The following is an excerpt from Christo and Jeanne Claude's website. It is an explanation on how they view the work and was also written by them. The website is very in depth and covers their entire career. Take a few minutes to browse their site and then respond to the questions at the bottom in bold print.The temporary large-scale environmental works (both urban and rural environments) have elements of painting, sculpture, architecture and urban planning.
For instance the Surrounded Islands, Biscayne Bay, Greater Miami, Florida,1980-83. could be seen as giant flat paintings (shaped canvases).
The Pont Neuf Wrapped, Paris, 1975-85. could be seen as a very large sculpture, in a traditional sense of antique folds and draperies, however the bridge, while wrapped,remained a bridge, a piece of architecture. Cars were rolling on it, boats were passing under the wrapped arches, the public was crossing the bridge, walking on the fabric.
The Umbrellas, Japan-USA, 1984-91. has to do with urban planning. 3,100 umbrellas, each two stories high, 59.3 square meters (638.17 square feet), spread on a total span of 49 Km. (30 miles) by a width of 4 Km. ( 2.5 miles) along roads and highways, adjacent to barns, temples, churches, gas stations, schools, habitations and cattle.
Once the work of art has been read for what it really is, then the process preceding the completion is easily understood.
Nobody discusses a painting before it has been painted.
But architecture and urban planning are always discussed before completion. People discuss the possibility of a new bridge, a new highway, a new airport before those are built.
One of the numerous permits to be obtained from various government agencies, in addition to the 25 ranchers in California and the 459 rice field farmers in Ibaraki, was the 200 pages book from the Ministry of Construction in Tokyo. They worked for one year, together with our engineers, to finally grant us a Permit to build 1340 houses (shaped canvases creating settlements as houses without walls).
Our projects are discussed and argued about, pro and con, before they are realized.
To understand our work one must realize what is inherent to each project
However there is an important difference between our works of art and the usual architecture and urban planning, we are our own sponsors and we pay for our works of art with our own money, never accepting any grants nor sponsors.
Their monumental undertakings have always been controversial. This controversy stems not from the subject matter, but because of the encroachment into public space. After viewing some of the projects by these two, would you be opposed to a large scale Christo project happening on our campus?...In your hometown? Would you be concerned about the temporary disruption of your daily activity? Is all this spectacle really not worth it considering the very limited time that the actual piece will be around? Does the work really enhance or change for the positive the environment that it is in? Would it be better to just erect a permanent statue?
22 comments:
If a large scale Cristo project was taking place on campus or in my hometown, I wouldn't be opposed to it at all. Bringing a world known temporary work of art to an area would bring excitement and culture. I find it boring being surrounded around the same scenery and people continually on a daily basis. Having a Cristo project in my town would be like getting many little tastes of culture and diversity right at my doorstep. Although the immense amount of people would bring congestion and traffic, I believe the influx of individuals would bring the town new and exciting experiences. I love permanent statues, but if I were to choose between the construction of a new statue or a Cristo project, I would prefer one of Christo’s works. A statue is constructed and completed, then remains there for years upon years. You have almost an unlimited amount of time to see it and enjoy its presence. With a Cristo work, it’s more of a onetime experience and you only have a limited amount of time to enjoy its aura.
i am not opposed at all to temporary works of art being brought to my campus or hometown, i think it enriches the culture to have things like this take place, providing it isn't TOO much of an inconvenienve to residents. I would however, prefer something more permenant.
I have a very opinionated view of Christo's work. It actually makes me somewhat angry. The degree of effort, and the INSANE amount of money that goes into these projects just seems like such a WASTE to me. Christo's work, in general, does not appeal to me at all. I acknowledge that art is art, regardless of what some people think, but i just don't think this qualifies. At the risk of sounding highly nonintellectual, i find his work stupid. and aggravating.
If Christo and Jean-Claude would decide to create a temporary evnironmental installation in my home town i would not hesitiate to let me do it. My town is a small town that does not see lots of excitment but Christo has a away to spice things up. Because his work is temporary and very famous my town would become the center of the art world bringing change and diverstiy to this once little town. Permanent statues get boring after awhile when you see them everyday. Cristo's pieces add a "once in a life time" feel to them. I would take Cristo's temporary art over boring statues anyday.
Honestly,when I first saw his work I wasnt sure what to think. Then after seeing the gates, I think I new where I stood. I think the gates made a usual winter day, into a beautiful masterpiece of gold and white. I think it would be very interesting and exciting to have one of their works on campus. I know that if i was walking home from class, id go in the direction of their work on my way home. I do think it makes the place around the work more beautiful. After looking at the gates, I looked around and realized how beautiful this place really is and how the gates helped in making that clear to me. I think we should have something similar to the gates in the oak grove. I also like how his pieces do not last forever. I think it would get old after a while, so having his art up for a certain period of time definately makes it more interesting.
