The Gates

[skylitblu]

I was wondering what everyone thought about "The Gates" by Christo and Jeanne-Claude...the art piece in central park.

Some people do not even consider it as art, while I consider it a masterpiece...

What do you all think ? :)

[Scratch N' Brain]

the only thing that bothers me is 21 million dollars was put into it. I honestly dont care seeing logs put together and then drapes hanging from them in consecutive order down the sidewalk. All it is is "being original" but thats because no one else would care to do something like that. but I dont really care its their money. If they want attention let them have it. WHy not just put the money into a hospital for children or something... it is beautiful though i guess but i dont think it shoul be considered a masterpiece

How about this...why do u consider it a masterpeice?

[jrr]

i thought it was alright, pretty. and big. and during a time in the season where the park is grey, it's nice to see some colors in there.

[endregan]

booooooo

"We create works of joy and beauty. We do not create messages. We do not create symbols. We create works of art," the artist's wife said.

"All works of art are good for nothing, except to be a work of art."

http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,11856754%5e1702,00.html

This is the type of shat I dislike.

[Scratch N' Brain]

lol if they did leave up their for longer i can guarentee you someone would go up and spray paint the posts and do something to the cloth. :)

[grand]

I saw The Gates today and it was pretty cool. Why does everyone get so pissed about the fact that he spent 20 million dollars out of his own pocket to create an art piece. Celebs spend 20 million on houses but people dont get on their cases. Plus The Gates bring tourism to New York and all The Gates posters and merchandise go to fund charities. Its his money I think he should be able to do whatever he wants without getting so much shit from people.

[SJ Bennighof]

booooooo

"We create works of joy and beauty. We do not create messages. We do not create symbols. We create works of art," the artist's wife said.

"All works of art are good for nothing, except to be a work of art."

http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,11856754%5e1702,00.html

This is the type of shat I dislike.

Agreed. Art without a message is, by definition, not art.

[oracrest]

lol if they did leave up their for longer i can guarentee you someone would go up and spray paint the posts and do something to the cloth. :)

there an artist names andy goldsworthy who openly embraces this aspect of his art; how time affects it, and its eventually state of deconstruction. He does some really good stuff. All natural things he comes across, he will just make something out of. There was one thing he did in a museum where he took these boulders, and coated them in thick mud, and over the course of a week, the mud cracked and fell off, surrounding the rocks with fragmented pieces of dirt. When lined up as a series of time lapse pictures, kind of looks like some sort of egg hatching.

http://ea.pomona.edu/snowball%20decay.jpg

http://www.jeepark.com/goldsworthy.jpg

[skylitblu]

this is exactly why i wanted to post about this topic, to see the type of reactions (positive and negative) i would get about this work of art. No one is right or wrong in judging this piece, it's all subjective, all art is subjective...you may express disgust or delight but do not mock the artists. Yes they used their own money...and it is a big amount...but you have to think of the whole process as a work of art. Before the installation, the artists sold preparatory work (conceptual art) to make most of the money that would be used for the project. Left over money made from this project goes into a fund which they use for future projects. The Gates was conceptualized in 1979 and was only approved by NYC in 2003. Many of their projects deal with getting permission from institutions, government, public...and this is ALL part of the art that is The Gates.

[squirpy]

my sculpture teacher is obsessed with the Gates. He wanted us to fly there and see it. I think he might've flown there himself.

I think the artist that makes it is a tad crazy. The couple is considered one artist, he works and she talks.

[jrr]

yes that's their schtick, but never mind all that, the colors are pretty neat.

[Dizon]

the only thing that bothers me is 21 million dollars was put into it. I honestly dont care seeing logs put together and then drapes hanging from them in consecutive order down the sidewalk. All it is is "being original" but thats because no one else would care to do something like that. but I dont really care its their money. If they want attention let them have it. WHy not just put the money into a hospital for children or something... it is beautiful though i guess but i dont think it shoul be considered a masterpiece

How about this...why do u consider it a masterpeice?

Yeah, it aint gonna last long anyway cuz they're goin to dismantle it. It's a waste of money if you ask me.

[rswanson]

I'm going to go on record with the "it sucks" line of thought. I'm of the opinion that almost anyone could conceive of this project. It's just not remarkable in any way.

What about that yellow/blue umbrella deal they did in LA and Japan? What's up with that crap?

[SJ Bennighof]

The fact that they say that thing about ""We create works of joy and beauty. We do not create messages. We do not create symbols. We create works of art[...]All works of art are good for nothing, except to be a work of art."" tells me enough. They don't have a clue, and neither does New York. The only thing about that work which expresses joy (if it actually manages to express joy like she said, it proves her own words wrong, as it would then be symbolic and have a message) is the garish color, which requires a speculative leap of the imagination as to the meaning and can just as easily be confused with a Halloween decoration. I am so glad that I don't live in NY as, if I were ever inclined to sit in Central Park and draw, having these things around would kill my inspiration.

[acuna_read]

In my view art for art's sake is right, at least it's better than some bolloc*s about it represents my deepest most personal feelings, but I dont mind selling it for a few hundred thousand.

@rswanson, you could argue that anyone could create many things. The Ipod is very simple, anyone could make it. This may be true but one person did design/make it. I could of come up with all the things in the world, immediately after ive seen/heard about/understood them, the truth is though I (and you) didnt.

