the gates, reloaded

Long-time readers may remember my enthusiasm for The Gates, the Christo project in New York's Central Park.

I was thrilled to still be living in New York when the project happened, and I blogged about it incessantly. Old posts: when The Gates first opened, why I cared about it (in response to a reader's question), my thoughts on Gates detractors, and finally, my impressions after seeing it for the first time. (I went twice, once without a camera and once with - plus, the second time, there was snow on the ground.)

Also, some Gates fun here.

Reading these old posts, I see I was considering buying something to remember the experience. I was also happy about the little freebie giveaway, which now resides in a small clip frame near my desk.

As we got ready to leave New York, the idea of owning a signed print from the project appealed to me more and more. Allan and I both enjoyed The Gates so much, and it seemed so fitting to bring something very special, and very New York, to our new home. We decided to splurge.

Back in present-day Port Credit, I'm on another round of fixing up the house: ordering shades for the living room windows, hanging curtains in the kitchen, framing some photos, putting things on the walls. To these ends, we had our prized poster framed and hung it over the couch.

It looks like this, in a simple black frame, with Christo's signature in the bottom left margin. Click to enlarge.


I also just noticed that I saw The Gates exactly one year ago! The day we took the print in for framing was actually a year to the day; quite the coincidence. When we walked into a local art gallery with our print, the curator couldn't believe her eyes: she had just printed her own photos from The Gates and was choosing one to have enlarged and framed. Must have been something in the air.

Comments

  1. andrea18 February 2006 at 07:04

    Fantastic post, Laura. I loved trawling through your experience of The Gates and it gave me pause, once agin wondering why I've *still* never been to NYC in spite of my ongoing fascination with it. Considering the detractors (and an artist friend in Baltimore whose work I admire was one of the most vehemently closed-minded) I can't imagine such a controversial installation having the same kind of success/acceptance in Canada -- well *maybe* in TO -- and for that I once again love New York. Clearly it's unrequited love, though. :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. laura k18 February 2006 at 07:09

    Thank you, Andrea!

    And what are you waiting for? :) If you do go, check with me for recommendations and tips. I know several reasonably-priced hotels (that is, reasonable for New York) and lots of great stuff to do to stretch your tourist dollar.

    Really, as an artist, you ought to go.

    Re The Gates... it took Christo and Jeanne Claude more than 20 years to get the green light, so even New York wasn't completely keen on the idea. But New York is certainly one of the few North American cities that could pull it off.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Crabbi18 February 2006 at 10:52

    What a wonderful post! What a wonderful poster (you and the Christo ;) )! Wish I could have seen The Gates...

    I was a little mystified myself by the anti-Gates reaction. I mean, it's not as if someone put a urinal in the middle of Central Park -- not that there's anything wrong with that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. laura k18 February 2006 at 16:52

    Thank you Crabbi :)

    I was a little mystified myself by the anti-Gates reaction

    You and me both.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nerdbeard21 February 2006 at 13:32

    I was more mystified by the magnitude of the reaction in both directions. My reaction was initially, "Yeah, so?" and eventually became, "shut up about it, already!" I did enjoy reading up on Cristo and seeing photos of some of the other things that have been covered in fabric. Trees, beaches, buildings, etc.

    Boy, if I ever need something really big covered in fabric, I know exactly who to call. This stuff seems to be about novelty for novelty's sake. Take something very familiar and make it look utterly alien. It's a great effect. For about five minutes. Then I think I'd want to turn around and look at surf pounding a cliff au natural. Maybe they're trying to make me appreciate what I've already got? I dunno.

    ReplyDelete
  6. laura k21 February 2006 at 13:43

    It's definitely much more than a novelty. Whether or not it would be to your taste is a separate issue, but it is something you have to physically see and walk around to experience.

