Art, it is said, reveals the familiar in new light. By that definition, “Over the River,” the landscape-scale project envisioned by artists Christo and the late Jeanne-Claude, is already a success even though it’s possible installation is still years away.
As planned, “Over the River” comprises some six miles of fabric panels suspended like huge awnings above part of the Arkansas River between Cañon City and Salida for two weeks.
Opponents fear the project will ruin a “pristine” river canyon, drive off bighorn sheep and other wildlife, cause traffic gridlock on the sole route running through the canyon, prevent access for emergency vehicles, and cost the taxpayers an enormous sum of money. Proponents wax similarly enthusiastic about the project’s virtues.
What is it about “Over the River” that has provoked such a passionate response?
It could be the scale of the project, which will employ hundreds of porous fabric panels as wide as 120 feet, attached to cables stretched above the water and secured by thousands of removable bolts. The longest block of panels will extend 2.5 river miles, the shortest less than a third of a mile.
It could be the potential environmental effects. Neither river nor canyon are actually pristine: a transcontinental railroad was blasted along one bank in the late 1880s, a highway blasted up the other beginning in the 1920s, and increasing numbers of houses dot the canyon walls.
Unlike these projects, the artists propose a positive footprint, leaving the landscape in better shape than they found it, and removing and recycling all waste, construction materials, and trash.
It could be the wildlife, including some 400 bighorn sheep beloved of area residents, although these animals have survived decades of railroad and highway construction projects, introduction of diseases from domestic livestock, human development, recreation activities, trapping and radio-collaring, and the thousands of vehicles that pass through the canyon each year.
It could be the traffic, with an estimated quarter-million people coming to see “Over the River.” Traffic issues aren’t uncommon in the canyon: boxcar-sized chunks of cliff have dropped on the highway, closing it for weeks, road projects regularly impede traffic for moths; accidents cause hours of delay.
The project has hired traffic planners and will pay for medivac helicopters and extra emergency personnel, and will explore mass transit and alternate routes.
It could be the money, although “Over the River” is paying for everything from environmental review to public employee time and expenses, and restoration.
Perhaps it’s simply the idea of something so ephemeral and quixotic as suspending panels of fabric over a river where they will shimmer and ripple for two weeks, shifting our view of water and sky and landscape–showing us a new perspective on a place that is both everyday and extraordinary.
That, to my mind, is the whole point of art: It asks us to pay attention to things we might otherwise not notice, and in the doing, it transforms our view of life, and our role in it.
Copyright 2009 Susan J. Tweit
Loading ...
Susan, thank you for that succinct review of the issues surrounding this controversial project. I hope Cristo can complete his vision, even without Jean Claude.
I really liked this persective (I also happen to agree whole heartedly with Susan).
I love how part of the art is the discussion and controversy about it. Jeanne Claude and Cristo have already succeeded.
I grew up in Florida, in 1983, Christo and Jean Claude surrounded 11 islands in Biscayne Bay with pink polypropylene. After floating for 2 weeks around the islands, 6.5 million square feet of pink polypropylene was hauled to the Dade County landfill and buried. Waste of that magnitude, promoted and embraced as art, made me sick. Ever since then I’ve had an aversion to all things Christo/Jean Claude.
My emotional response, of course, is merely part of the process.
What ever happens ( and I think the odds are much lower now) this whole process has really forced us to all to think alot about art, enviromental art, and the impacts and or benifits to it and this project in particular. People who have experienced the canyon for years in rafts,kayaks, walking ,fishing or even driving at 60 mph I imagine will never think of it quite the same way again. So if Christo walked away it would be one of the greatest conceptual peices ever worked up. I think to do that would certainly blow some minds. BTW -he did haul away tons of trash before surrounding those FLA. islands.
Union-Pacific is already exhibiting an under-the-radar art installation in the canyon above Parkdale. Its a reflection on the crumbling decline of extraction based Capitalism in the US, with clear references to the Situationist International and neo-Dadaists.
Its called “Trash over the Ties”.
I’ve got a whole new take. Although I do believe there are some people who truly fear the project and it’s possible repercussions- those fears are largely based on misinformation.
