Notices
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Over the River

  1. #1 Over the River 
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    This is ridiculous. The cost - all privately raised - is $50 million for a two week installation.

    The cost not discussed is the damage to the river banks and the pollution from all the vehicular traffic that is supposed to come and see it. This is a beautiful, almost pristine river. Let it be.

    http://www.christojeanneclaude.net/otr.html


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator AlexP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,838
    It's not art...it's stupid.

    And my question is...why?

    I agree with you, they need to leave the river alone. Partially blocking the sunlight to that must have some effect, along with the traffic, and whatever machines they have to take in there to put up the darn things. "Art" is not in the slightest a valid reason for endangering the health of a river.


    "There is a kind of lazy pleasure in useless and out-of-the-way erudition." -Jorge Luis Borges
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328


    Alternative?

    I think the local schools could get involved. Kids could make decorations relevant to local folklore or identity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Another alternative would be to use the funds to eliminate the invasive tamarisk trees that were introduced decades ago as a garden ornamental shrub and are now infesting the riverbanks. They absorb copious amounts of water, killing off native species. The whole of the Arkansas River basin is infested.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    180
    This is reportedly supported by directed private funding.

    If you want to raise funds for another purpose - go right ahead.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge1907
    This is reportedly supported by directed private funding.
    I said that in the OP. It is a poor reflection on the donors that they could not think of a constructive use for their money.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    No doubt a trust is behind this. Donors only know they're giving to "arts" and get a tax credit. The fact this occupies no private land or parkland (over the river) suggests the trust had pledged to erect something big, but had trouble securing land. This initiative would be bundled with others.

    You can't expect estates or corporations to exercise much discretion. Wal-Mart says it sponsors local arts and most people just envision... I dunno, ballet and murals. This looks to me like "arts from above" ironically slighting grassroots sensibility.

    Where were the community groups in this? Thumbs up butt, no doubt.

    The arts money by definition can't sponsor anything tangibly useful, like footbridges or tree planting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    14
    ridiculous...
    china oil painting

    [spam link removed]
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •