The Gates

November 27, 2004 5:31 PM

Christo and Jeanne-Claude aren't wrapping anything up this time. They are let the fabric wave freely in Central Park to the tune of $20 million [NYT].
posted by bigmusic (57 comments total)

NYT link *
posted by bigmusic at 5:37 PM on November 27, 2004

I am read link.

Ok, sorry, that was mean. :)

I don't understand this... I guess it's like the arena rock of art: not so much the expression as the event? I dunno, I grew up around artists all my life, and I can't say I get it (though on the "art continuum" it's easier for me to place Christo than the furry "art" from a few days ago).
posted by socratic at 5:44 PM on November 27, 2004

What do you mean you don't "get it". You haven't seen it yet. I hardly think if the experience could be "got" by reading a couple web pages that they'd bother spending $20M to build it, no?
posted by dobbs at 5:49 PM on November 27, 2004

I think it is going to look amazing. I wish I was free at that time of the year to go see it.
posted by bigmusic at 5:53 PM on November 27, 2004

I don't "get" how it's art. Art is, I suppose, in the eye of the beholder, and perhaps when I behold, I'll understand, but I've seen Christo pop up every so often for 15 years or so, and I just don't understand the fascination.

I mean, yeah, it's interesting, and as a technical matter it's certainly nifty. And, yeah, I agree that it will probably look amazing (and I'd go see it in a heartbeat) but that, to me, isn't the same thing as art. It's spectacle, which can be extraordinary while not being art.

I'm only speaking for myself though!
posted by socratic at 6:01 PM on November 27, 2004

no reg req link
posted by Grod at 6:01 PM on November 27, 2004

note for new users (and old) use this to bypass nyt reg.
posted by Grod at 6:03 PM on November 27, 2004

Just think of it as temporary architecture socratic.
posted by bigmusic at 6:10 PM on November 27, 2004

Ah yes, I was waiting for the "I don't get it" comments.

The purpose here is to draw attention to the beauty of an existing space or landscape by adding out of the ordinary things. It is visual expression. It is visual art. Art can be a spectacle, a spectacle can be art, art isn't necessarily a spectacle, a spectacle isn't necessarily art.

I would say something like this is new art of the highest calibre. Contemporary art rarely deservedly gets this much attention.
posted by Kleptophoria! at 6:11 PM on November 27, 2004

For me, the question "What is art?" is far less interesting than the question "Who is an artist?"

IMO Christo is a self-derivative publicity-seeking hack who confuses coverage with criticism, participation with engagement, and repetition with expression. But the public seems to like his stuff - in the same way they seem to like it when David Copperfield makes skyscrapers disappear - so I could be wrong.
posted by ChasFile at 6:16 PM on November 27, 2004

I mean, yeah, it's interesting, and as a technical matter it's certainly nifty. And, yeah, I agree that it will probably look amazing (and I'd go see it in a heartbeat) but that, to me, isn't the same thing as art.

And...?

You're right. It's not art ... to YOU. There is no such thing as "art" in some fixed sense. There is absolutely no way you can objectively claim object A is art and object B isn't. "Art" is a fuzzy term which we can use in conversation because even if none of us share the same definition of of the word, we all share similar definitions. The word "love" is similar.

I don't quite get why you care whether or not it's "art." You feel it's "nifty," "interesting" and "amazing." That sounds good enough to me!
posted by grumblebee at 6:23 PM on November 27, 2004

For me, the question "What is art?" is far less interesting than the question "Who is an artist?" IMO Christo is a self-derivative publicity-seeking hack...

Biographical/psychological questions ARE interesting, because people are interesting. But in the end, there's are still these object in Central Park. Do you enjoy looking at them or not?
posted by grumblebee at 6:25 PM on November 27, 2004

RepetitiveHackFilter?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:30 PM on November 27, 2004

When I see the Reichstag wrapped in fabric I think "Oh, it must be undergoing repairs."
posted by crank at 6:32 PM on November 27, 2004

grublebee: I would never claim to say objectively that something is or isn't art. My mom, who was an artist, would slap me silly. Subjectively, though, I can. And, yeah, art is like love -- you hit that one smack on the head. And to me this is more like a swingers club than a delicate embrace.

