Foo - Jeanne-Claude & Christo's "Gates"

Has anybody up in NYC seen the "Gates" unveiling this morning?
Looks incredible, wish I was up there.

http://www.npr.org/news/images/2005/feb/12/reuters/gates200.jpg

http://www.christojeanneclaude.net/tg.html#preparatoryArt

Saw it on the news last night. Not art... estheticly pleaseing, yes... art no. The 'art' was in the design, development and exicution of Central Park. The 'gates' are as much art as a nice fence along the path would be art.

Sorry, I don't buy it. :)

I've always thought this guy was 100% hype. But, hey, that's why art isn't science, as it's based largely on opinion.

OOooooooo AAaaaahhh. Next fad please :rolleyes:

OOooooooo AAaaaahhh. Next fad please :rolleyes:

hmmm.... sorry, I work in the arts - It seemed pretty important to me. I don't understand calling this a 'fad'. JC and Christo have done works around the world for over three decades.

The public always has mixed opinions about JC and Christo's works, and that is as much a part of the 'power' of each piece as the aesthetics are.

I find this art MUCH more interesting.

http://www.bodyworlds.com/en/pages/ausstellung_usa.asp

hmmm.... sorry, I work in the arts...

I'm sorry, I don't have any experience in art whatsoever :rolleyes:

is that the idiot that wrapped the islands in pink? Didn't he put a condom on some building?

Well, if it can't be good, at least make it big.

Eh, many people have no taste - and a lot of you seem to be amongst them. No loss!

I find this art MUCH more interesting.

http://www.bodyworlds.com/en/pages/ausstellung_usa.asp

Stacey, Do ya think Van Hagens is anywhere as talented as Frank Netter in this genre?

Netter, that's the guy that did all of those illustration you see in the doctors office, yes? That's what Google turned up as I wasn't familiar with the name.

I really try not to 'think' Shifty, I either get in trouble or fall asleep when I do... especially when connected with art. I believe the only comonality they share is the examination of the body human. Netter's approach seems to be from a purely clinical direction, whereas Van Hagens while providing an educational look at the materials contained within our skin, his use of color, positions, situations and views takes it far beyond the clinical aspect.

Sort of the difference between listening to Masters & Johnson talk about doing sex and watching Holmes & Hollander actually do it. :)

One of my favorite pieces is the one in the upper left corner on the page of the link provided. The guy holding his skin is just remarkable.

Netter, that's the guy that did all of those illustration you see in the doctors office, yes? That's what Google turned up as I wasn't familiar with the name.

I really try not to 'think' Shifty, I either get in trouble or fall asleep when I do... especially when connected with art. I believe the only comonality they share is the examination of the body human. Netter's approach seems to be from a purely clinical direction, whereas Van Hagens while providing an educational look at the materials contained within our skin, his use of color, positions, situations and views takes it far beyond the clinical aspect.

Sort of the difference between listening to Masters & Johnson talk about doing sex and watching Holmes & Hollander actually do it. :)

One of my favorite pieces is the one in the upper left corner on the page of the link provided. The guy holding his skin is just remarkable.

I've not heard of Van Hagens prior to reading your post, thanks, I will be looking for more. I also was drawn to the skin piece, must see more than the website offers. You are kind of right on Netter about the office posters, that is what most of us see in a wierd clinical setting. He is an MD who discovered a talent for illustration, and has drawn for many years and published many books of his incredible work, which could not be done by photography at the time. When you see his books, look for the skill and art first. I think he has published >25 books, each of a bio-system, nervous, vascular,etc.

If there is a medical library near you, or if you know a physician who has the, you would enjoy taking a look. Just don't try the Holmes and Hollander thing in the med library, those stacks are too close together for that guy!! Thanks again. ;)

I've not heard of Van Hagens prior to reading your post, thanks, I will be looking for more. I also was drawn to the skin piece, must see more than the website offers. You are kind of right on Netter about the office posters, that is what most of us see in a wierd clinical setting. He is an MD who discovered a talent for illustration, and has drawn for many years and published many books of his incredible work, which could not be done by photography at the time. When you see his books, look for the skill and art first. I think he has published >25 books, each of a bio-system, nervous, vascular,etc.