I think it goes deeper. For example, I’ve argued with folks in the past that consider themselves ‘patriotic Americans’. They love their country, value our democratic process and would die to protect our freedom. Yet, these red blooded Americans were willing to jeopardize all of the above by voting for a shallow thinker in Sarah Palin. The more I tried to reason with her supporters, the more I realized that it wasn’t so much that they supported her, but the idea that she angered the ‘liberal left’ to the degree she did. Many conservatives perceive the left as a morally bankrupt movement bent on ramming their agenda down their throats. They resent it so much that they are willing to vote against their (and ours) best interests by distorting reality to the point of convincing themselves that it would have been just fine to vote Palin into office. (Stay with me here!) Likewise, I believe many anti Christo activists perceive a similar confrontation where a ‘high falutin city slicker artist type’ thinks he’s gonna come to our mountain community and tell us what to do. It’s not that they really believe the canyon is pristine (it’s not) or that they think wildlife is endangered (it won’t be ). But they will align themselves with R.O.A.R for the sake of opposing something that represents a group that they think is telling them how to live. Despite their impassioned pleas to prevent this art project, I believe they remain, as I have said before, Misinformed East Of Wellsville. ( aka M.E.O.W.)
By the way, I too grew up in Florida, and visited the surrounded islands by boat. I thought it was goofy (hell, I was a pre teen) but appreciate it now. The islands were spotless when Christo’s team left. True, the pink plastic was disposed of, but Christo, like many artists, has since evolved and learned from his mistakes and now recycles everything.
I can appreciate the views on both sides . But , the damage to the canyon from the rairoad and Highway 50 are done and over with . That doesn’t make it ok , but we still use Highway 50 and may use the rails again in the future . Even if the railways are never used again they brought a great deal of progress to the area back in the day of it’s use . Do we allow more damage to the canyon for the sake of art ? Just because something was done in the past doesn’t make it ok now . In the end , when the EIS is done and the project is approved or not , we will still have the awesome place that is The Bighorn Sheep Canyon .
As someone who has rafted the canyon over 500 times I fail to see how Christo can do any noticable damage to steep embankments of broken rock that were left from constructing the hiway and R.R. Not ony that many of these rocks have holes in them from from all the drilling and blasting that took place. Ad to that the years of trash tossed over the bank by motorists and the R.R. and you have upon close inspection a river corridor that is FAR from pristine. If Christo gets to do his project (and that is a big if) and picks up the trash and removes the anchors and fills up said holes I can see the area along the river becoming actually better than he found it.
I believe I read that the OTR Project included drilling several thousand holes and embedding 7 foot long anchors in the rock and then leaving them behind when the project is done . I hope that if this thing happens it turns out ok and nothing regrettable happens to either people or the environment . I really enjoy this website . After all , it’s ok that we don’t all agree on everything . Good Day .
Thanks for the nice words Joe, and Jack, thanks for your participation as always. We monitor the comments sections to help ensure that we are all “getting to someplace better” because of them. Hopefully you will tell us if we are not facilitating good discussion about issues.
With that said, and for all who are reading, I want to remind you that anyone can submit an opinion piece, though we do ask that you review our editorial standards. Thanks! http://salidacitizen.com/standards/
…don’t let me stop the discussion. I’m enjoying it!
The Cañon City Daily Record has published a laudatory article by Debbie Bell looking back at Christo’s work on the Valley Curtain in Rifle. “More than 37 years later, former town leaders still speak with enthusiasm for that project and its 142,000-square-foot bright-orange nylon fabric.”
I can’t tell you all how many people have come into my gallery and ripped on Christo saying that he left a “huge mess” at Rifle gap. I am glad to see that this misinformation is finally being strongly refuted. My personal feeling why so many residents in the canyon are against this is simply because after living there and commuting for a while they realize maybe it is not as great a place to locate as they first thought when they moved there. That hiway 50 through there is dangerous and subject to many problems leaving people “trapped”. I did the commute from Salida to Cotopaxi for 6 years and got way over it. Whether Christo gets to do his project or not, the traffic, the wrecks, the rock slides and associated back-ups are only going to get worse and the people moving there and building more houses are just another part of the problem.
I thought that I would respect your lively discussion by proposing a new direction in discourse about Christo: http://salidacitizen.com/2009/12/the-christo-discussion-continues/
awesome article!