That said, I'd like to thank bigmusic for posting this, because, heh, ars pro artis, right? :)

Oh, and "temporary architecture" is a fascinating comment. Isn't all architecture temporary, especially in our disposable age? Maybe that's the artistic statement: the fleetingness of structure. Or, is architecture itself permanent (e.g., the plans), but the execution of the architecture (the "building") is fleeting, and this production shows the dissonance between the two?
posted by socratic at 6:35 PM on November 27, 2004

For me, the question "What is art?" is far less interesting than the question "Who is an artist?"

Man, that is totally backwards. It assigns to some people a status (usu. seen as outside the normal bounds of society) such that their productions are artworks, instead of examining productions and assigning them a status as artwork ('course this now usually also means those objects will be considered wholly other to the point of ontological difference).

Whether or not something is a work of art, if you think there is such an assignment to be made, will have to have something to do with who made it, how, and when, but to say that some people are artists, and some not, seems nuts to me. A person is an artist when making art (whatever that means), not as a simple fact about him or herself.


The purpose here is to draw attention to the beauty of an existing space or landscape by adding out of the ordinary things. It is visual expression. It is visual art. Art can be a spectacle, a spectacle can be art, art isn't necessarily a spectacle, a spectacle isn't necessarily art.

Is something which draws attention, &c, a work of art ipso facto? Is litter art? Is it a matter of scale? Is it the purposiveness implied by "visual expression"?

Anyway, I'm with the last paragraph of grumblebee's first comment.
posted by kenko at 6:40 PM on November 27, 2004

The answer is: the first name of the original host of "Jeopardy".
posted by wendell at 6:43 PM on November 27, 2004

This is going to be great. I've been waiting a long, long time for this - seven years? - and I'm delighted to be able to be in New York when it finally happens.
posted by adamgreenfield at 7:10 PM on November 27, 2004

I think the operative question when it comes to a piece of art like this is, "Why not?"
posted by fungible at 7:46 PM on November 27, 2004

Here I'm wondering how they're going to deal with vandals. So many gates to mangle. I've not been impressed with Christo very much in the past, though I did appreciate his wall of fabric in Norther California so many years past and the islands were kind of neat, but I was never stirred by it. This work appears to be different and I'm sure I'll hop on the duocycle and check it out when it's ready to go. It's still no Period Piece (last item).
posted by Captaintripps at 8:20 PM on November 27, 2004

Another installment by the Culture Industry in the product line of the established (and market tested!) Christo Brand.
Bland enough, yet theoretically justifiable, it will be pleasant enough for the whole family.
Think about what 200 really imaginative unknown artists could have done with $100,000 *each*-- to underwrite incredible, imaginative experiments and expression instead...
Think about that.
Theres a centralized industry for cars, fast food, media that alot of people feel is too powerful---- and the same is true for art. Don't kid yourselves.
posted by buddhanarchist at 8:23 PM on November 27, 2004

I don't know about art but the fabric link makes for some great wallpaper.
posted by protocool at 8:27 PM on November 27, 2004

I suppose this is a base concern, but how do they pay for this? Is one (or both) of them independently wealthy? Do they have (enormously profitable) side projects that fund them?
posted by Bezbozhnik at 9:02 PM on November 27, 2004

I remember going to Christo's studio back in '83 or '84 and while some of the stuff he had going on (floating islands, pont neuf) were cool, I was really blown away by some of the concept art for the gates. it's kind of hard to imagine the installation actually taking place two decades later.
posted by jburka at 9:21 PM on November 27, 2004

how do they pay for this?

From here:
“Christo & Jeanne-Claude pay the entire cost of the artworks themselves. They earn all of the money through the sale of the preparatory studies, early works from the 50s and 60s and original lithographs on other subjects.

They do not accept grants or sponsorships of any kind. They do not accept donated labor (volunteer help). They do not accept money for things like posters, postcards, books, films, T-shirt and mugs or any other products at all. None.”

