Every work of art is an act of violation.
It is a legitimate act if it liberates something else.
(This is not to be confused with George Bush whose liberation rhetoric is
oppression in disguise).
It is a mistake to confuse the priests with the message. They just be
ordinary people with "transmission rights". As ordinary they can be
frequently vain and variously opportunistic - confusing the gold on the
garment with what in the spirit is being transformed.
The Christos often can suffer from what priests suffer. I worked with them
closely on a book related to The Umbrellas. I have known them as entirely
generous to many. I believe the fundamental spirit of the work is public and
generous. Mark's celebration of Central Park in summer as a community
celebration is no doubt true. But, I suspect, different in kind from The
Gates. Mark is quite right, I think, in pointing out how The Gates give
rebirth and a public acknowledgment to the original genius of the Park's
plan by Olmstead and Vaux. Now that the Gates are down, they will have a
shadow, haunting effect (a spell) on the public imagination of the Park and
its memory of where the Gates were and what they do to refresh the presence
of the Park as time moves on.
The complaint about costs reminds me of someone who has just taken an
ecstatic ride in a Rolls Royce and then starts complaining about the costs
that go into making the machine. It's an enigma in which most artists
participate. You wrote a beautiful poem but your kid is emotionally starved.
(Oh well, hard ass Faulkner said Keats' Ode on a Grecian Urn was worth "20
dead grandmothers"!)
There's no doubt that Mark, Hal et al had a good, mesmerizing time in the
Park. As I suggested, Jeanne Claude and Christo build a pretty incredible
stage.
And, along the way, the Christo egos do get in the way, and sometimes - in
the inevitable collusion with Planning Departments, Politicians, Collectors
and Private Business - counterproductive decisions are made. Ecologies have
gotten hammered, and Umbrellas have gone up in wind zones that killed. at
least, one person in Tejon Pass in Southern California.

What bothers me most is the claustrophobic control they maintain over the
critique of the work itself. Ironically we live in an age where one can
exercise such control. The Christo's have paid to have Abrams to do works on
all their projects. But whether or not a Gallery or Abrams is doing the
book, the Christos control every word that is written about the project(s),
as well as the reproduction rights on any of his art. (Dune Arbus is the
same way, by the way, on both photo rights and the critical discussion that
occurs in the Random House book on her mother's work).
Needless to say his kind of control suffocates the independent critical
voice - and it mimics political regimes, Stalinist, Rovist, etc. that do
everything possible to control their "message."  Sadly, authoritarian
control becomes the message.

Stephen V
Who managed to get through his image uploader for a few new pix
For "Crossing the Millennium." Your visits and comments are welcome,
Blog: http://stephenvincent.durationpress.com















> Hell, I'd prefer that the cost of art installations also come out of
> military budgets.
>
> It's not a bad thing to recognize that our pleasures, including aesthetic
> pleasures, have a moral dimension and a social cost, no matter how intense
> the pleasure. The objects of our pleasure neither appear nor disappear by
> magic. I think we all place limits on what we consider allowable costs.
> Much as I enjoyed it, fior me The Gates came close to being too much.
>
> Mark
>
> At 01:30 PM 3/1/2005, you wrote:
>> {    Maybe for their next project they could drape all the people in the
>> world
>> {    who lack adequate clothing.
>> {
>> {    Mark
>>
>> I'd prefer that that money come from military budgets.
>>
>> Hal, who saw no tennis balls on poles, or anywhere else