Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Flyover Country, Episode 66 – All the Lonely People
For our first podcast of the new year, episode 66, we are joined by Ricochet member Titus Techera, who has also written for National Review Online and The Federalist. Titus is a Romanian, who has recently spent time in the US, and our discussion revolves around the American psyche and our particular current brand of politics.
[note: I apologize for the terrible audio, which makes Ryan appear significantly louder than Terry and Titus. We will be sure to fix this before our next podcast!]
Published in General
That I got an Ahhh out of me (just before scrolling down to see that it wasn’t a photo of something in Utah).
Good answer. Take the flags out of the second picture, do a painting or even a photograph, and I’ll put it on my wall.
Funny. I obviously think differently.
The one in Central Park is certainly set in a completely artificial landscape. I think its temporary nature, set against the seemingly natural but in fact completely planned landscape of Central Park, is quite interesting.
The temporary fabric dam might ruin a perfectly beautiful scene, but perhaps it will make you think about non-temporary dams ruining perfectly beautiful scenes.
Or not.
IT was an art installation in 1970 or so, in Colorado.
And also, I think the Central-Park one is beautiful.
I think it is simply haunting.
Seriously, the idea that the winter picture without the saffron flags is worth hanging on your wall is ridiculous. I ridicule!
Handling fabric that way is a skill. Maybe one we wouldn’t appreciate, and maybe it’s not really Christo’s skill since he has so much help. It is not unskilled, however.
I agree with this. But I don’t see Christo’s stuff as self-indulgent emoting lacking skill, aesthetics, or restraint. In that respect his works are very different from stuff that is just self-indulgent emoting lacking skill, aesthetics, or restraint.
Judging the skill an unimpressive one, or the aesthetics inadequate, yeah, I could see that… But I’ve seen too much art far, far closer to the anti-ideal of self-indulgent emoting lacking skill, aesthetics, or restraint to consider Christo an exemplar of the anti-ideal.
Well, the Central-Park panels, plus a photographer, do that for me. Now, maybe most of the artistic credit should go to the photographer in that case.
I admit to not liking the photo of the big cloth dam. But then, many of my favorite poets also wrote poems I simply can’t stand. I don’t care. I just read their other poems, the ones I love.
No, Ick! Quite the opposite of beautiful. It is nature ruined by gaudy orange fabric.
But all that aside – it’s a matter of taste, I admit – I still submit that it does not qualify as art. It requires virtually no skill, no imagination, and it doesn’t create really anything at all. It is kind of like splatter-art. If my 5 year-old can do it, and have it look equally as good, it isn’t art. It may be pretty, depending on taste… but it’s not art.
You are simply talking nonsense.
Of course placing 200,000 square feet of fabric so beautifully and evenly across the canyon requires skill and imagination. I think all the men who worked on the project for two years might have disagreed with you that they created nothing.
If nothing else, they created discussion 47 years later on the meaning of their work.
Also, you can admit that there was skill, imagination, and creation involved, even if you think there is not worthy of your bestowal of the title “art.”
No, there’s no artistic skill. Also, it isn’t the skill of the artist. You might suggest that all of those workers are artists… but Christo is not. Simply creating something that requires work is not art. If I make the world’s largest stick figure, it’s still a stick figure. In that sense, I’d say it is entertainment, or novelty, but not art.
Also, you say “beautifuly.” We’ve already debated this, and while beauty is surely in the eye of the beholder (sometimes), my eye is correct, and yours is wrong. :) It ain’t beautiful. It’s gaudy. If I was driving down that road, my only thought would be “holy crap, I hope that giant ugly tarp doesn’t fall on my car.”
Also, 47 years later, we’re not discussing the meaning of his work. We’re discussing whether it qualifies as art or not. If a composer writes something, and 47 years later, people are asking “is this really music?” I’d say that’s proof that it is not.
Forgive me for not finding your artistic criticism very persuasive.
I’m not criticizing art, though. I’m simply pointing out that it isn’t art at all. :)
No, I said, “beautifully.” I spelled the word correctly.
Perhaps you did not read Titus’ objections to Christo’s work, one of which is that it does not inspire thoughtfulness. If the work is meaningless, it cannot inspire thoughtfulness, so of course if behooves me to point out the meaning.
You can make your points, but please allow me to make my own!