Whether it's art or not seems beside the point after so many years. He (now they) is (are) good at this, and (unlike many artists) can support what they want to do, free of commercial sponsors. They definitely don't give up — it's taken a very long time for them to deal successfully with all the committees in NYC that had to be appeased, and all the forms that had to be filled out, before this could happen.
posted by LeLiLo at 9:34 PM on November 27, 2004

The experiment is to consider it as an extension of Central Park, as if one day you just woke up and it was there. To consider it in that context, rather than as a bunch of material, a bunch of gates, 20 million dollars, a fancy artwork. Just considering it like a new Central Park.

Never mind how much it cost, and never mind that someone with a hifalutin mono-nom, and someone else with a suspiciously French name did it. Think about it like you think about Central Park, which cost a lot more, and which was also orchestrated by two people.

I'm just saying, maybe focus on what it does, instead of what it is.
posted by cloudscratcher at 10:22 PM on November 27, 2004 [1 favorite]

Also, to contradict all that and say, look you have to put things in context. Recently, I have been reminded frequently of their project in Paris from 1961, one of those projects that doesn't last as long as the questions it poses.

To my mind, most work is the opposite, far outlasting the questions it asks, becoming decorative and inscrutable along the way. Maybe what I appreciate most about Christo and Jeanne-Claude's work is that it goes away.
posted by cloudscratcher at 10:30 PM on November 27, 2004

cloudscratcher: Nice comments. Maybe in my earlier questions I'm dealing with the problem of work outlasting questions (or inspiring new, previously unconnected questions like the sexuality of Leonardo as manifested in the Mona Lisa) versus questions outlasting work, as would be more common in works of philosophy. Christo and Jeanne-Claude's work would, to me, appear to be more a work of sensual (n.b., not sensuous) philosophy: creating, as you pleasingly observed, a new Central Park serving to ask questions about the meaning of Central Park-ness.

I suppose, to me, "art" is decorative, scrutable (in the sense that we know enough about it to compare its, um, context to our own years or centuries later), and inspiring of new thought as well as more universal questions. Christo's work is, to me, like a puff of springtime air: perhaps full of implication for the now but ultimately fleeting. I can only picture someone in France or Peru in the year 2300 (much less 2004) wondering what on earth he was doing.

As always, IMHO.
posted by socratic at 10:58 PM on November 27, 2004

Interesting, buddhanarchist, but your point only holds water if Christo and Jeanne-Claude are monopolizing resources that belong to other artists. Since they're using their own money, that doesn't seem to be the case?
posted by muckster at 12:32 AM on November 28, 2004

I have fond memories of them wrapping up the Pont-Neuf in Paris 20 years ago. Large crowds showed up to wonder at the mystery of it for 2 weeks. It was both beautiful, thanks to the sun effects on the fabric, and amazing, thanks to the monumental scale of it. What can be better than that?
So, who cares if it's art or not? Why (a priori) intellectualize things that are primarily there to be experienced?
posted by elgilito at 6:10 AM on November 28, 2004

Muckster: you could say that the deluge of big blockbuster Hollywood films-- many which are self financed by Stars--- are benign as well. But I wouldn't say that. They craft our perception, enact a price, regardless of how they're financed.
The bottom line for me is that so much of this kind of work is a constellation of cultural elitism, money, media and a reliance on (as Guy Debord put it) The Society of the Spectacle.

Divorcing art from politics for a moment (if thats possible): if you want to just enjoy Christo's work, well, more power to you.
posted by buddhanarchist at 6:31 AM on November 28, 2004

When I read the title I thought I was going to read an article about Jean Claude Van-Damme and his wife being sued for 20$ million after streaking through Central Park.
posted by RemusLupin at 7:10 AM on November 28, 2004

buddhanarchist, I'm sorry, but you appear to be entirely full of shit.

Have you even read Debord? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

The Christos' work can be read - I read it, anyway - as introducing disruptions in the flow of the spectacular, planned moments of beauty that reconfigure people's perceptions and reactions, and cause them to question ideas like "nature" and "the everyday."

I doubt, for example, that many who saw the Reichstag the day after the shrouds came down saw it in quite the same way that they did before the wrapping. Indeed, I'd hazard a guess that more than a few truly saw it for the first time in their lives.

And "cultural elitism"? What could be *less* elitist than art that is outside a museum, outside a gallery, open to all, available to use and interpretation by any who encounter it?

