Forrest Gump, but I did feel that it was too manipulative. Some folks have a higher manipulation threshold than others, and it’s not always an easy call. I enjoyed Titanic, but I can easily see why some people didn’t. That’s the thing – even those who loved Forrest Gump ought to be able to understand why others might not care for it.
Among the many valid reasons to despise Forrest Gump the one that I would mention, in particular, is that the movie is, basically, Not Being There
Good point, Peteb, now that you mention it.
And Sheila, no worries. It’d be a pretty boring place that required everyone to always share the same opinion. (And actually, I so value yours that I now wonder about mine.)
I certainly wondered about the validity of my opinion during the Forrest Gump craze. One of my best friends (a very discerning smart woman) saw the movie as literally life-changing. She came out of it exhilarated, she wanted to discuss it, she immediately bought it when it came out on video.
It didn’t do that for me … but she’s a smart movie-going woman. She obviously saw SOMEthing in it.
Like for whatever reason – I had such an intense personal response to Legend of Bagger Vance – out of NOwhere – I felt like I would have to leave the movie theatre in the middle of the film, because there was pain and revelation like lava in my veins. I am not kidding. I felt this HEAT inside of me – it hurt – I saw the truth of how unhappy I was, how stuck I was. I went into that movie oblivious to all of that, and I came out a little bit wiser about myself. I left that movie and actually made some deep-down changes in how I lived my life.
I have no idea why. Nobody else I knew who saw the movie really had that response … but damn, that movie HIT me like a ton of bricks. Or a frying pan over the head.
Weird!
I went and saw Christo’s umbrella thingy out here in SoCal and it was fun. Art, for me is so subjective, and I’m so egocentric that it really comes down to this, “did I enjoy myself or was I bored?” I was kind of delighted by the whimsy of all those colorful umbrellas dotting the landscape. I think I would be delighted with The Gates too. The fact that he raises the money for it all himself is intriguing, like the ultimate indulgence.
The same goes for movies or music – does this bore me? And whether or not I’m bored depends so much on other variables.
I remember enjoying Forest Gump but if I was stoned and had popcorn and Milk Duds, I’d pretty much enjoy anything – unless it was scary.
I don’t like being scared.
“…if I was stoned and had popcorn and Milk Duds, I’d pretty much enjoy anything – unless it was scary. I don’t like being scared.”
Of course, if I was stoned, I’d find some things scary that I normally wouldn’t. I remember being in someone else’s dorm room my freshman or sophomore year, and the guy broke out a tape of Disney cartoons: let me tell you, “Donald Duck in Number World” can be some fucking terrifying shit.
Get Your Gates Here
So I’ve been hearing about some kinda kerfuffle about some Gates. Much to my astonishment I found out that these Gates being referred to were located in Central Park.
i like the gates and the concept of them…
it was really boring just walking through them tho, i didnt really see why there was a need when i had photos