The article espouses that art reveals the familiar in new light. Christo’s proposed drapes aren’t revealing anything, they are in fact covering it up!! Then it goes on to describe OTR as “Landscape scale”, a term that I can only find used in conjunction with conservation, which OTR is most certainly not,
It is industrial scale, massive industrial construction, using the very same equipment which is used to drill for oil and gas, an activity which is prohibited in Bighorn Sheep Canyon. No oil and gas drilling, but Christo wants to drill 8992 drill holes for anchors, in an area that specifically prohibits that activity. In comparison, only 23,481 oil and gas wells were drilled in the State of Colorado in the past 8 years. Why is this area closed to drilling you ask? Because the DOW believes it would harm one of the few remaining indigenous Bighorn Sheep herds remaining in the state.
The author states the canyon isn’t pristine. I can agree with that statement, however is it a laudable goal to irretrievably degrade it further? Bighorn Sheep, spotted owl habitat, area of critical environmental concern, threatened and endangered species habitat, bordering a WSA, sounds like a wonderful place for a 3 year industrial strength assault to cover up nature’s beauty with tarps. NOT.
Medivac choppers ? Sure, but the winds have to allow them to fly, and they need a place to land, aren’t many of those in the canyon, then EMS personnel have to access them with the patient. Lot of things must to be just right for this to play out. Sounds good on paper though.Traffic jams, 3 years of one laning the highway, accidents, deaths, hobo camps for the workers, just a few items I take issue with.
I also challenge the statement that no public subsidy will be necessary for the project. While it is true that the EIS will be funded by Christo and he promises that he will pay for everything, there are certain governmental functions that cannot be privatized, such as compliance oversight for construction, management of traffic and safety issues, review of the EIS by federal, state and local officials, and enforcement of reclamation obligations, all of which will be funded by the state and federal taxpayers.
Christo admits that we’ll get 4% of the 200 million dollar projected revenue to split with neighboring towns, that sounds like a huge windfall for 3 years worth of “inconvenience”, but when you take into account the displaced visitors and the revenue they bring, that 4% starts to fade. 4% of 200 mil is 8 mil, divided by 3 years is 7,306.00 per day. Dividing that by the 4 towns closest to the project leaves 1825.00 for each town. For Salida, divide that by 200 businesses leaves $9.13 for each business per day. We’ll all be rich !!
It’s a truly novel idea, proposed in the worst location imaginable. Stop the madness, just say NO to Christo
Marshall and I have sparred in the editorial pages over the last few years on this subject and I have to say, of all the anti Christo rhetoric, his is the least reactionary and seems to be thought out better than what I usually read from those who are against the project. Nonetheless, I think Marshall and many other writers have a tendency to focus strictly on the worst case scenarios. Case in point–there is a big difference between drilling a few feet into rocks (that have for the most part been placed for road and railroad construction), and drilling deep into the earth for oil. Furthermore, from what I understand, the inconvenience that canyon commuters will endure over three years has been greatly exaggerated by R.O.A.R.
There are risks to implementing this project. But there also risks to running the Numbers at high water and even riding a chairlift in a storm, yet the payoff invariably makes the gamble worth it.
Scott,
I wish what you write were indeed the case, I’m not focusing on worst case scenarios, I’m simply basing my position on the facts and not interjecting propoganda into the discussion.
What I write of course includes what I feel about the project, however my feelings are fostered by the facts, taken directly from Christo’s OTR plan.
You and I have a different outlook on what 10 feet is. I consider a few feet to be 2 or 3. Christo is installing anchors which are 9 feet long, requiring a hole between 9.5 and 10 feet deep into the bedrock, not into the lose rocks placed for the railroad, this is into the bedrock. Remember, these panels are huge sails, and if not anchored properly can tear lose in the wind, just like what occurred at the failed Rifle Gap display. I won’t go into the issue that the whole project is engineered for 45 MPH winds, while Christo’s own measurements prove winds exceed that speed in the canyon.
As to the “inconvienience” of traffic issues faced by the commuters, please take particular note of the number of days drilling will occur, between 26,976 (1,124 days) and 35,968 (1,498 days) hours of drilling to install the anchors alone. This does not include installing the “anchor transition frames,” cables or panels.
Then factor in that in many of the places where a crane is to be used on the road for drilling, that the road is only 40 feet wide. The crane which is specified IN THE PLAN to be used in THOSE LOCATIONS is 30 feet wide. Add the CDOT traffic buffer requirement (6 feet) into that equation, and you don’t have room to get a car past, much less a semi. This isn’t exaggeration, this is what Christo is proposing, all laid out in photographs with details, down to the last anchor location.