If there is a medical library near you, or if you know a physician who has the, you would enjoy taking a look. Just don't try the Holmes and Hollander thing in the med library, those stacks are too close together for that guy!! Thanks again. ;)


You're welcome. I'd first seen mention of Van Hagens a few years back on 'Ripley's Believe It or Not' or some show like that and thought it fantastic. Then just the other day there was a piece on the news about his exposition coming to the Frankiln Institute in Philadelphia this fall and the resultant hoopla being created by certian fundie religious groups :rolleyes: But that's another discussion. Since I'm about only an hour away from the Institute I'm planning to visit when the exposition comes to town.

What I find inviting about his work is that YOU (your body in its physical state) can be therorically preserved and displayed as a work of art for ages to come... not just your likeness captured on canvas, or chisled in stone. The ultimate vanity trip.

There's a place on the site where you can sign up to donate your remains to the work.

There's a place on the site where you can sign up to donate your remains to the work.

Do you think that's what happened to Holmes? lots to work with there!!

Do you think that's what happened to Holmes? lots to work with there!!


Don't rightly matter... I play for the other team. :D

OK, Hollander then....GO TEAM!!

Oh yeah, I really like Christo, has given our times an art that reaches out to so many, then we can all take it from there. I admit to having the "WOW" factor at a lot of his work, wouldn't mind seeing Gates.

Eh, many people have no taste - and a lot of you seem to be amongst them. No loss!

...and a lot of people have really bad taste. Say, for instance, making giant, pointless pieces of so-called art.

...and a lot of people have really bad taste. Say, for instance, making giant, pointless pieces of so-called art.


Exactly, "the emporer wears no clothes". How many millions did he spend?
It was very expensive, i don't recall the number right off hand though

Exactly, "the emporer wears no clothes". How many millions did he spend?
It was very expensive, i don't recall the number right off hand though

The emporer's new clothes was the first thing that came to my mind when I saw this!! My cousin's wife went nuts yesterday morning when she saw the unveiling and she plans on taking a trip to New York next week. He and I looked at each other and couldn't figure out what the big deal was.

Exactly, "the emporer wears no clothes". How many millions did he spend?
It was very expensive, i don't recall the number right off hand though


I think the number tossed around was $20 million?

I find this art MUCH more interesting.

http://www.bodyworlds.com/en/pages/ausstellung_usa.asp

OK, now I'm really hung up on the Van Hagens show, it's in Los Angeles now, so I'm going down to see it before it moves on to Chicago. Nerdy stuff like that can be so off the wall cool.(a million visitors in Korea can't be all wrong).

Anyway, I don't know how much you studied the website, but you might want to order one of these mousepads (seeing how much you like rodents), they have the skin toten dude even.

http://www.bodyworldshop.com/view_category.asp?cat=37

:)

I think it's kinda cool. One thing to remember is that very few artists are popular with most people in their own time. Otherwise they wouldn't be artists. Van Gogh couldn't even give his paintings away. Now they sell for millions.

I usually walk to Columbus Circle on my home from work so i took a look at this the other day. All i can ask is, who the hell thought this was a good idea? They've taken one of the finest creations in art, the mixing of man's focus and nature's complexity, Central Park, and taken a gigantic, steaming, orange (sorry saffron) dump right on it. I understand that art often serves no purpose, it's there to make you think, whatever. This is more like some guy said, 'hey, i've got all these curtains that are so fugly people wouldn't let their dog crap on it, let's hang them out in what little semblance to nature this city actually has!' I'll be very happy once this goes away.

I think it's kinda cool. One thing to remember is that very few artists are popular with most people in their own time. Otherwise they wouldn't be artists. Van Gogh couldn't even give his paintings away. Now they sell for millions.

Well, if these two are hoping to reach their maturity after they are dead, they are blowing it now. There will be nothing left of their masterpieces after they are gone.

I have no opinion as to whether this is art or not. But I think it's pretty cool. Absolutely the best representation of our throwaway society I can think of. Spend stupid amonts of money and time on something that is in the trash can in a month. Pop Art at it's best. I am sure Andy would approve.

