Some food for thought...
The article below really provides some food for thought (at least, I think so...). I'm curious as to what you all think. Do you think there is ever a time that art may be a "bad thing"? I'm curious as to what type of questions this article prompted from you all and what your thoughts are about this impressive, invasive installation plan.
The article below really provides some food for thought (at least, I think so...). I'm curious as to what you all think. Do you think there is ever a time that art may be a "bad thing"? I'm curious as to what type of questions this article prompted from you all and what your thoughts are about this impressive, invasive installation plan.
Leave your thoughts in the comment section.
Is it ethical?
Can "nature" be used as a medium?
It is art?
Do you like it?
Would you go see it?
Should he stick to just wrapping buildings?
Judge Approves Christo’s
Controversial Colorado Project
It looks like artist Christo may soon be “hanging those sheets over the river,” as a federal judge once described a proposed art project in southern Colorado that has stirred much debate. On Friday, a Federal District Court upheld the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) decision to allow the environmental artist to install 5.9 miles of silver fabric above the Arkansas River, The Pueblo Chieftain reported.
Read the rest of the article here:
http://hyperallergic.com/173136/judge-approves-christos-controversial-colorado-project/
Some of Cristo's other installations:
Some of Cristo's other installations:
 |
| Christo and Jeanne-Claude, Wrapped Reichstag, Berlin, 1971-95 |
 |
| Christo and Jeanne-Claude, The Gates: Central Park, New York City 1979-2005. |
 |
| Running Fence, Sonoma and Marin Counties, California 1972-76. |
 | ||||||
| Wrapped Coast included one million square feet (92,900 square meters) of fabric and 35 miles (56.3 kilometers) of rope shrouding a 1.5 mile (2.4 kilometer) long section of the Australian coastline. |
Personally, I think the installation of this work would be striking. However, I can see why people are getting upset about its placement, especially what it involves. With the holes and the amount of people it is going to take to install it, I can imagine it would have an impact on the environment it is going into. Art is a freedom of expression, and that should be protected. However, there are certain limits that have to be respected, especially when it could risk the lives of animals and their habitats. This one is tricky- is the installation of the work going to affect the environment as much as they think it will?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sarah! There is a balance between creating art and destroying, be it temporary, for the sake of art. The installation is cool, but should not come at the cost of a natural habitat.
ReplyDeleteOh and yes, I would go see it!
ReplyDeleteI think this is kinda like the internal struggle I have with wanting to see the Barnes Collection. The Collection is the pinnacle of post-impressionist art (and more) and I think my heart would go into cardiac arrest if I see it. But, the destruction of a man's trust and the greed behind the scandal that allows for people to see the Collection now is an ethical point of contention for me. Art for arts sake? vs. it is ethical? I'm torn. This is a great "would you rather?" question for me: would you rather see Cristo's work realized OR or view the Barnes Collection? Ugh! I don't know!
ReplyDeleteKali, I completely agree with you about the Barnes Collection! I would give anything to see that amazing collection of art- from my favorite period of art!- but I struggle with what they did to him and his legacy for the sack of political gain. I would personally rather see the Barnes Collection, but the ethical implications really get me.
ReplyDelete