There's enough bullshit in this world and people have no problem watching boxing for "entertainment" or buying houses that they will never fully use. So why not make something that is colourful and enjoyable, at the very least most kids will love it, it will get them outside with their parents which in my book is good enough.

@SJ Beninghof, what use is Munch's Scream? Rodan's Kiss? Da Vinci's Mona Lisa? They serve no purpose do they? But many people still like them.

This coincedentally is why I also like concept art and design, it isnt hipocritical in the way modern art can be. It serves it's purpose and makes no bones about it or try's to be something it isnt, it just is.

To try and let it make sense(I realise everyone is set on what they think on this subject, your either one side of the fence or the otehr), what use is a rainbow? There is no use at all, it's just a coincedental effect caused by rain and light to most people (me included), I dont care how it happens I just know it does and know that I think it look's great. Not everything need's meaning.

Nice topic skylitblu :^^:

[SJ Bennighof]

@SJ Beninghof, what use is Munch's Scream? Rodan's Kiss? Da Vinci's Mona Lisa? They serve no purpose do they? But many people still like them.

If you want to let the approval of the same masses who bought $130 million dollars' worth of paintings from Thomas Kinkade last year define the quality and definition of Art, that's your own lookout. As for me, the twisting, tense, eerie feeling I get when I look at the Scream is purpose enough for me. Kiss serves little stylistic purpose that I can tell, but it does manage to portray a clearly sexual act in a somehow platonic manner, leaving the matter of its meanign up for interpretation. The Mona Lisa...I can't tell, frankly, although it does have a very different feel from other portraits of that time period. It makes you think, though, as you stare at it, about what the person who posed for it may have been like in real life. That's the purpose of the painting, I guess, to capture a person efectively as to make it seem as if they are actually present in the room. But whatever. When an artist said that his or her own work has no symbolism and no meaning, I suddenly become uninterested in studying that person's art, wouldn't you?

[rswanson]

@rswanson, you could argue that anyone could create many things. The Ipod is very simple, anyone could make it. This may be true but one person did design/make it. I could of come up with all the things in the world, immediately after ive seen/heard about/understood them, the truth is though I (and you) didnt.

My point is that the conception of this project is not really beyond most peoples' mental scope. As I sit here, I can imagine an endless amount of "art" that would have (at least) the same impact as the gates. These folks just had the resources to carry it out. Creating an IPod requires a level of technical expertise that most don't possess. As does most of the art posted on this forum, for that matter.

Howard Stern had an interesting take on it this morning. He stated that he loved Central Park, because of it's unsullied nature. He felt the gates imposed too much on that.

On the plus side, apparently the revenue generated by the gates has been quite a boon to NY city. Not that it makes it any more valid as art. That's an opinion, whereas what I said before, I feel to be fact.

[squirpy]

My point is that the conception of this project is not really beyond most peoples' mental scope.

it doesn't matter if after the fact, you think "hey, I could have thought of that" - you didn't, did you? That's the difference.

I don't know how I feel about the Gates's status as art, but i think it's interesting how much argument it causes amoung artists.

[ngnorden]

Foreigners click here (http://www.christojeanneclaude.net/gates.html)

[JoshuaTheJames]

DAmn that wall is DOPE...too bad things like that aren't applied to practical things to enrich our lives rather than being a nonfunctional piece of nonsense...

-JtJ

[Dizon]

@SJ Beninghof, what use is Munch's Scream? Rodan's Kiss? Da Vinci's Mona Lisa? They serve no purpose do they? But many people still like them.

Serve no purpose!? You had sure had some guts to say that my friend.That's like saying every painting da Vinci did or any other artist for that matter did not have any purpose/meaning at all. I strongly disagree with you. Art in general whether it be modern art or classical art etc. serves a purpose and that is to connect with each and everyone of us. It leaves a lasting impression that is also why people like the Mona lisa, The Kiss, Scream etc. because it has done it's purpose! That is what we artists want in our art! We want to communicate with the people. It is our language, our visual language.

[klinesmoker]

When it's all said and done, I question the why in cases like this. Take my small town for example, blowing hundreds of thousands to revamp the "look" of downtown while ignoring the crumbling educational facilities we still use.
All I'm saying is money can be more practically applied.

[acuna_read]

@patzdon, perhaps it's the more technical /practical background I come from but art for art's sake serves no real purpose at all. I'm putting this into the context of it's relation to everything, ie medicine, food, politics etc... Compared to basic human needs, and even modern technology, art is ultimately a pointless exhibition in general, something like art for a film/game storyboard is different. That's just my view, I hope that makes sense as well. Peerhaps making that clearer earlier on would of helped lol! :confident

P.S. I dont think they dont have any purpose or meaning, but the purpose or meaning is merely to serve a painting with a sketch as development work.

I would also like to add I still love all these paintings and pieces of art etc, especially "The Kiss" by Brancusi. Not the orginal but I prefer this ;)

[cateaic]

Eh..its wasnt as bad as I thought. Its a nice change up for all the people who take their daily runs/walks through the park. I wouldnt mind taking a jog through that!

[Chяis]

It's a nice idea but I think the bright Orange is a little plain for such a large project.