Well, if these two are hoping to reach their maturity after they are dead, they are blowing it now. There will be nothing left of their masterpieces after they are gone.

I have no opinion as to whether this is art or not. But I think it's pretty cool. Absolutely the best representation of our throwaway society I can think of. Spend stupid amonts of money and time on something that is in the trash can in a month. Pop Art at it's best. I am sure Andy would approve.


Ah Grasshopper, you see their legacy WILL live on in the overpriced 'Limited Edition' prints that are being made of their steaming piles of fecal material. Which surely, as did Picasso fecal matter, will experience further price bloat once the have departed for their heavenly domain.


EDIT: Don't be dissin Andy now... he was a great comedian!

I live in NYC and I gotta agree, what the hell were they thinking?
This ain't art, this is something I can dream up while I'm taking a dump (which I'm sure he did).
There's a reason why so many people here don't know wtf these gates are supposed to stand for.
Hell, I just took a dump and I thought it'll be a cool idea to do the same thing to subway stations so they'll be more "visible". Or how about those "livestrong" bands I see everyone wearing, why don't we make large versions and put em on lamp posts all around the city and call that art. Or how about I make a religious painting out of dung? oh wait, someone already did that and tried to call it art...

Ah Grasshopper, you see their legacy WILL live on in the overpriced 'Limited Edition' prints that are being made of their steaming piles of fecal material. Which surely, as did Picasso fecal matter, will experience further price bloat once the have departed for their heavenly domain.


EDIT: Don't be dissin Andy now... he was a great comedian!

I doubt that I will see gates, live too far away, but I have seen other Christo works (Running Fence 1973). That kind of made me a believer in what his work is intended to do. Running fence was experienced first (maybe best) by being there. The more you went back the more you enjoyed it, early morning light on that thing was breathtaking for about 20 minutes each day, afternoon shadows in different spots along the fence were intriguing and sunset with a bottle or two of Napa Valley wine was amazing. Point is that the thousands of people who were lucky enough to be there each took away their own impression.
Secondly, everone I saw there, including yours truly, took photographs, painted, or sketches documenting their own vision of what they were experiencing. If anyone has profited from selling these works, so be it, I hope the buyers enjoyed the experience from someone else's minds eye. I'm sure a lot of it has graced many a dumpster over the years.
Because of the three days that I was there sleeping in a ratty van (no insult intended Stacey) :) , I will always be interested in C's work, some of which I didn't like, but I'll always look at in a special way. Experiential art get kinda personal, eh?

I went there twice yesterday, and I liked it both in sunlight and in the gray.
Wish they were keeping it up for just a little longer...

Or how about I make a religious painting out of dung? oh wait, someone already did that and tried to call it art...

Are you aware that the piece you are speaking of was made while in country that thinks that elephant dung is sacred? That's why they made it out of dung. Not to be weird, but to honor their beliefs.

As for Christo, I'm not too hot on this piece. I've enjoyed some of their other work, running fence was nice and the giant umbrellas was kind of cool. They are not going to be appreciated more when they are gone like Van Gogh, do you know how they make the money to pay for these things? They sell the conceptual drawings for the project as well as drawings from past projects to make the majority of it. None of the money comes from the government funded art programs. So, if they can raise 20 million by selling conceptual drawings I'd say they are in the middle of "their time."

One last thing, those of you who don't like this piece are right. Those of you who do like this piece are right. It's a personal aesthetic, no one can tell you.

Are you aware that the piece you are speaking of was made while in country that thinks that elephant dung is sacred? That's why they made it out of dung. Not to be weird, but to honor their beliefs.

Yes, but it's now in a land where elephant dung is NOT scared.
If I made a painting of a hindu god with beef and then shipped it over to india, guess what, people are gonna have the same reaction we had with the elephant dung here.
You're right, art is relative, but sometimes I can't help but feel a lot of artists have to resort to "awe and shock" to get themselves out there.

Personally, not impressed. I also don't understand who pays $20 million for conceptual drawings. Nor do I get why it's only up for 16 days if it's really so great and he wants as many people as possible to experience it before it's all recycled. And of course, as an engineer I am mystified as to why it takes a pair of 800 pound steel bases to support the poles of each gate, carrying 2-3 yards of light fabric. The umbrella thing was a little intriquing, but this not at all.