I'm sympathetic with your aims, and to go by your chosen username, I probably have quite a good deal of affinity with your other viewpoints. But you're not making any sense, here, and indeed the shallow and easily-demolished nature of your critique merely makes it easier for people opposed to your/our viewpoints to caricature them.

I ask you to either go back and study the SI, rethink your views on the Christos, or reformulate your position so that it at least makes sense.
posted by adamgreenfield at 7:37 PM on November 28, 2004 [1 favorite]

adamgreenfield: I completely disagree, and stand by what I've said. Art, merely by being *outdoors* does not make it inherently less elitist if it is inherently an activity of the cultural elite-- thats just foolishness. As for Debord: I think he would agree that some of the appeal of Christo has to do merely with the spectacle it makes-- the appeal to those who read sensation as meaning, scale as meaning, whats in the headlines as meaning-- and that this very sensation and scale and massive media presence distract from an awareness of the modes of production behind it (that support it) which, in actuality can sometimes merely be perpetuating the status quo. And I could give you the names of many, many people who saw the Reichstag unwrapped who saw it as the same as before it was wrapped: as the place where policies destructive to their concerns were created by powerful men. You might think that Christo's work "creates disruptions in the flow of the spectacular that... cause them to question ideas like "nature and the everyday": but I guess that by your criterion thats what the Macy's Day Parade does as well.
And: I disagree with you, but theres no reason to call me "full of shit". On principle, I rarely feel motivation to try and have a dialogue with someone who, because I have a different perspective, background, call me "full of shit".
posted by buddhanarchist at 9:17 PM on November 28, 2004

"Inherently an activity of the cultural elite"? Do you even listen to yourself, dude? You sound like you're reading from the Third Five-Year Plan.

As you might know, had you bothered to do any research, the Christos are famous for operating outside of the gallery/dealer system. They fund their productions entirely by the unmediated, direct sale of their drawings. They're actually quite particular about how they conduct business, and, to my knowledge, have consistently refused to license their images for t-shirts, mousepads, totebags, umbrellas...

As a matter of fact, the Christos are almost perversely intent on doing things their way, to the exclusion of maximizing their profit and/or "playing the game."

So. Unless you can do a much better job of demonstrating that experiencing "The Gates" is an "inherently elitist activity," I call bullshit on you. I expect that the reactions of New Yorkers to the installation will run the predictable gamut, from head-scratching to enraptured engagement, but I sincerely doubt that even a small minority of either they themselves, or anyone observing them, will construct what they are doing as an "elite activity."
posted by adamgreenfield at 9:42 PM on November 28, 2004

I didn't say that viewing the Gates would be an inerintly elitist activity.
Not even remotely I say that.
Its clear you don't pay attention and consider what I'm getting at-- or that you even care.
I stated that the manner in which it was created, the avenues in which it plays out in the media and in the "art world" is part of the elite- and that there are *ramifications* in the way they reify power. You missed the entire point.
You also (conveniently) did not address any of my other points. A large number of them.
Its clear that you have a very shallow reading; and that you don't understand the slightest about the revolutionary spirit that Debord spoke of.
And you're insulting.
posted by buddhanarchist at 11:12 PM on November 28, 2004

heres the shortform adamgreenfield, and my last post on this, as I get the feeling its not worth it:
the short form, so you can understand:
Christo makes spectacle-based Prozac for the masses, regardless of how its funded.
And: you're take on 'art' is very naive.
posted by buddhanarchist at 11:41 PM on November 28, 2004

Can you see what's on my feet, propelling me along? LOLLERSKATES, dude. Big, turbine-powered ones.

You wanna tell me about reification and resistance? I was detourning when you were swimming around in your daddy's balls.

You wanna tell me about "shallow"? As in "art is Prozac that dulls the masses," I presume?

You're going to tell people what they may and may not enjoy, if they are to receive your Official Stamp of Revolutionary Purity? You're going to tell people what to perceive?

