Cloud Gate, Anish Kapoor PHOTO: Chris Coleman
I recently heard this interchange: “That damn project is all wrong. It’ll destroy the canyon, it is not good art and it’ll get somebody killed.” To which the recipient of this observation replied. “I like it. It’ll be cool to float under, it’s killer art and I think we’ll all make some coin off it too.”
There are some local topics that continue to surface and challenge valley residents, upper and lower, to consider our shared living space. Susan Tweit’s observations about The Over The River project have inspired extensive comments and lively discussion here on The Citizen.
It’s not always easy to figure out why we like —or dislike, certain pieces of art, or displays of artwork.
Some folks will like it. Some folks will not. Such is subjectivity.
However, If you are against the project, proponents will ask you to step back and ask yourself why? Perhaps ask you to defend your position? This is a recurring theme in the comments section below Susan’s essay. Now, if you are in support of Over The River, as some locals enthusiastically are —it is equally as sticky.
In the case of large scale public art, permanent or temporary, common sense would advise Christo supporters to consider how far their support of publicly displayed art extends beyond their own aesthetic?
John Unger proposes some intersting ideas in an essay called Open Source Public Art that are worth a review. Additionally, I pulled the critique outline below from a resource called ArtsEdge. Through this lens, I encourage you to explore the project further, and comment below.
Please pass this on to anyone you know that is interested in the Christo project. Considering that discussion, as well as debate, are a stated objective of the artist(s), we owe it to ourselves to raise the issues in a way that respects the academic history of art critique…pourquoi pas?
Below is a sample set of focus questions for an art critique related to four major areas of art criticism: description, analysis, interpretation, judgment. (The number of questions and aspects of specificity will vary according to the art form and number of works in the critique). Critiques help people hone their persuasive oral and writing, information-gathering, and justification skills. A critique is an oral or written discussion strategy used to analyze, describe, and interpret works of art.
Description
Describe the work without using value words such as “beautiful” or “ugly”:
-What is the written description on the label or in the program about the work?
-What is the title and who is (are) the artist(s)?
-When and where was the work created?
-Describe the elements of the work (i.e., line movement, light, space).
-Describe the technical qualities of the work (i.e., tools, materials, instruments).
-Describe the subject matter. What is it all about? Are there recognizable images?
Analysis
Describe how the work is organized as a complete composition:
-How is the work constructed or planned (i.e., acts, movements, lines)?
-Identify some of the similarities throughout the work (i.e., repetition of lines, two songs in each act).
-Identify some of the points of emphasis in the work (i.e., specific scene, figure, movement).
-If the work has subjects or characters, what are the relationships between or among them?
Interpretation
Describe how the work makes you think or feel:
-Describe the expressive qualities you find in the work. What expressive language would you use to describe the qualities (i.e., tragic, ugly, funny)?
-Does the work remind you of other things you have experienced (i.e., analogy or metaphor)?
-How does the work relate to other ideas or events in the world and/or in your other studies?
Judgment or Evaluation
Present your opinion of the work’s success or failure:
-What qualities of the work make you feel it is a success or failure?
-Compare it with similar works that you think are good or bad.
-What criteria can you list to help others judge this work?
-How original is the work? Why do you feel this work is original or not original?
Courtesy of ARTSEDGE — the National Arts and Education Network — supports the placement of the arts at the center of the curriculum and advocates creative use of technology to enhance the K-12 educational experience. ARTSEDGEempowers educators to teach in, through, and about the arts by providing the tools to develop interdisciplinary curricula that fully integrate the arts with other academic subjects. ARTSEDGE offers free, standards-based teaching materials for use in and out of the classroom, as well as professional development resources, student materials, and guidelines for arts-based instruction and assessment.
Hi Bill,
Your article/comments on the Christo project are well grounded. As said by John Unger, one of the elements of public art is the discussion it will create within the community. This discussion can be positive and resourceful about the project itself, whether you are for or against it. Through these discussions a community can learn a lot about each other.