Now, Christo’s plan clearly says it takes between 3 to 4 hours to drill one of the 10 foot deep holes for the anchors. Best case scenario, it takes the crane 15 minutes to set up and another 15 minutes to dismantle so it can be moved. Yep, a full road closure for at least an hour, and more likely longer at a time. Sit and think about that, add it all together and you have a total of 8 hours to drill one hole using the above scenario, and there’s 8992 of them to be drilled, half of them on the road side. Seems from a practical standpoint, to drill for 2 hours at a time, which is likely what will happen should OTR be approved. Christo has a long record of getting things approved, and then doing as he wishes. Now, I’m looking at a 2 to 3.5 hour road closure, and you think I’m being over-reactive, and this is an acceptable inconvenience for 3 long years ?!?!?!?,
It’s in the OTR plan appendice, all laid out by Christo’s design team.
I’m all for the risk – benefit analysis, and a cost benefit analysis, both of them, for a project such as OTR might make sense for a major metro area such as Denver, however it makes no sense for Bighorn Sheep Canyon, especially as the scope of the project is 3 years.
Here, for your reading pleasure is a Condensed Summary of Christo’s Over the River (OTR) Plan Facts and Issues. The facts were taken from the OTR project plan, not Christo’s propaganda. The issues are very real, and a lot more impactful than Christo would like you to believe.
Fact The panels will be suspended using a total of 8,992 nine foot rock anchors. Where bedrock is not available for drilling, concrete caissons will be used for anchor placement.
Issue 8,992 anchors will require 8,992 10 foot deep drill holes. In comparison, only 23,481 oil and gas wells were drilled in the entire State of Colorado in the past 8 years, an average of about 2,900 wells per year. Christo’s proposal, then, is to shoehorn the equivalent of 2 ½ times the number of annual STATEWIDE oil and gas drill holes within 5.9 miles of designated bighorn sheep habitat in Bighorn Sheep Canyon EVERY YEAR of the 2 year construction period.
The weight of each anchor would be between 13.5 lbs and 118 lbs, depending on the diameter – which was not specified. Total cumulative weight of all the anchors would then be between 121,392 lbs and 1,068,249 lbs.
88% of this would be left behind. (Christo proposes to leave all anchors and concrete caissons 12 inches below the surface in perpetuity).
How will the sheer volume of drill holes and weight of the anchors affect the stability of the rock and erosion in the Canyon? Will rockslides become more common?
Fact The Plan proposes using almost 7 tons of polypropylene fabric.
Issue Polypropylene is a petroleum-based product. What are the environmental (and greenhouse gas effects) effects of manufacturing and transporting the panels? What are the effects on the River if the petroleum-based panels are blown into the River?
Fact Drilling of anchors typically takes between 3 and 4 hours at any one anchor point.
Issue This means between 26,976 (1,124 days) and 35,968 (1,498 days) hours of drilling to install the anchors alone. This does not include installing the “anchor transition frames,” cables or panels.
Fact Christo’s publicity states that all activity in the “busy summer months” will take place on the railroad side of the river. The publicity fails to tell “the rest of the story.”
Issue This publicity ignores the relevant fact that if you add up the activity days listed in the drilling and event schedules in the Plan, Christo proposes 600.7 activity days on the highway side, 493.35 activity days on the railroad side and 1227.07 activity days that are unspecified as to location. The Plan also notes that highway side lane closures will occur during the weeks prior to the exhibit – this is within the “peak summer months.”
Fact A 6 x 8 foot oval area (48 square feet) of disturbance of vegetation will be required for each anchor point. Equipment access for drilling will require 5 feet in width for a small drill, 20 feet for a larger drill. Total area of vegetation disturbed for access to drilling areas is unexplained in the Plan.
Issue If you multiply the number of anchors (8,992) by the area to be disturbed by drilling each anchor (48 sq. ft.), you will understand that 431,616 square feet of vegetation will be removed or disturbed for drilling alone (this is close to 10 acres). This figure does not match the estimates for total vegetation impact of anchor point clearing, equipment access and pathways of 4.7 acres (listed later on same page of the plan). This illustrates inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the plan proposal.