Although I have learned about Christo and Jeanne Claude previously in high school, we did not discuss much on the fact that their works only stay around for a limited time. Thinking about this makes you wonder why they would invest so much of their time in something that is not even close to being permanent. However, after watching the documentary on Andy Golsworthy I could understand why. Golsoworthy said in the video that those moments when his works are being demolished are the moments he lives for. He does not see it as destruction. He sees it as his works of art being taken by nature and used for better purposes, better than he could ever imagine. I think this is beautiful. Although I am not sure exactly how Christo and Jeanne Claude feel when their works no longer exist but if they feel anything close to the emotions Andy Golsowrthy experiences I believe creating these temporary works are completely worth it.
This is a great question. I love that there are a variety of different views. However, when it comes to me I have to say both. I might enjoy it depending on one issue. When we looked at Andy Goldsworthy the whole time I thought to myself this would be awesome to see in real life. However, Christo and Jeanne Claude's work seems rather extravagant if you ask me. So what is this one issue that separates these two artists and there work .... money! When you are making some work of art that is not going to last why put millions of dollars into it when you can create work that is just as or more appealing to the public for free or close to it. I think if Christos' works were permanent it would be different. Mostly because the fact that the work is temporary makes me think they're just out for the money. Kitsch is the only lasting form of this art we have. How easy is it to reproduce kitsch! So you decrease the money used to make the work, you said Christo recycles right, and you increase the profit. Then you have this setting up of the work that takes as long, or longer, then the life of the work. Why? It just seems like a bunch of work for a small result. You have to ask yourself if not for money the why else. Plus like Koons, Christo just has the idea the his army does the work. As for the work changing the environment that it is in, I think that is totally false. Just because you put a new coat of paint on a rotting board doesn't make it a board new. (Well I guess in the case of Chris Ofili when you put paint on a piece of poop it does become art.) Finally, the whole thing about when you mess with public space you mess with taxpayers dollars. As a rule of thumb never ever the best idea.
JDiegan, you managed to put my thoughts into words better than i could!
why spend the money on something short term when you can make something just as beautiful for close to free?
I dont believe that there is anything wrong with this type of large scale artwork. Yes it goes through some private and public spaces but when you look at what he is trying to do i believe it shouldnt be that big of a deal. In no way would i have a problem if some large scale project was started on this campus or my hometown. Yes it would cause people to have to change their route or course but when you realize that all of his artwork is only up for a limited time and he always recycles what he does then i think it would be worth the mild discomfort.
If one of the Cristos projects came to my hometown i would be opposed. I believe if a large amount of money is going to be spent on a large project that isnt permanent the money should go to a better cause. I dont like to blow money and i cringe when i hear and see things that someone so nonpurposely spent money on. I dont believe something temporary that costs money is beautiful no matter whos money it is. In my mind if it isnt going to be permanent WHYYY DO ITT?? If i were the creator or a piece of their work i would not enjoy making or looking at the work knowing it is not permanent because normally when something is created it is to be seen by as many people as possible.
i think that the small minority that did get to see the work has a special bond with it and the time that it was up was a chance to go see it, and the people who missed it didn't get to experience how amazing it was. i think its more memorable, instead of "let's go see the monument" it's "do you remember that installation"
I think that a large scale Cristo project happening on campus, or in my hometown would be made of awesome! Even though it would be a hassle to deal with all the people and extra traffic they create it would also be a wonderful chance for our school, or my town to show itself to a wide audience of people. I would choose a Cristo project over a permanent statue because it's a wonderful chance to observe how things aren't permanent and we should enjoy them while we can.
Would you be opposed to a large scale Christo project happening on our campus?
I find the work that Cristo has done to be pretty amazing, and i definitely wouldnt mind if Cristo wanted to display his work on our campus. The fact that it isn't perminate makes me wonder why anyone would have a problem with it at all.
In your hometown?
I also wouldn't mind having Cristo's work displayed in my town. Such art may seem pointless to some but i dont think that it really would interfere with anything either.
Would you be concerned about the temporary disruption of your daily activity?
I honestly dont see how disruptive it could be. Other than increased traffic, which I think anyone would be able to handle for a short time in exchange for a brillant display of art, I see no other inconvience it would have.
Is all this spectacle really not worth it considering the very limited time that the actual piece will be around?
I think that it is totally worth it seeing that it is in fact a spectacle and that it isnt a permanant fixture in society. It is only temporary which is why I dont understand why people get all up and arms about it.
