I’m sure you know him but I want to show in my blog because I’m a big fan!
Every other week here in Colorado it seems there is news of Christo’s ongoing battle with opposition groups regarding the installation artist’s plan to drape six miles of the Arkansas River in translucent fabric. If give the green light, the installation will be in place for two weeks. But the process of making it happen has taken 21 years so far.
Christo loves to talk about how the endless protests and law suits involved in bringing his ambitious works to life are as much part of the artistic process as the end product. In an article for The Denver Post a few days ago, Christo is quoted as describing the battles as ”invigorating.”
“We are not masochists, but we are enjoying the communication with so many varieties of people. Usually the art world is a small club of professionals. Here we are exposed to an enormous relation of meeting so many variety of people.”
However, it turns out that the “communication” that Christo is interested in is rather one-sided.
Over at CPR, as mentioned in my last post about Chihuly, I’m working on developing a segment entitled “Yes, But Is It Art?” The aim of the series is to get a more holistic view on perceptions of art than one usually gets from hearing or reading a single critic pontificating on a particular artist, piece of work or movement. My producer and I thought that the Christo debate might make for a perfect discussion along these lines. The plan was to assemble a few experts including the artist, the lawyer who’s representing one of the main opposition groups and an academic who specializes in studying large-scale landscape art installation projects.
The only trouble with the plan was that Christo refused to participate.
The artist was very happy to come in and do a solo interview. ”Christo does not do group interviews, but would be happy to provide a one-on-one interview in the CPR studios,” an aide wrote to inform us.
We wrote to explain that we weren’t interested in a one-on-one and that we wanted, rather, a group discussion in order to delve more deeply into the process he allegedly so prizes — ”the communication with so many varieties of people.”
But we were told no.
“As you know, discussion of the work (supportive and critical) is indeed part of the process and the art,” the aid wrote. “And, as the artist, Christo observes the dialogue but does not take part in it directly.”
It’s Christo’s prerogative to remain cool and aloof from the discussion, I suppose. But this attitude does seem disingenuous to me. The artist has created an amazing sandbox here. Why won’t he come play in it nicely with others?