Christo's Gates...is it art?

Just got back from NYC. Took a long time in Central Park pondering The Gates, Central Park New York, 1979-2005 by Christo. It was cool and everything, but is it art? Think of 7500 hurdles on the paths of the Park, only you walk under them, not over them. That's what it looked like, to me. Or the world's largest orange dominoes. I think I know a thing or two about art, but somebody 'splain The Gates to me...

The Gates, Central Park

i'm not sure i get it, and i'm not sure it looks like art from street level, i'd like to see aerial pics to see if there's a design in his head or something. I'll click the link after i post this, so don't point me in that direction for pics

i think this pic makes it look good

art.

It's art. No doubt about it. My personal preference causes me to say that it's not very good art, but it's art just the same.

Artistic intention. Was there artistic intent? An ant walks aimlessly on the beach in no particular pattern known to it, and the path traced in the sand from above is a spot-on portrait of Abe Lincoln. Is that art? Does the ant know who Honest Abe was? Did it intend to do it? It's a thought experiment ripped from Epistemology, but it works.

It's all about intent.

OK, so tell me why this is art! (I think it's art on a spectacular level, but I'm just tryin' to further the duscussion, you know?)
If a city worker had placed flagpoles throughout the park with with colored fabric on them just to spruce-up the otherwise dreary winter landscape, nobody would be talking about it. But when world-reknowned artist, Christo does it, it becomes an event.

one definition people use for art is "form, no function." if you go by this, then yes, its art.

I don't know if it's art or not.
But I still don't like Christo or his work.

its right outside my window. sure its art. its made the park intolerable. filled with pomposity and pretention from nattering numbskulls. its sort of stupid. but why wouldn't it be art?

One word.

Stupid.

Art would be to spend $30 Million feeding/housing NYC's homeless.

That crap merchant had these umbrellas along California highways in the early 1990's and several people died when some were blown off the hills and smashed into motorists.

Die Cristo you sack of snot!

To be fair, the Umbrella incident actually had a lot to do with visitor tampering, and not Christo sitting at his sketch board going "heh heh heh, this is sure to get them." Though umbrellas in what is essentially a wind tunnel: a little precarious. I actually saw them, though. I was little at the time, and I thought they were neat.

I tend to like Christo. It's a lot easier to accept and appreciate when you don't expect it to have any actual meaning. Sometimes, draping millions of yards of fabric on a 20 mile long clothes line can have a value justified with "Cause I wanna!"

Oh to have that kind of access...

Out here, that's what we call a CalTrans construction project; it takes years to go away, and everything is about the same when it finally does, but everyone's really glad it's gone because orange clashes with everything.

Seriously, though. It's crap.

As far as I'm concerned, if it hasn't shown up on a Bloodhound Gang CD jacket, it ain't art.

If I leave a chair on my porch during a hurricane and it blows away, hits, and kills someone, I'm liable for neglect. He puts umbrellas in, as you said, a wind tunnel, someone dies and he get's more funding and millions of dollars.

I'm sure someone sued Christo for negligence/wrongful death and either won or got a settlement.

I would have thought the same thing, but I couldn't find any news to support it. Most every article on the subject just says that he had it taken down as soon as he found out what happened.


Edit... I just don't know what's wrong with me anymore...

[Edited on Feb 22, 2005 by JoshXXX]

It's amazing go see it if you can. The money spent on it was generated from their own previous artwork.

I more or less agree with this. I don't think there's any one person who has the right to define what art is, and I don't think there's any one absolute definition.

Nevertheless, each of us can have an opinion on what art is, of course. Anyway. I've always thought Christo's work is pretty much worthless, uninspired, and unimaginative. There's always been something hollow and pretentious about what he does, I've never seen the point, personally.

BUT, if there are people out there who do like his work, I suppose it can't be truly, totally worthless. Regardless, I can't help but think it is.

To me, art should take more effort than, say, farting.

It's not all about effort, either, it should just take SOMETHING : imagination, or just plain old gut-wrenching soul-searching cathartic power...but something. To me, Christo's work has always been about large scale nothing. The fact that he's doing it on a large scale doesn't make it something. But maybe I just don't get it. To each their own.

Sure, why not?

Short answer: yes, it's art. But It's art that I don't like.

It does take more effort than farting, and it does take imagination, so there you go. It actually takes tons of effort to get people behind this, get clearance, etc. You make it sound like he just sits there and says, "Orange gates! Yellow umbrellas!" and then everyone else does work to make sure the genius artist does not get angry. Even if you're a famous artist, it's not easy to get shit like this done. I'm not sure how involved he actually is in the construction/installation of the pieces, (I'd do research but I'm torrenting something right now and for some reason I've yet to diagnose, after my giant overhaul of my computer, my connection is about 1/4 of what it usually is) but still, it's a bit of imagination and a lot of effort, just like everything else.

I'm not saying that that makes it meaningful, but hey, what the fuck do I know about art? My sister, who went to art school, tells me that there is meaning to a lot of modern art, but so much of it is so referential that you have to know a ton about art history to know what's going on in the piece. I've never asked her about Christo, but I will at some point. Not that I hold just tons of stock whether or not she likes him, because my sister is possibly the most arbitrarily judgmental person on the planet, capable of changing her mind at speeds faster than light. But she'd at least have a clue if there was some basis for this, or if Christo just thought, "Hey, you know what would look good in Central Park? Tons of orange gates!"

Either way, I can't say it really bothers me. It's kinda neat looking. I remember seeing the yellow umbrellas and being unmoved by them, but then, I'm not a big fan of yellow or umbrellas. And they didn't really contrast with the scenery too much, so their effect wasn't as striking as the orange gates.

Edit: Okay, while I was loading that giantass uninformed bit of writing, the site actually loaded in another tab and I forgot all about it. Now that I'm seeing the street level views, it's actually cool as hell. The look of it was really striking, and I loved the play of the light and shadows on the fabric. I would've enjoyed seeing it in person.

Also, the bit about funding was totally wrong, as apparently they funded it themselves.

[Edited on Feb 22, 2005 by TedKoppel]