NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gates13feb13,0,2826415.story?coll=la-home-nation give the artists credit for their long struggle, and their investment with their own money. But why?
The only thing I can think of is that it is a celebration of New York's openess and freedom, but if that's the case, it is a bad piece of artwork. It's not much to look at, and it certainly distorts the natural beauty and grandeur Fred Olmstead intended. But at least it lasts for only two weeks.

I gotta take a walk through Central Park, sometime soon.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

NYC paid $10 million for that. I think the money could have been spent on something more worthwhile.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=610570Gotta


Bad link.

Bad link.
I changed it. Better?

While I'm all for freedom of expression, this "modern art" is...ugly. I don't understand it, it's orange, and it's costly. $10 million dollars for a bunch of orange gates? Couldn't we spend that money funding arsonists to burn the citadel of evil called New York down?

Wait....

Did i say that last part out loud? Uh oh....

*walks away slowly*

Heh heh, no one will recognize me here...

*puts on Boston Red Sox cap.*

*walks down the road*

"Why is everyone looking at me funny..."

*looks at cap*

"D'oh!"

Can you believe that I didnt even go to Central Park when I visited NYC??

Guess I'll have to go back to see this.

Hey, I'm all for expression but I just think it's dumb. Call me artistacally challenged, but I just don't see this as art, and if it is, I don't see it as good art, but I'm glad they put forth their right to do it however and that it will please many.

I changed it. Better?
Yes

lol...i've been to NYC twice and went to Central Park both times.

I do consider it art as it is their creative expression, but i don't like it either. A lot of modern art i don't like though, it's not usually that aesthetically pleasing to me. I went to the Guggenheim the last time i was in NYC and they had a modern art exhibit by a particular artist, i wasn't a big fan of that either.

bump

Oh, I'd like to add that this has turned Central Park into a security zone. Armed guards patrol the park to make sure that no one touches the Gates.

NYC paid $10 million for that. I think the money could have been spent on something more worthwhile.

ummmm...

Before he was elected, the artists, who have done dozens of temporary art projects all over the world — such as wrapping Berlin's Reichstag in silver material and erecting hundreds of yellow umbrellas along a 19-mile stretch of the Tejon Pass — faced relentless opposition in New York, even though they would end up paying for all $21 million of it themselves. Opponents feared they would somehow injure a park considered the city's public jewel.

it probably means something to somebody. it's probably an inside joke, or something, like when your fourth grade daughter has a crush and suddenly everything's pink. new yorkers (at least a certain segment) are big on inside (well um sortof) jokes, or the feeling that they're in-the-know. They're even willing to put 10million dollars into that sort of feeling--ever been to soho? I hate not being in New York anymore, the only news I get about the place is dripping with outsider reference frames. If you first start with the supposition that whatever's going on in New York is probably the thing that should be going on, and that it makes sense, and then reverse engineer the situation from that point, you would end up with something more like a perspective which I would personally find agreeable.

however, still, you have to begin to know something about the place and all its different social strata. You have to realize, these people don't watch tv like others do, or play video games, or (insert your hobby here), because New York can take up that much time, in a rewarding way, with its New York-ness.

What a waste of money. It looks like some sort of communist military parade route.

lol...i've been to NYC twice and went to Central Park both times.

I do consider it art as it is their creative expression, but i don't like it either. A lot of modern art i don't like though, it's not usually that aesthetically pleasing to me. I went to the Guggenheim the last time i was in NYC and they had a modern art exhibit by a particular artist, i wasn't a big fan of that either.
why cant modern artists do classical art work -_-

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

A fair bit of infomation about the gates from the artists themselves, mostly technical and legal though. Also has 16 pictures/drawings of the gates.

The instalation lasts for 16 days, after which the gates will be taken down.

The gates are supposed to be symbolic of the reason for Central park. An organic form enclosed within the rigid grids of New York. Personally I don't really see orange as being an organic colour. However, I remember something about orange representing democracy.

In the terms and conditions it states that - The people of New York will continue to use Central Park as usual.

I think the gates look quite nice, but at $3500 per gate they are a bit on the expensive side. x_x

I gotta take a walk through Central Park, sometime soon.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

Me, too.

why cant modern artists do classical art work -_-


Because... it's modern? ;)

why cant modern artists do classical art work -_-
Because art evolves. Art is whatever the artist feels like creating, as well as a reaction to past movements. Of course, several artists, like Thomas Kinkade, do paint in a more realist style. I just abhore how popular realists, like Kinkade, are shunned by the art community as creating "pop art". Does that mean Michaelangelo and Monet made pop art?