What kind of anarchist espouses such an elitist, vanguardist point of view? Especially, what kind of Buddhist espouses such a view? And what a bizarre, joyless misprision of everything the SI was and stood for. You sure seem to hate the Christos, apparently because they've brought joy and bewilderment and outrage (and shh! maybe even sudden enlightenment) to so many. Are you sure you're not just a bitter old Marxist marinating in jealousy, irrelevancy, and your own stale farts?
posted by adamgreenfield at 7:22 AM on November 29, 2004 [1 favorite]

Sorry, buddhanarchist, but you're not convincing me, either. Your Hollywood blockbuster analogy doesn't fly (no, most movies aren't star-financed, or refuse to sell popcorn in the lobby), and you haven't made the case for Debord (yes, I've read him too, and no, I don't see it.) How are "The Gates" akin to the Macy's Parade? Yes, the world is full of the kind of problems you describe, and like adam, I suspect I agree with your basic stance, but this doesn't seem to be part it. Somebody's making art, on their own dime, accessible to all, and you think it ought to be shut down--why, exactly?
posted by muckster at 7:55 AM on November 29, 2004

""You wanna tell me about "shallow"? As in "art is Prozac that dulls the masses," I presume?""

I Didn't say "Art is prozac that dulls the masses"-- I said that (in the shortform) *Christo* was Prozac for the masses. Pay attention, stud.

""You're going to tell people what they may and may not enjoy, if they are to receive your Official Stamp of Revolutionary Purity? You're going to tell people what to perceive?""
I've not said that I'm telling anyone anything-- I'm offering my perspective to get people to (perhaps) reconsider some of their habitual thinking-- thats fairly apparent, and nowhere do I ever state anyone has to agree with me. Again: pay attention, studboy.
""And what a bizarre, joyless misprision of everything the SI was and stood for""
I think that Debord would be disgusted with the level of somnambulance people with great intelligence and freedom have become used to-- maybe he would want to tear it down: that seems to be the spirit of the SI-- Again: think of what $20 million could do for people, all the other ways it could be applied, in art and in life. Not that it should: although I don't make much of Christo's work, I certainly would always defend his right to make it. I thought maybe I could offer the invitation to stop and consider that.

""You sure seem to hate the Christos"".
No, Not at all. Not hate. Never said it. Thats your word.

""... apparently because they've brought joy and bewilderment and outrage (and shh! maybe even sudden enlightenment) to so many""
(Wow-- you sound like ArtBush on OBL with that one-- outrageous.)
As I stated before, I know many many, many people who do not react to Christo's work that way: and its valid. They are inherently sceptical of anything that operates on that cultural scale; they are inherently sceptical and question anything involving such large sums of money. They are sceptcial and question anything so solidly 'popular'. They believe it is their responsibility to question power (and if you don't think Christo and the forces that bring us The Gates is powerful, you're naive). They believe thats at the core of the what Debord (and others) were getting at, after everything is said and done.

""Are you sure you're not just a bitter old Marxist marinating in jealousy, irrelevancy, and your own stale farts""
I'm not old (and what does 'old' mean, anyway, Enlightened One?): I'm not bitter, nor am I a Marxist, I'm not 'marinating in jealousy' (jealous of what?)-- and you seem to be the self appointed judge of relevence.
""Stale farts"" (?)-- hey, why don't you grow up?


adamgreenfield: its apparent you're with the status quo, you defend the popular and the elite, you shout down and insult those who disagree with you. I imagine you hold a respected and important position in a major business or cultural institution.

Muckster: the Hollywood blockbuster anaolgy was meant to point out that just because something is self financed does not mean its necessarily benign-- that when those with the most money get the most attention, it can leave alot to be desired. Thats all. Just a thought. If you don't feel I 'make the case for Debord" I can respect that, as Debord isn't around to speak for himself. But I think its valuable to try and extrapolate what he would make of whats going on in 2004-- not try to apply what he thought many years ago to now, but what he'd make of the state of things in this day and age.
How are the Gates NOT akin to the Macy's day parade *as conetxtualized by adamgreenfield's previous criteria*? They both take alot of money to put together, they engage large scale activity in public spaces, they 'recreate' habitually used urban landscapes, they transform them--- yet Christo would have us belive that his is 'art' while a parade is not. Why the distinction?
That was my attempt at thoughtful provocation.