Fact Elsewhere the plan notes only 240,053 square feet of total surface disturbance (a little more than 5.5 acres). This does not include the use of US 50 shoulders, railroad corridor, or, presumably, private land.
Issue How could there be total surface disturbance of only 240,053 square feet when the Plan notes that 431,616 square feet of vegetation will be removed or disturbed for drilling alone?
Fact The Plan states that the anchor transition frames (ATFs) will require excavating 2,472.8 cubic yards of soil.
Issue A typical dump truck utilized in this area carries 10 to 12 cubic yards, so this would amount to 200 to 250 dump truck loads of excavated material. Couple this with the above vegetation disturbance area solely for the installation of the anchors and ATF units and the disturbance covers nearly 20 acres.
Fact Christo proposes two alternatives: 7.7 miles of fabric panels and 10.4 miles of fabric panels.
Issue No locations for these expanded project alternatives are specified. These alternative proposals would increase the number of panels, anchors and infrastructure (and impacts) by 30% and 76%, respectively.
Fact The Plan acknowledges sedimentation (pollution) may occur into the Arkansas River.
Issue The Plan does not acknowledge the need for a Clean Water Act “404” permit. Discharges of sediment and other substances into the river are illegal without a State-issued 401 permit and an Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit.
Fact The Plan does not address the real potential for increased costs of commodities for Salida and Canon City due to traffic impacts and use of alternate routes during construction and viewing period.
Issue Will there be shortages of water, fuel, food? How will increased transportation costs affect the local consumer?
Fact The Plan acknowledges the following unavoidable impacts:
- potential disturbance and other impacts to bighorn sheep
- potential bird-cable collisions
- disruptions to residents
- increased travel/commuting time
- increase in solid waste, crowd control and provision of emergency services
Fact Portions of the project will be located within in the Arkansas Canyonlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) and adjacent to the McIntyre Hills Wilderness Study Area (WSA).
Issue Is this project appropriate located so close to the WSA and within an ACEC? Will the EIS address impacts to the WSA and ACEC?
Fact The panels are designed for 42 mph wind speeds, although the Plan acknowledges higher wind speeds in at least one panel section.
Issue Wind speeds in Howard routinely reach 60-80 MPH as recorded by a local weather station.
Fact The Plan notes that activities in areas designated by BLM or CDOW as sensitive for Bighorn sheep, lambing, wintering or drinking areas will be prohibited when these areas are most likely to be used.
Issue CDOW has recently designated areas encompassing 7 of the 9 panel sections as “no surface occupancy” or wintering range for oil and gas drilling. CDOW reports indicate that the bighorn sheep utilize these areas generally year round. How could oil and gas drilling be prohibited, but intensive drilling to install anchors – utilizing the same types of equipment in closer density – be allowed?
While there are regulations for drilling, environmental standards and reclamation associated with oil and gas and mining development, THERE ARE NO REGULATIONS regarding these same activities if they are utilized for art projects, even though the impacts are the same.
Fact Mitigation proposed in the Plan for impacts to Bighorn sheep includes “luring sheep away from the river with food and water” and “importation” of sheep from other areas.
Issue Bighorn sheep are not like domestic sheep and cattle that easily can be replaced. Where does OTR Corporation propose to get the imported sheep? Will other Colorado herds be impacted in order to facilitate this art project? CDOW wildlife biologists have noted that the Canyon’s Bighorn sheep herd is particularly unique because it is a largely indigenous herd. Does “luring” the sheep away from the Canyon fit best mitigation practices for wildlife? Generally speaking, feeding wildlife is not encouraged.
Fact The Plan states that OTR contractors are allowed to use US 50 pullouts throughout the year, even in “peak summer months.”
Issue Will pullouts utilized by fishermen and rafters be taken by OTR during the busy summer rafting season, and the heavily attended spring caddis and summer and fall angling seasons? This indicates that Christo indeed proposes summer OTR activity on the highway side.
Fact Fabric panels will be removed within 2 weeks of the viewing period. Cables will be removed within 6 weeks of the viewing period.
Issue Practically speaking, some activity on the highway side will be required to remove the panels and unhook the cables from that side of the river. This activity falls within the end of the “peak summer months” and then into the school year. Are lane closures anticipated to facilitate cable removal? If so, how will this impact school bus traffic? Extensive activity will be required to remove the anchors and anchor transition frames, fill drill holes, and restore, reclaim and revegetate excavated areas on the highway side of the river. Are lane closures anticipated to facilitate these activities? Again, how will this impact school bus traffic?