By the way I like the photo at the top!
PJ
As any Zen teacher worth his or her salt would say:
Show me, don’t tell me.
Hi Mark, do you mean for Christo to show the finished art before you begin forming an opinion, or for me to demonstrate an art analysis and critique? Sorry if I’m confused..happy holidays!
Bill–
Bill–
Just that words will always come up short. Analysis, criticism, dissection–all never really reach the source. Christo has been analyzed so much that there’s nothing left but to experience the art. Let’s just get on with it….people can go into rapture, they can fall asleep, they can puke, they can clap and fall all over themselves, they can…whatever. I’m personally not “into” his art at all, but I have no objection to letting it happen. What I do resent is being “hijacked” into a forced consideration of his art. That is an invasion in my mind. So…I say let it be done so we all can be done with it, and we no longer need to share our consciousness with Christo sleeping in our mental beds.
Drat! Now I’m stuck with the mental image of Christo asleep in my bed.
When will the final decision be made about the OTR Project ?
From the BLM website:
The Draft EIS should be available for public review and comment in June 2010. The Final EIS is scheduled for release in January 2011, with the Record of Decision to be issued in March 2011.
The BLM will accept public comments throughout the EIS process.
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 propoganda. 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 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
Hey all,
I’m currently doing research about the general opinion of the iPad. What do you think about it?
It seems like not everyone is thrilled about the iPad. They say the iPad has been hyped too much by Apple and it’s not nearly as revolutionary as they make us believe it to be.
On the other hand there people can’t wait to get their hands on it.
What do you think about the iPad and it’s features? I will collect some of the input and write a nice article about it!
Would have appreciated a request for permission to use my photograph for your use. It is clearly stated on the page that it is not to reproduced without permission. I typically don’t have a problem with non-commercial use. Just like to know where it is going and at least a photo credit.
For James, the iPad rocks and I bought mine from commercial sales of this photo…
My apologies! Though I certainly should have dug deeper, this was sent to me by a friend in Chicago with my understanding that it was a royalty free image from the City Of Chicago —apparently this is not the case. I found no credit, and now realize, to your chagrin I imagine, that it is all over the web. As a photographer, I always seek permission and pay appropriately. I feel terrible for not doing the proper due diligence. You are credited. As a community web site with virtually no budget, let me know what I can do to compensate you. It is a beautiful image Chris. I am also happy to remove it immediately. For what it’s worth, I am often on the other side of this discussion, so am humbled accordingly. -Pub
It is a low res shot so I’m alright Bill. Simple credit and link if possible is appreciated!
I am a little leery of using a checklist or formula to measure art. It reminds of the scene in Dead Poets Society about measuring a poem using scales of perfection and importance. Here is a link… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiKM6g-dfBo&feature=related, around the two minute mark.
That said I, like PJ, appreciate and encourage the discussion of Art in general and OTR more specifically. I think we can learn something about each other and the discussion, but I guess I wonder if we really learn something about the art being discussed. A lot of the discussion seems to focus the economics of OTR, which I wonder about. If I look at a piece of PJs art, which I enjoy, it never enters my mind to consider the economics of it. But when people are discussing public art, especially large scale public art, economics always comes up. Is art “better’ if it has some sort of positive on a cost benefit scale? If the economic impact of a large scale art project could even measured completely, which i doubt, should it matter whether or not it comes out plus or minus? Should we only allow public art that brings in more revenue than it costs? The discussion of course in more poignant when considering whether to spend public money (taxpayer money) on art that not everyone sees value in. Then we start saying, it is okay because it will bring in money… and the discussion never gets back to the art, but stays with the economics. And so the discussion, while informative of people’s views, doesn’t really center around the art, but money and process.
Personally – I have seen another of Christo’s projects and I found it powerful. Perhaps I should go through the exercise above, to better put it into words, but I really don’t want to. I find the experience of art an emotional and visceral act, and I want to keep it that way. I agree with Mark above, the experience of art is where the rubber meets the road.