""Somebody's making art, on their own dime, accessible to all, and you think it ought to be shut down--why, exactly?""

Again: who said anything about "it ought to be shut down" ? You guys, free thinkers, keep putting words in my mouth.

*****
Perhaps I feel that theres something being overlooked in art that is: small, quiet, personal, internal, and doesn't take 20 mil to make by a 'superstar': and that it might be good for people to get into the mindset where they appreciate *those* values, as opposed to more 'big big big' art, seeing how things are going in 2004.
Get it?
******

I had hoped to offer a spark of thought about questioning things-- even the things we like. Instead, I'm getting a "hey, Christo is cool. Its self financed, its big and fun, we can call it art, meditative-- whats your problem, dude?". And thats what I expected.
posted by buddhanarchist at 3:37 PM on November 29, 2004

That was my attempt at thoughtful provocation.

Who asked you to provoke? What suggested to you that this was an appropriate audience for your attempts at provocation?

Perhaps I feel that theres something being overlooked in art that is: small, quiet, personal, internal, and doesn't take 20 mil to make

But this thread wasn't about that. It was a celebration of the Christos' Gates that you chose to dump on, again, apparently because it didn't meet your criteria for purity.

You're constructing a false dichotomy where there is none, using zero-sum logic in a non-zero-sum game. You're setting a false binary of "either X or Y" that is not merely unwarranted by the evidence, but operates against your own interests.

There's nothing wrong with art that is small, personal, internal, even hermetic. You're preaching to the choir: my favorite piece of art in the world fits in my pocket and was made by my wife's professor of a few seeds from Hiroshima and a little lead.

But neither is there a damn thing wrong with art that requires infrastructure beyond the reach of individuals to achieve. (By your absurdly reductive logic, a Survival Research Laboratories show in the parking lot of Shea Stadium is no more or less corrupt than "American Idol.")

Where you go wrong is right away, in assuming that your audience here is as young and unreflective as you were a year ago. You've just discovered some analytical and critical tools, they feel like a plasma cutter in your back pocket, and you can't wait to bust them out, whether or not they're the right tool for the task. I sympathize.

But you should consider that the people you're writing for here may not need to be reminded to question. (As for my own putative investment in the status quo, you obviously don't know who you're talking to.) Take it easy, son, and you may just figure out that you're among friends.

We just have higher standards than you assumed, and dislike being lectured to.
posted by adamgreenfield at 4:02 PM on November 29, 2004 [1 favorite]

I don't know shit about art, but I like this idea... for the simple reason that it's something that might be cool looking in a place that I visit from time to time. I have a feeling that it's going to be massive success. For no other reason then people are going to get off their asses and think about 'art' for a day.

I know what buddha dude is saying on one level (wouldn't it be cool if some underground peeps had the dough to do something) but you've got to consider the idea that when big mainstream artists do stuff like this, it opens up opportunities for the underground dudes.
posted by chaz at 4:17 PM on November 29, 2004

adamgreenfield:
So the thread was about celebration. Sorry. I thought it was about open discussion of anything we felt like discussing related to the topic. What you're saying is I should limit my comments to those that are 'celebratory': which is a complete indictment of your position--- and remarkably hypocritical.

Don't worry: I'm very impressed with who you are-- so rest assured. Your ego need not be hurt by being challenged. Its just too bad you can't address these ideas without being insulting, and without relying on the power game of "hey, Don't You Know Who I Am?" (Yet you say you don't like being lectured to?).
What I guess you mean to say is that your position, your power, does not lilke being challenged.

(The rest of your comments about me, my history, are very presumptuous, and quite inaccurate: In the first post you thought I was an old dried up Marxist. Now you're suggesting I'm a young student. Make up your mind! (Or hey, maybe just stick with addressing the thread, and refrain from insults altogether...) You havn't been able to do that.


(And: I didn't say that All works that are large scale and that need outside funding are problematic: each event could be looked at individually, critically. The fact that you don't understand the basic "an elephant is an animal with four legs, but not all animals with four legs are elephants" is an indicator of your lack of simple reasoning skills, and probably emblematic of your inflation based off of "Who You Are".

chaz: *does* it open up opportunities? where are they, my man? Are things changing? Does one wait? What action does it take do you think? How is Christo opening up the playing field? (I ask all these questions in the spirit of *celebration*, ofcourse...)
posted by buddhanarchist at 5:01 PM on November 29, 2004

OK, whatev's.