Consider those high concrete barriers that are put up along the sides of freeways as noise abatement for the neighborhoods behind them. Something has definitely been created, and it certainly took skill. Many of them have various designs on their faces, meaning that there was imagination involved in both the wall itself and they design put upon it. Is it art?
What if you find out that the one who did the design work was Christo? Is it art then?
Haha, yes, I’m surprised the spell checker did not catch that one.
(But I’m still a better speller than Christo is an artist!)
I find your dogged insistence that there is no art and no beauty telling me more about you than about the quality of Christo’s art.
I find your implication that I would only check the name of the artist to determine if it is art or not insulting.
Hey, I haven’t insisted that there is no art and no beauty. Only that I’m a bit more limited in what should qualify as “art.” As I said, I certainly don’t begrudge (except in a purely joking manner) anyone their appreciation of what Christo does. But I don’t call it art. I call it a production, or a display, or entertainment, or novelty. Some might think it is beautiful, and that’s fine. Pretty much the entire novelty is in its sheer enormity, which I happen to find gimmicky. Think of it this way. There are a log of “musicians” who put on a huge show, but whose music is, well… less than enduring. It’s about the show, and people love it. But I don’t really describe it as music.
Much of this stuff is the same thing as that. Sure, there’s some value in it (for those who like it), and certainly it is impressive. It’s just not art.
I did not mean to seem to say you don’t think art or beauty exist, just that you don’t think there is any art or beauty in Christo’s work.
I don’t think he intended that to be personal. I’d say much the same thing about what some of these people do. Take my previous example of 4’33” (my reference previously said 3’33”). That’s one thing. It is crap. It’s not music, it is not art, it is insulting to anyone who appreciates music and to anyone who has ever written or performed music. If I did it, I would certainly not be praised. John Cage is praised for it… because … I have no idea. Probably because he had very, very rich friends. Maybe he even had a classical education and undeniable skills. But if someone came along and wrote that garbage, it would go nowhere. People like that essentially buy fame, and the fame then legitimizes the “art,” and so on. When I see that kind of thing, I envision a very spoiled aristocrat who has never heard the word “no” in his life. Maybe that’s not specifically accurate, but that’s what I think of. It’s also why that stuff will not endure. In 200 years, people will see 4’33” and laugh at how stupid we were; but they will still hear Beethoven and be moved.
Well, as I said. Beauty is sometimes subjective. I live in Yakima, WA. We’re 40% (or more) Mexican. I see some stuff around here that I think is gaudy and extremely ugly. Like houses painted bright yellow and green… Some people think that’s beautiful. I don’t begrudge them that. The bright orange tarp could be seen as beautiful, if you really like orange. Nothing wrong with that. But I’m defining art narrowly. Lots of stuff is beautiful that is not art.
Neither did I. But I still find it insulting.
Perhaps Judgemental needs to look to see if he likes the artist before he determines if the work is good or not, but I don’t think I do.
Who’s being insulting now? I asked a question that went directly to the point of the conversation. I thought of another large installation that I think of as a similar kind of eyesore. One of those is considered art, and the other is not. Does calling the second of those art make it art? Does adding a design by a recognized artist make it art? You have decided that the question is insulting, regardless of intent. Your response was to be intentionally insulting.
This is the question you asked of me.
I intended to point out that asking me if knowing the name of artist affects my liking of the work is insulting. If you think that me asking whether or not you need to check the name of the artist to determine if you will like the art is insulting, then you can understand why I didn’t like it either.
Some of them, yes. I have seen some really beautiful ones. And others at least make an effort.
I’ll be honest: much as I appreciate it when public works cost no more than they should, when care has been taken to make these concrete barriers beautiful – and sometimes beautiful and interesting – it gladdens my heart.
Water towers that are at least decorative do it, too. A town near us for years has maintained painting on the surface of their water tower that’s supposed to make it look like a rosebud. I find the effort horribly executed, to tell the truth. But I could imagine a better execution being a warranted point of civic pride, even if it is a little gimmicky. As it is, I think the design is already a point of civic pride – awful as I find the execution, they must keep touching it up and preserving it.
I asked that in the context of the work being done by an artist, rather than a civil engineer. I’ve asked the question a couple of times now. If a new noise abatement barrier is built, and the design work is done by
Christosome-artist-of-undetermined-identity, does that make it art? I ask, because with his installations, it seems as if I’m expected to consider his work art, because it was done by an artist.It’s a tautology; artists do art, art is done by artists.