Fact The Plan acknowledges that lodging in Salida, Canon City, Pueblo and Colorado Springs is normally fully occupied in July and August during the viewing periods. OTR visitors will displace normal visitors and this time of year. The Plan notes that the areas likely to gain from increased demand for lodging from OTR visitors are Breckenridge, Aspen, Snowmass, Vail and Denver.
Issue There will be no local revenue gains to businesses and government tax revenues from lodging due to OTR. The areas with economic gains are the most well-off areas of the state, while the local governments are the ones that will be strained without an accompanying tax revenue boost. While admitting this effect – the Plan then neglects to net out the lodging and other expenditures that will be offset by losses due to displaced visitors, in essence taking credit for economic activity that is already occurring.
Fact Some anchors will be placed in wetlands, primarily in the Parkdale area, and impacts on wetlands from erosion and sedimentation from drilling is anticipated. The Plan also anticipates sedimentation from soil disturbance areas during high-intensity precipitation. Fuel also may be carried into these wetlands.
Issue The Plan does not call for a Clean Water Act 404 permit. Discharges of sediment, fuel and other substances into the river are illegal without a State-issued 401 permit and an Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit. Is there a wetland mitigation plan?
Fact The Plan does not anticipate that a visual resource management analysis will be required because of the “temporary” nature of the construction, viewing and removal.
Issue A three year project is not “temporary.” Also, since OTR proposes project elements will be left in place (portions of anchors, etc.), and erosion is likely to expose these elements, a full VRM analysis of the project, and its permanent characteristics should be conducted.
Fact Christo claims that the Environmental Impact Statement is being prepared “at the artists’ request.”
Issue This is true, although it again fails to tell “the rest of the story.” We do not know what transpired in private meetings between BLM and Christo regarding the decision in 2006 to change tracks from the then-in-process environmental assessment (EA) to a full environmental impact statement (EIS). The law requires (the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA) that for large projects on federal lands (mines, oil and gas development, ski resorts and OTR) an EA is prepared in order to find out if project impacts are significant. If they are not significant, then an EA provides sufficient analysis for BLM to approve the project. If the impacts ARE significant, then an EA is not sufficient and an EIS is REQUIRED BY LAW as one of steps BLM must take before it can approve a project. We surmise that during EA preparation, Christo saw the writing on the wall that the OTR impacts were so significant that an EA was not legally sufficient. At that point the decision was probably made to elevate the analysis to an EIS. This voluntary action does not mean that an EIS was not legally required, or that Christo’s decision is especially laudable. The practical effect of this decision is to save Christo time and money by skipping the EA.
For more information please go to http://www.roarcolorado.org, or contact ROAR at contactroar@roarcolorado.org or ROAR, P.O. Box 786, Canon City, Colorado 81215. ROAR is an all volunteer non-profit organization dedicated to protecting and preserving Bighorn Sheep Canyon and its inhabitants.
It has been pointed out to me that I posted an incorrect address for R.O.A.R. The correct address is below
ROAR
662 Wapiti Trail
Canon City, CO 81212
WE ADAMANTLY AND VEHEMENTLY “SAY NO” TO THE “CHRISTO OVER THE RIVER” PROJECT!!! LEAVE COLORADO’S NATURE AND BEAUTY ALONE; OUR AREA IS PICTURESQUE, SCENIC, AND CHARMING IN GOD’S COUNTRY. WE DO NOT WANT OR NEED HUMAN “ENHANCEMENT” TO FURTHER CONGEST OUR SMALLER TOWNS WITH ‘LOOKIE-LOOS’, TOURISTS, TRAFFIC, CONGESTION, AND TRASH ALL OVER OUR BEAUTIFUL MOUNTAINSIDES, CLIFFS, AND WATER, DESTROYING OUR WILDLIFE’S NATURAL HABITAT AND RECREATIONAL AREAS. WE ARE TOTALLY OPPOSED TO THE hangings of “about seven miles of translucent fabric panels over eight segments of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida for 14 days (affecting as much as 45 miles of the river with huge concrete slabs and ugly steel rods drilled into our mountains) … sometime between mid-July and mid-August in 2011 at the earliest”. FORGET IT; WE DO NOT WANT THE CHRISTO PROJECT IN COLORADO OR HERE IN CANON CITY, SALIDA, OR THE ARKANSAS RIVER!