If I said "Are you sure you aren't a bitter old Marxist?" and even that went straight over your head, then there's no point in the joust.

The link I posted was for you to try wrapping your head around the idea that the person to whom you are addressing your comments has very little invested in the present state of affairs and is actively seeking fundamental change. That you chose to take it as some kind of status gambit says more about you than about me.

Its just too bad you can't address these ideas without being insulting, and without relying on the power game of "hey, Don't You Know Who I Am?"
Well, I know who I am, which is why I sign my own name to everything I write; knowing who I am is sufficient. I neither know nor care if you know who I am.

You had no interest in addressing issues, at any rate. You just wanted a venue in which to deploy your newly-minted vocabulary, and in which to craft a "challenging" persona, and it's obvious that you dislike having your fatuity pointed out.

Did you imagine you could make the statements you did and not be challenged on them? Did you imagine you could drop a few names and expect they would do your rhetorical heavy lifting for you? You disappoint me, and your professors should be ashamed of themselves if they let you get away with anything over a "D."

But, like I say, whatev's. Enjoy your little fantasy, Luke Skywanker. I'll be the Evil Hegemonic Authority Figure and you can be the Marginalized Voice Of The People. I'll pretend this is my top hat and cigar and wad o'money, and you can pretend to smash down the walls and take it all away from me, OK?
posted by adamgreenfield at 5:25 PM on November 29, 2004

How the Gates aren't like the Macy's Day Parade: one advertises goods & products, the other doesn't.

I wish, buddhanarchist, you would start answering some of your own "provocative" questions and tell us what, exactly, the problem is you think you're pointing out. You don't have to celebrate, but if you are going to talk about the "Culture Industry" and "the Christo Brand" and "Prozac for the Masses" then it's your job to back this up in some way. Who, exactly, is getting hurt by the Gates? You still haven't explained why you consider this project problematic. Self-financed does not equal begnin, but neither do money or scale necessarily equal evil. You seem to think that there is abuse of power at work. Where? You haven't made your case. That's why we're asking "what's the problem, dude?", and it's exactly what anybody should expect for slinging a couple of concepts around and backing them up with nothing but posturing.
posted by muckster at 5:34 PM on November 29, 2004

adamgreenfield:
"Did you imagine you could make the statements you did and not be challenged on them?"
I was hoping to have a non-insulting conversation, to see if addressing the issues Christo's work frames could be done (or allowed) as more than surface gloss, in more than 'celebratory' mode. You're on the record as stating that that is not allowed. The names mentioned were to open up that discussion. Your statements, attitude, combined with the subject matter and your self-linking contextualized it in the manner its at now more than anything I've said.

"I neither know nor care if you know who I am". I didn't want to either-- but you posted a link to yourself. And you ofcourse changed the dynamics here because of it.

My comments do not come from fantasy-- and your dismissive attitude at the expense of other people's points of view only digs your hole deeper, reinforcing (whether you like it or not) what I've said.

"your professors should be ashamed of themselves if they let you get away with anything over a "D." Man, thats so arrogant and pompous: I feel sorry for someone who thinks in that manner.
(Wait: didn't you think I was an Old Marxist?)

"Enjoy your little fantasy, Luke Skywanker. I'll be the Evil Hegemonic Authority Figure and you can be the Marginalized Voice Of The People."
Again: I haven't placed it this way, ever: I state, consistently, that in all situations the capacity for both are intertwined, and we have a responsibility to be critical of power:

muckster:
""How the Gates aren't like the Macy's Day Parade: one advertises goods & products, the other doesn't"".
If for a second, muckster, you think the massive Concerns in NYC that greenlit the Gates, as well as Christo, were not *fully* aware of how many people will stop on the way to the Gates for a little extra shopping... or the tourists that will flock... then you're very naive--- and in considering this, we could have an opportunity to look deeper into the work. I'm not saying theres a conspiracy: I just think its worth discussing.
You guys don't think so? Great. No problem.