I think a much more interesting piece of art is Richard Box's Field (http://richardbox.com/). It's a bunch of fluorescent lights arranged underneath transmission power lines. The fields around the lines cause them to glow faintly at night.

Can we all at least agree that "dogs playing poker" is great art?

Can we all at least agree that "dogs playing poker" is great art?

Yes, however, the artist really didn't have to have them smoking, and cigars at that!!! Otherwise, bravo. :rolleyes:

You're right, art is relative, but sometimes I can't help but feel a lot of artists have to resort to "awe and shock" to get themselves out there.

absolutely. of course they are competing with videos, bilboards, video games etc. in an attempt to grab the attention of the ADD (Attention Defecit Disorder) Generation. It can be frustrating, I'm an art teacher and sometimes my students try that stuff. It's hard to explain that they need to have a good concept and not just the shock and awe when they can point to succesfull artists who don't really do that.

I think a much more interesting piece of art is Richard Box's Field (http://richardbox.com/). It's a bunch of fluorescent lights arranged underneath transmission power lines. The fields around the lines cause them to glow faintly at night.

If you like that one, check this out:

http://www.lightningfield.org/

As an engineer, I think the solar tower would make for a great piece of art.

http://www.enviromission.com.au/images/82.hi.jpg

I think this one's about 800ft high. The real one would be about 1km high and the base is 7km wide. It's basically a large greenhouse and chimney. Air gets heated and rises up the stack, powering a series of turbines. The scale model generates 60kw. The big one's supposed to generate 200mw.

Art is largely subjective, which is why I specified that while I don't like Christo's stuff, it is a matter of opinion. I, personally, tend to judge art based on the skill it takes to make it. I suppose something that takes months of painstaking labor and something thrown together in a half hour are both technically "art". I wouldn't put them in the same class by a longshot, though. I definitely respect Christo's engineering and planning skills, so my definition of art is definitely in his favor! I consider graffiti and rap music art, which a lot of people look upon with disdain, and I think pro-wrestlers are no less "artists" than ballerinas! Art is largely a "class" issue, as well as a matter of taste. If NYC hates something, but a latino neighborhood loves it, is it art?

I agreed with you right up until you called pro-wrestlers artists. :D

My university requires me to take a class in fine arts. I definitely feel there's better uses of my time (which is why I put off a 200 level class until my last semester), but I do get a few good things out of it. I just flipped open my notebook and picked a few lines out that seemed significant. Coincidentally, I also flipped open my textbook really briefly and saw a picture of Christo's umbrellas.

"Everything created is art. We simply decide if it's good or bad." I don't remember the source.

My professor defined three elements common to art: creativity, attempts to evoke emotion, and expression of the artist. He also made a distinction between folk art and fine art. Folk art grew out of practical need and includes, but is not limited to, crafts (basketweaving, pottery, etc) and architecture. Fine art is created for aesthetic purposes. Painting, photography, sculpture, music, threatre, cinema, and dance all fall under the fine arts.

As long as I'm getting so philosophical about this, I might as well point out that nearly everything around us has some artistic thought put into it. The computer I'm typing on is black because that got popular right before I bought it. My bike has flashy decals that suggest (to me) speed. The carpet has some sort of pattern of perpendicular lines in it. The building I'm in has colonial accents. Heck, even the key to my car has an unnecessary plastic grip which I'm sure is intended to make it look more comfortable than bare metal.

"Everything created is art. We simply decide if it's good or bad." I don't remember the source.

As long as I'm getting so philosophical about this, I might as well point out that nearly everything around us has some artistic thought put into it. The computer I'm typing on is black because that got popular right before I bought it. My bike has flashy decals that suggest (to me) speed. The carpet has some sort of pattern of perpendicular lines in it. The building I'm in has colonial accents. Heck, even the key to my car has an unnecessary plastic grip which I'm sure is intended to make it look more comfortable than bare metal.

Designers and Marketing Analysts are the most influential artists of our time!