Another bad idea in the name of art

So sorry for linking this from what many consider a "biased Liberal source". I am trying to inject some other issues to this forum other than the typical "Left Sucks-Right Sucks" crap that has been posted lately. Not that some of the folks here won't try to spin it that way.

Christo Plan for Colorado's Arkansas River Wrapped in Controversy
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-frey/christos-plan-for-arkansa_b_783675.html



Isn't hanging rags over the river like hanging pornography in a church?
Yes the artist funds all his work but at what cost to the local communities, the environment and recreational activities?

Discuss....

Holy crap that image is HUGE!! WTH????

Can he do it over the Rio Grande instead? The illegals would appreciate the shade on their way in.

I don't like it, what's the point..to hide the river? I like art work that shows the river and the wonderful colors and landscapes..IMHO..not worth a hoot!

JusSayin wrote: Can he do it over the Rio Grande instead? The illegals would appreciate the shade on their way in.

rofllol I was hoping it wouldn't go there, but that was pretty funny.

Simply hideous! :dontget:
But I have been told recently I don't understand art.

Geez- is that a full scale representation? It looks like someone got mad & teepeed the canyon. I don't get it.

Well, it says it won't be done until 2014 and it will be up for only 2 weeks. Plus they'll clean everything up and fill in the cable bore holes.

So I don't see much harm to it, unless rafters get injured looking up at it instead of keeping their eyes ahead. But by then we'll have Obamacare, and hopefully "rafters neck" will be covered.

This is certainly NOT and improvement on nature's ability to create beauty. Quite the opposite. I'd rather see the nuances of a river.

The river's a thing of beauty and he wants to cover it?

Maybe he could go downtown and cover up that hideous art museum building instead - that'd be a public service.

Explain to me how this is art?