    A five-minute look wouldn't tell you anything. It would be like reading one page of a long novel, or seeing one frame of a film, and thinking you could judge its worth.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Nerdbeard21 February 2006 at 14:07

    *shrug* I'm not sure I can see an argument for the experience of novelty not being the intended effect of these installations. They usually make use of famous landmarks, or landscapes that can stand in for another that the viewer is likely to be familiar with. They radically transform the appearance "overnight", and then some short time later they are gone without a trace. I'm not saying it's BAD -- where would we be without novelty? Pretty darn bored. -- but that does seem to be the major theme in all of this.

    Where do you think I'm going wrong? What is the "much more"?

    Please pardon and ignore if this is a boring rehash for you.

    ReplyDelete
  8. laura k21 February 2006 at 14:29

    I would direct you to my older post after I first saw The Gates. It's linked above, the link called "my impressions after seeing it". That might explain what I saw in it, how I felt about it.

    For me, it was an intense experience, deeply moving, in the way that great art can be. (And I emphasize: for me).

    You're right that novelty is very important in life! But I feel to call this a novelty is to trivialize it. Like when we say "a novelty song" or a "novelty store" - they are little trinkets, meant to entertain for the moment and nothing more. Whereas The Gates felt much more substantial to me.

    They radically transform the appearance "overnight", and then some short time later they are gone without a trace.

    This is true. Yet music, theatre and dance are ephemeral art forms, and are valued no less for it. So the fact that it's short-lived doesn't make it a novelty in my eyes.

    I will say one thing for certain, though. Photos of The Gates are not The Gates. Like most art, when you see it in person, it has a completely different effect.

    ReplyDelete
  9. laura k21 February 2006 at 14:29

    Having said all that... it's quite possible that if you saw it in person, you would shrug and walk away. But it's impossible to know unless you did actually see it.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

sharia

This morning I see that Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario, is banning the Muslim religious court known as sharia . This ends months of debate about whether sharia would be legal and binding in Ontario. I'm quoting at length from the story in today's Toronto Star because many US readers are likely not up on this. In a surprise announcement that caught both supporters and opponents of sharia law off guard, Premier Dalton McGuinty says he will move quickly to ban all religious arbitration in the province. McGuinty made the announcement in a telephone interview with The Canadian Press yesterday after months of debate and controversy surrounding use of Islamic sharia law in family arbitration. "I've come to the conclusion that the debate has gone on long enough," the premier told the news agency. "There will be no sharia law in Ontario. There will be no religious arbitration in Ontario. There will be one law for all Ontarians." The announcement prompted t...
Read more

can of worms

I'm opening a sticky subject here, my need to understand causing me to throw caution to the wind. It's about Alberta. Alberta vs. the rest of the Canada. The Globe And Mail runs something about Alberta's gripes every day, and I try to follow along. If it weren't for wmtc's resident Albertan , and the ensuing arguments in comments, I would've had no warning. It's not something Americans know about. As is, observing for more than a year, I have only the smallest of clues. Here's what I know. Please pardon my ignorance and oversimplification, but I have to start somewhere. The province of Alberta is rich, because it has oil. The province of Alberta is conservative, relative to the rest of Canada. Hmm. Funny how those two go together. Because of its great oil wealth, Alberta revenue helps fund services in the rest of Canada. (These are transfer payments?) Apparently many Albertans resent this. They want to keep Alberta's money in Alberta. They don't...
Read more

low confidence

I'm excited about today's no-confidence vote . Only three months after moving here, we'll get to see a government fall, a campaign, and an election, in a system very different from what we're accustomed to. Even the expression "the government will fall" strikes us as oddly dramatic and revolutionary. My sense of current Canadian politics, for what it's worth, tells me that very little will change from the upcoming election. I'd be surprised if the Liberals didn't win. So it's kind of cool to see this happening without a lot at stake. On a semi-tangential note, have I mentioned I'm completely down with "Corner Gas"? Excellent show; I love the deadpan humour. (Great website, too; check it out .) So was that really Finance Minister Ralph Goodale ragging on Brent Butt's camera last Saturday night?
Read more