Because art evolves. Art is whatever the artist feels like creating, as well as a reaction to past movements. Of course, several artists, like Thomas Kinkade, do paint in a more realist style. I just abhore how popular realists, like Kinkade, are shunned by the art community as creating "pop art". Does that mean Michaelangelo and Monet made pop art?
if kinkade is pop arrt i wish more people do pop art rather than shit like this: http://www.fabricerenaud.com/new/index.html

I'll never understand the sorry crap that passes for art these days. A few banners/flags on poles? That's art?
I also think $10 mil. would have done a lot more good injected into the school systems.
Just one more reason NEVER to go to New Babylon.

if kinkade is pop arrt i wish more people do pop art rather than shit like this: http://www.fabricerenaud.com/new/index.html
Those are actually sorta good. I can almost feel the emotional tension in those paintings. In fact, if I had the money, I'd buy a couple of those.

So I just got back from central park. I am a big fan of outrageous art on a massive scale but this "Gates" thing was a dissapointment for me. I think Christo may be losing his touch. I thought it was supposed to convey the feeling of a river of color flowing throw the park, but they just but up these gates EVERYWHERE along the trails without any rhyme or reason to it, maybe it looks cooler from a helicopter, but it is just a bunch of oragne billowy flags hanging over all the paths, it is kind of just like eh whatever. Very underwhelming.

So I just got back from central park. I am a big fan of outrageous art on a massive scale but this "Gates" thing was a dissapointment for me. I think Christo may be losing his touch. I thought it was supposed to convey the feeling of a river of color flowing throw the park, but they just but up these gates EVERYWHERE along the trails without any rhyme or reason to it, maybe it looks cooler from a helicopter, but it is just a bunch of oragne billowy flags hanging over all the paths, it is kind of just like eh whatever. Very underwhelming.
That's a shame - could this be because Christo usually works on a scale that Central Park can't match? This could also be an example of the dangers of hype. An artist of the stature of Christo, plus all the controversy, and you expect something overwhelming. But you're too prepared for it, it's not overwhelming, and so it disappoints.

It's like when a friend talks and talks about an artist or a show, and you go to see it and don't quite get it. Me and some friends did that to some other friends with the Bow Gamelan group a while back - staggeringly good when they got in our face the first time, but a distinct disappointment to other friends who we took to another performance. That was partly because the second performance was at a slight physical distance, but also because we'd oversold the effect it would have.

Another example I remember was the millenium fireworks of London. They were massively pre-publicised (against the designer's express wishes) as turning the Thames into a 'river of fire'. I saw them, and was disappointed. They were good, but no way did the Thames seem on fire. Same with all the other watchers on the ground - only airbourne TV cameras got the effect the hype had promised - and so they were generally judged a failure.

I think these things are better experienced with a less prepared, more open, mind.

That's a shame - could this be because Christo usually works on a scale that Central Park can't match? This could also be an example of the dangers of hype. An artist of the stature of Christo, plus all the controversy, and you expect something overwhelming. But you're too prepared for it, it's not overwhelming, and so it disappoints.

It's like when a friend talks and talks about an artist or a show, and you go to see it and don't quite get it. Me and some friends did that to some other friends with the Bow Gamelan group a while back - staggeringly good when they got in our face the first time, but a distinct disappointment to other friends who we took to another performance. That was partly because the second performance was at a slight physical distance, but also because we'd oversold the effect it would have.

Another example I remember was the millenium fireworks of London. They were massively pre-publicised (against the designer's express wishes) as turning the Thames into a 'river of fire'. I saw them, and was disappointed. They were good, but no way did the Thames seem on fire. Same with all the other watchers on the ground - only airbourne TV cameras got the effect the hype had promised - and so they were generally judged a failure.

I think these things are better experienced with a less prepared, more open, mind.

I didn't find out about these until yesterday. I still hate them.

I didn't find out about these until yesterday. I still hate them.
And you are entirely entitled to your opinion. This kind of art is never going to be liked by everyone. However, my reply was to SNS, who seemed more pre-disposed to like them.

And you are entirely entitled to your opinion. This kind of art is never going to be liked by everyone. However, my reply was to SNS, who seemed more pre-disposed to like them.
Fair enough.