Cristo-Over the Arkansas River -Is this really art?

skithebert

Active member
christo_over_the_river.jpg


It's official: the Arkansas River will soon join Central Park, the Pont Neuf, and the Reichstag as the latest site to be transformed into a whimsical art wonderland by the environmental artist Christo. The project — which involves the suspension of flat panels along a 42-mile-long stretch of the Arkansas River in Colorado, creating a ribbon of reflective fabric just above the water — received the green light from the Federal Bureau of Land Management yesterday. The governmental approval comes after years of political back-and-forth and prolonged debates among environmentalists, residents, and activists over both the project's aesthetics and environmental impact. The 76-year-old artist now hopes to execute the $50 million work by 2013.

The Bureau of Land Management, which oversees the river, told the Wall Street Journal that it approved the project only after Christo agreed to over 100 measures that would prevent disruption to the river or neighboring towns. In the years leading up to the decision, environmental groups worried that the project could disrupt the local wildlife — specifically, that it would block local sheep's access to water sources. Now approved, the artwork, titled "Over the River," is expected to draw over 400,000 visitors and bring in $121 million to the region.

"Over the River" marks the first time since the 1969 passage of the National Environmental Policy Act that a work of art has served as the subject of an environmental impact statement. (The official two-year process of analyzing how a structure will affect its surroundings is usually reserved for bridges, highways, and dams.) Christo, who believes the bureaucratic negotiations leading up to his grandly scaled installations are an integral part of the artworks themselves, was thrilled that the impact statement had already mobilized so many to participate in his artwork. "Every artist in the world likes his or her work to make people think," he told the New York Times. "Imagine how many people were thinking, how many professionals were thinking and writing in preparing that environmental impact statement."

Those not among the thousands of who left comments on the impact statement online will still have the chance to experience Christo's work in a more traditional fashion come 2013. The artist told the WSJ he hopes the public will drive alongside the ribbon or raft underneath it.

Before "Over the River" is realized, Christo must jump through a few more hoops: he still has to get permits from Fremont and Chaffee counties, the Colorado Department of Transportation, and the State Patrol. The permits are expected to proceed smoothly, however, as these agencies were involved in creating the environmental impact statement as well as in drafting Monday's decision.

To address environmental groups' concerns about the local bighorns, Christo has become something of a sheep patron himself. He established a Bighorn Sheep Adaptive Management Fund, and will finance the organization through the sale of his artwork.
 
"art" is subjective. But that's not really an issue because whether this is art or not, it's really, really stupid.
 
Christo was one of the few artists I actually was stoked on going through my foundation years. I love installations and land art.

 
They've been getting all of their permits and dealing with the BLM, Im sure if they're okay with it, the little animals will be okay.

This isn't these guy's first rodeo. Do a little research. They're good at doing massive land works with little to no damage to the environment.
 
I personally think this sounds pretty cool, as I like installation art most of the time. But i'd be curious to see what the people who are bashing this consider art (this isn't an insult or a callout, just wondering).
 
I just have more respect for art that incorporates some sort of talent that is apparent. Sure it looks weird, and I'm sure the dude has some vision or something, I just don't really see draping a tarp over a river as art in my eyes. Sure it is art in the loosest sense of the word I guess, but it's not my bag that's all.

With that said it must be art in some way because I would still like to kayak under it as it appears like it makes the sky look pretty weird when viewed from below the sheet.
 
at least that person is drawing something by hand. I think I'm gonna go nail pie plates to random trees in the forest and call it an installation.
 
emphasis on the punctuation, i am a pretentious asshole- break. I learn, I feel, art. reality. You know not.-.
 
Im not gonna lie, this pisses me off, a lot.

I LOVE driving next to natural creeks, rivers and streams. It provides a changing landscape and scenery. Sometimes my family will park on the side of a road (if there is a place to stop of course) and just go down by a river and hangout, eat some quick snacks and take a break from driving. Why change something thats already naturally beautiful? If you wanna cover something up with giant tarps, cover irrigation ditches in cali or something, there are plenty of man made things that SHOULD be hidden with art, not this. I hope this doesnt go through.
 
it just screams arrogance: "Every artist in the world likes his or her work to make people think," he told the New York Times. "Imagine how many people were thinking, how many professionals were thinking and writing in preparing that environmental impact statement."

He's happy to inconvenience hundreds of professionals, who could be doing many other more productive things. Plus that video above makes him seem senile.
 
Heres the thing. Art is what you make it to be. Its an unrelated point but it seems like the only art I have ever truly understood is nature around me. I'm not making a reference to this article, I am being serious. Something about being near or on the ocean, in the woods, a perfect day casting a line and digging clams...thats beautiful to me.

Assuming there will be no damage the the local ecosystem, and he got the permits, I guess I don't see a big problem with it.

The thing about man made art that can be a little off-putting is those within the community who get a thrill out of their creations antagonizing the greater society. I mean, a little graffiti? I get it. But to knowingly bother people and hide behind the the holy ivory tower of "art" is pretty unpalatable.
 
Yea I noticed that after i posted, my bad man.

And it isnt really a discussion of weather or not its art

art is defined - The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination

Basically anything you put a pinch of creativity into may become art, its at everyone's discretion. I think it is art, but i think its really fucking dumb.
 
Back
Top