Does the work really enhance or change for the positive the environment that it is in?
I dont neccessarily think that it changes or enhances the environment, nor do I think that it harms or changes(in a negative way) the environment. It merely gives the space it occupies a brief change in appearence.
Would it be better to just erect a permanent statue?
I believe that the kind of art that Cristo creates shouldn't be permanently erected. I think that permanent statues should be reserved to things that represent something greater such as statues of famous people, heroes, etc. Although I am a fan of Cristos work, and the work of other artists that create statues in society, I dont neccessarily think that they should always become permanent.
Well Christo and Jeann-Claude had an idea and it became a project a good one at that. Now most people maybe wouldn't understand whats the whole purpose of building the gates, it has no purpose its in the way but really it does it even might have more than one.Now the art might not have been all that but it at least gives the Park some excitement rather than what it looked like before. But overall i would have left them up in fact had different ones for every season to top it off.
I think if Cristo wanted to make some kind of project in my hometown or on campus i would be all for it. i would actually enjoy seeing him do this work and getting it done. I catch myself thinkin how and wow when i look at his artwork. Such as all the barrel projects i think are rediculous and i would like to see them built. I would rather see his projects most times instead of stationary monuments. for an example the running fence i really dont think that it would not be a good idea to have actual running fence in the middle of no where just because. i like the fact that christo cleans up after he has shown his artwork. Also another example would be his work in progress on the over the river project. i think that would be outrageous to have something like that as perminent. But with it being there for a short period i think it is really neat looking.
If my hometown was chosen by Cristo for one of his temporary large scale projects, I would feel honored. I would love to be at the base of one of his works of art. I think that the fact that his art is only errected for a specific amount of time makes it that much more important to those that get to witness it in person. If it were a permenant work of art I think it would lose some of its original flare over time. Not to say that his artwork is not timeless, but ironically I think the aspect which makes Christo's artwork timeless is the remembrance of its short, yet spectacular, existance.
I would love to see Christo’s art in person, I think it is great. If I could see something as different and colorful in my hometown or campus I think it would be interesting and bring something out of the ordinary to look at and maybe even question or promote thought. I would not be concerned about the disruption of daily activity at all; I think it would be more exciting if anything. I think part of what makes it exciting is that it will only be there a limited time so it makes everyone enjoy it while it’s there.
Christo's projects are quite fascinating and if for some reason he chose Pittsburgh as his next location I would definitely be interested in seeing it. I am one however for spontaniety and the years it can take for Christo's art to come to life seems to take away some of its luster to me. I like to equate emotions with art, and if a project i cam up with took twenty-some years to erect, the emotions I felt going into the project would probably have changed. It seems very possible that the "point" or emotion that started the idea could be gone, making the art seem pointless. But whatever does it for ya, and it does it for Christo.
I like the some of the work that Cristo and Jean-Claude work for years to accomplish. I feel that having one of their "large scale" works in my back yard would only help the stores and bring people in to see our community. How is that a bad thing? I understand that some feel that he is invading others private space, would those farmers of given their permission if it were not ok? Don't you think that you would have and feel a sence of woder while walk through all those flags or while observing the umbrella's? i think that it would be nice to go and see. I do agree to some extent with some of the other comments, a statue is there for years and if you do not like it then you have to walk past the thing all the time and see it. Even if you do like a statue, when things become a fixture and we become used to them, we tend to not notice them. I love Andy Goldsworthy's earth art. he creates it and alot of it is only there for a very short period of time, but it is very beautiful. nature belongs to nature and the circle of life and time.
this was such a big project for Cristo. to even think how he went through so much to just be able to do this is a feet within itself. im not much for likeing them really. but i do respect the fact of what he went through and the power of it onthe community.
i would reallly enjoy a Christo project in my hometown, i think it would really spice things up. It wouldn't make us spend on money since he finances the projects by himself so why not...its on;y temporary. I also wouldn't be opposed to a project on campus either. If there was a chance that we would get to have Chrsito project on campus than we definitly should be for it because thats a one in a lifetime thing to see.
Never would I be opposed to a large-scale project placed in any 'public area' so long as that public area is not through my yard or disturbing anyone's personal life. Work of Cristo's would ultimately attract new faces and publicity to an area of even the smallest measure. I'm for temporary works of art because the hunt for the next giant project area is a treasure chase. The excitement behind wondering where a recognized artists next piece is what intrigues me.
I ADMIRE THIS ARTIST WORK. I THINK THAT IT IIS AMAZING HOW HE GOES FOR THE EXTRA ORDINARY. ESPECIALLY THE FAMOUS GATES.
Post a Comment