Christo's Gates...is it art?

I don't know, its not like his other works. But I was never really fond of wrapped coastlines.

It's kinda like.... a renovation to me.

Fire. They juggle fire now.

If everyone in the world was allowed to destroy one work of art that they hated, there'd be no art left in the world. I don't have the correct answer here, I can just tell you what works for me. Intent. Did s/he intend to create art? Does it produce an emotional reaction of any kind in any viewer? If so, then yes, I feel it can be called art. Although the majority of art has had a deeper meaning (especially in the modern/contemporary period where WHY a thing is, is more important than WHAT a thing is [generally]) meaning itself isn't a prerequisite of art. Barnett Newman was an art historian turned artist who painted in a very cerebral method. To him, art was about "the pure idea." Not about "space cutting or space building, construction or fauvist destruction". He called it the artists "epistemological paradox". The beauty inherent in a pure idea was akin to an aesthetic act, and vice versa, and he said "only the pure idea has meaning, everything else has everything else." So, I equate that, in part, to mean intent. Mix in a few other ingredients and you come close to my opinion on the matter.

I'd strongly recommend a text called "American Artists on Art". Or at least look for Newman's paper that includes the quotes I excerpted above. It isn't about agreeing with it, it's about cherry picking all the aspects you do agree with and designing your own theory of what is art and what is beautiful. That's the freedom that makes the viewer as important as the artist.

If $4 a month would make a difference, perhaps.

$30 mil would change the world.

Sorry, when I say effort I'm not necessarily talking about the actual physical effort that all people involved in putting the art in place are making, I'm sure it's a logistical headache, but no more so than setting up a U2 stageshow or something.

I mean more of a personal effort for the artist themselves, and not just physical effort. I just don't get the impression he had to work at all to dredge these concepts up from deep within. Hell, I don't get the impression he had to think much period. They just seem like whims.

Actually it wouldn't surprise me at all if it did happen that way. I will admit that I'm completely ignorant in regard to the whole process behind the work, so maybe I'm wrong. But my point was more...Christo's work just seems like some whimsical idea anyone could've come up with just daydreaming or spacing out one afternoon in a matter of seconds. He just did it on a very large scale so people would actually notice.

Say you had a 4 year old girl who took 12 yellow umbrellas and "planted" them in her backyard in a pattern which looked pretty. I somehow doubt anyone would come along, scoop her up, hold her aloft and scream "Child Prodigy! She's a genius Conceptual Artist!"

But if you like him, you like him. I just don't.

insanely expensive art, but money is spent on worse things...