I adamantly and with great pleasure say YES to Over the River. This project will allow all that see it to reevaluate and reaffirm the beauty of our river and landscape. This is one of the main goals to which art aspires and sometimes fulfills. Christo and Jeanne Claude have been exceptional at showing us the man-made and natural world with new eyes.
Our area is picturesque, scenic and charming but human nature forces us all to take even the most beautiful and necessary for granted. Human nature also forces us to change and alter everything around us; sometimes with trash, sometimes for our own convenience, and very rarely with great beauty. Over the River Project is the rare effort that is thoughtful and beautiful, and forces us all to reevaluate the nature of a river, its banks and the sky above. It also forces us to reevaluate where and how we live, and if living in a small valley, building our houses in a bottle neck is really pristine and thoughtful to nature as we wish to be. Art works that truly transcends the ordinary makes us think hard and passionately about our beliefs, assumptions and desires, otherwise we pass over the world around us with a blink of an eye, without a thought in our heads.
I adamantly and with great pleasure say YES to Over the River. This project will allow all that see it to reevaluate and reaffirm the beauty of our river and landscape. This is one of the main goals to which art aspires and sometimes fulfills. Christo and Jeanne Claude have been exceptional at showing us the man-made and natural world with new eyes.
Our area is picturesque, scenic and charming but human nature forces us all to take even the most beautiful and necessary for granted. Human nature also forces us to change and alter everything around us; sometimes with trash, sometimes for our own convenience, and very rarely with great beauty. Over the River Project is the rare effort that is thoughtful and beautiful, and forces us all to reevaluate the nature of a river, its banks and the sky above. It also forces us to reevaluate where and how we live, and if living in a small valley, building our houses in a bottle neck is really pristine and thoughtful to nature as we wish to be. Art works that truly transcend the ordinary make us think hard and passionately about our beliefs, assumptions and desires, otherwise we pass over the world around us with a blink of an eye, without a thought in our heads.
With reference to the most recent comments of Author Lynn DeCew, July 26, 2010, 5:51 pm and future posts.
Do you live in our area? If not, where do you live?
To you, this project may be considered “art”. You are entitled to your views and so are those of us who disagree with you.
Human nature does not “force us” to take anything for granted as you claim; on the contrary. For those of us who live in the areas of this hopefully never-approved project, we are thankful for this beautiful scenery and do not take it for granted. On the contrary, we are grateful for it and this is why we live here.
Why would we want to live in large over-populated filthy cities tainted by humans, when we can live here, in our beautiful Colorado, without human “art” as some may call this project?
Some view Artists Christo and the late Jeanne-Claude a “success” because they have lots of money for “power, prestige, and privilege”. Others view them strictly as having excess to empower others as they please because of their “fame and fortune” and self-indulgence.
Please see Marshall’s most welcomed in-depth comments and postings for a realistic comparative analysis on the negative aspects of this so-called “art” as well as numerous others who disagree with your perspective, including us.
As has been stated many times, there are some legitimate reasons to oppose this project. However, I am not convinced by the anti Christo crowd. Pollution and threats to wildlife are mentioned often. But if one actually walks along the tracks or boats this section, it is immediately apparent that those who came before did not treat this canyon well, and many who still travel and live in this canyon have continued to abuse it. Huge piles of greasy discharge from the trains can be found in many places. Chunks of automobiles, rusty barbed wire and mining refuse is found throughout this run. It’s still beautiful mind you, but I simply do not believe those who are arguing from the angle that this project will harm wildlife and ruin the canyon. I’ve said it before- the canyon ISN’T pristine. It’s got a highway on one side and railroad on the other, combined with all the development and leftover ranch projects that were abandoned over the decades. Both the highway and the railroad blasted countless tons of rock to forge an acceptable grade. If you want to take the ‘It ain’t art to me’ approach or express your disdain for the possible traffic delays then fine, but nearly every other argument holds little water. Personally, I’m thrilled that one of the fringe benefits of this project is that multiple crews (paid for by Christo) will scour the entire area for trash and debris, thereby leaving the canyon more beautiful and that much more friendly to people and wildlife.