At 12:35 PM 3/3/2005, you wrote:
>I have two short thoughts:
>
>1. "The Gates" - in whatever magic they cast over Central Park have provoked
>a major case of "pleasure anxiety." Wherein many - instead of reveling for a
>moment in the experience of participating in and enjoying public space - are
>driven to badmouth all of its derivative side effects (commerce, egos, etc.)
>It's like being totally smitten with a lover's perfume and then parting the
>scene to go kill the perfume seller - the "betrayed virgin" syndrome. (I am
>not being righteous here - it's happened to me more than once).
Of course, the same could be said for the Nuremberg rally, to cite an
extreme example. The point being that public art addresses the civic by its
very existence, which means the experience is different in kind from the
appreciation of even so political work as Ensor's Christ Entering Brussels.
And it's exceedingly easy to create objects that produce in their consumers
this or that emotion, which in no way testifies to the integrity of the maker.
Are you implying that a failure to simply enjoy in a state of innocence is
somehow to miss the point and the boat? Or that it's a simple case of
Schadenfreude?
If you're referring to my comments, I think you got it wrong. You seem to
be saying that the work of art in question doesn't include its full
context--all that messy stuff. What I thought I was saying is that only by
an act of extreme willfulness could one focus on the aesthetic or ludic
alone, and that in so doing one would in fact be misrepresenting,
misunderstanding the object. All of the Christos' carefully-crafted public
image making, the gigantism, the politics, and all of the impacts, intended
and unintended, on the environment, are I think a part of the art work, not
a barrier to the appreciation thereof.
Which begins to sound like your justification through notoriety, tho I
obviously don't intend it as such:
>2. Like "The Gates" or not, it's provoking lots of analysis of what may be
>better to wrap, better to draw attention to, Fallujeh, etc. This is no small
>accomplishment - akin to poets who have written seminal works that have
>stirred generations of writing, as say, Charles Olson, Robert Creeley, the
>New York School. Of course, different than the Christo project, it seems,
>instead of in opposition to what was Wrapped, the acolyte poets, if not
>imitating Olson, etc., the work by others could be seen as an extension or
What doesn't excite comment? The war in Iraq excites a discussion of the
nature of war. Is that in any way a justification? Again, way over the top.
But the inconsistency in logic stands.
As to all those poets, I think you're talking about a far more adventurous
crew. The leaps that say Olson accomplishes are a bit more extreme than the
movement from Running Fence to The Gates or the Pont Neuf to the Reichstag.
But maybe Olson could be so adventurous because his commodities didn't sell
quite as well as Christo's.
Mark
>expansion of the work of the progenitors.
>
>Sorry, maybe these thoughts were not so short!
>
>Stephen V
>Blog: http://stephenvincent.durationpress.com
>
>
>
> > Of course, it wouldn't get the 'press,' but just the drawings, etc.,
> > the plans, without the actual work, would maybe be good. And I do like
> > the idea of going somewhere to enhance what really needs it, Mark. I
> > mean, it would be something to see them draping Fallujah....
> >
> > Doug
> > On 1-Mar-05, at 3:30 PM, Mark Weiss wrote:
> >
> >> May you be a model of humility. I think they wouldn't get it.
> >>
> >> Mark
> >>
> >>
> >> At 05:19 PM 3/1/2005, you wrote:
> >>>> How about not "enhancing"--or piggybacking--on the allure of the
> >>> already
> >>>> wondrous and instead draping a landfill, or a favela, so as to
> >>> create
> >>>> beauty, and economic advantage, where few see either? Would that be
> >>> too big
> >>>> an imaginative leap for the happy pair, or would they be in danger
> >>> of not
> >>>> making as much money or as many headlines? How about draping an oil
> >>> field?
> >>>> Or a lifeless river? Or a battlefield? There are plenty to choose
> >>> from.
> >>>>
> >>>> Mark
> >>> en·hance (e—n-ha—ns')
> >>> tr.v., -hanced, -hanc·ing, -hanc·es.
> >>>
> >>> 1. To make greater, as in value, beauty, or effectiveness; augment.
> >>>
> >>> I am sorry Mark but I must shy from evening consider the largeness of
> >>> your
> >>> vision of potential globally enhanced works - I am afraid I am back
> >>> into the
> >>> beauty of small things. WCW's plums in the fridge are so worn out from
> >>> appearing in standard American Literature Anthologies, I have wrapped
> >>> them
> >>> over their white saucer in a slightly foggy Saran wrap - just enough
> >>> to let
> >>> the eye know they are still plums. People who come to my fridge
> >>> compare this
> >>> enviormental act of bringing a great poem back down to size as
> >>> comparable to
> >>> German trade shops who sold Indigo to Napoleon's soldiers with which
> >>> to dye
> >>> their white uniforms. The use of the dark dye helped reduce the sight
> >>> of
> >>> demoralizing blood stains from battles in which their comrades had
> >>> been
> >>> lost.
> >>>
> >>> I and my plums have yet to receive a visit from the lawyers of the WCW
> >>> estate.
> >>>
> >>> Stephen V
> >>> Blog: http://stephenvincent.durationpress.com
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > Douglas Barbour
> > Department of English
> > University of Alberta
> > Edmonton Alberta T6G 2E5 Canada
> > (780) 436 3320
> > http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/dbhome.htm
> >
> > care to be more
> > precise about whatever
> > it is you are
> > saying, I said
> >
> > Bill Manhire
|