"I wish, buddhanarchist, you would start answering some of your own "provocative" questions and tell us what, exactly, the problem is you think you're pointing out." If I could answer all of my questions why would I bother asking them or posting? I think that those who can answer all the questions they ask are usually remarkably full of themselves, uninquisitive. I've pointed to alot of ideas-- different vantage points-- not problems-- concerning big big art, art presented through big money, how it relates to the climate of marketing in 2004, power, scale-- all huge areas-- that I hoped would bring more to this than the celebration thing. Yet, muckster: you say its 'posturing'. Maybe thats what I get for being provocative-- but thought people would take a 'buddhanarchist's provocations' with a grain of salt, as well as curiosity (Instead, what I got, from the outset, was :"You're full of shit")
posted by buddhanarchist at 7:03 PM on November 29, 2004

Maybe that's because you are?
posted by adamgreenfield at 7:09 PM on November 29, 2004

adamgreenfield: congratulations: you've just admitted that you are completely comfortable with reducing Metafilter to out and out name calling.
Bravo.
posted by buddhanarchist at 7:19 PM on November 29, 2004

I think Adam was just asking a provocative question.

You still haven't said anything of substance, b.a., so I'm done here. I'm very much looking forward to Febuary, though. The Gates is going to be great. Over & out.
posted by muckster at 7:53 PM on November 29, 2004

muckster: the feeling is mutual--- same to adamgreenfield.
posted by buddhanarchist at 7:59 PM on November 29, 2004

congratulations: you've just admitted that you are completely comfortable with reducing Metafilter to out and out name calling.

But I am, laddie, I am. I'm not one of these to stand around and bray about the sanctity of the Topic and of staying On It, nor even of Learned Discourse.

For me, though, the "best of the Web" has always included interacting with the best *characters* on the Web. Part of what I enjoy is precisely the name-calling, the barely-contained contempt and the long-nurtured grudges. I *loves* me some good name-calling, and I'm sorry you can't take it.

But, like the man says, if you can't stand the heat you best stay out the kitchen.
posted by adamgreenfield at 8:52 PM on November 29, 2004

adamgreenfiled: If the name calling comes from out of rigorous, imaginative discourse, then its fine; unfortunately, you're lacking the rigor as well as imagination, and jumped to the infantile name calling for your starting point.

"I'm not one of these to stand around and bray about the sanctity of the Topic and of staying On It"-- Interesting that you say this adamgreenfield, as you're the one who said the thread was 'supposed to be about Celebrating Christo"

(Look at who is full of shit now.)
posted by buddhanarchist at 10:20 PM on November 29, 2004

well, this has become quite boring and a waste of time.
Theres no heat here adamgreenfield, just a pretentious, pompous pseudo-intellectual stench thats coming from the chef.
Adios.
posted by buddhanarchist at 10:56 PM on November 29, 2004

SILENCE, ANUS!
posted by adamgreenfield at 7:20 AM on November 30, 2004 [1 favorite]

is this some of your spooky psyops action at work adamgreenfield? scary. (boo!)
Can't take the heat?
posted by buddhanarchist at 7:30 AM on November 30, 2004

adamgreenfield: you *actually believe* that your comments and the manner you've conducted yourself here qualifies as "the best of the web"? You're gonna have to work ALOT harder. The web is FULL of self appointed pseudo academics who spout with impunity from their respective lairs. You're not even close to "best". Very sad.
posted by buddhanarchist at 7:59 AM on November 30, 2004

buddha-- I don't know if it opens up opportunities, but something like 4,000,000 people will see this and perhaps 3,000,000 will not have been to an art museum in the past 4 years. Of those, maybe 300,000 will go to an art museum because they got interested. Of those, maybe 30,000 will decide they might want to check out some different kinds of art. Of those, maybe 3,000 will check out some underground or unknown artists. Of those, maybe 300 will think about funding some underground art. Of those, maybe 30 will actually do so. Or maybe 3. Or maybe none. I don't know. But any mass 'art' project is bound to have some spillover effect, no?
posted by chaz at 9:21 AM on November 30, 2004