Christo and Jeanne-Claude, the politics of their art: part 5

Ok, so this is it. This is the last part. Done. I think I stretched this out about as long as was need for no one to read anything past the third part. Why do I love Christo and Jeanne-Claude so much? If I could answer that I would be a much happier person.

To be honest, I kind of love how I end this essay. And now that I'm finished posting it all, I'd love to know what you think.

To catch up, read part 1 here, part 2 here, part 3 here, and part 4 here.

Christo and Jeanne-Claude, the Politics of their Art: How they are (shrewdly and discreetly) Socialist, Anti-American and Revolutionary - part 5

They, like most truly great artists, are walking contradictions, at times claiming their work has no politics, at others attributing diverse avant-garde, often political and socialist implications to their art. They are utterly inflexible in their views, especially when it concerns the way their works are constructed and presented. However, they are gently and discreetly revolutionary, proving much more effective this way. They even go as far as to work with the governments they are quietly criticizing. During The Umbrellas, for instance, official government highway signs would alert drivers when to exit to view the site. California highways helped to make The Umbrellas an even greater event by giving it free publicity. Seemingly working with the authorities and not perceptibly against them, they are more likely to gain universal acceptance and prominence for themselves and more importantly their craft and its cause.

Imperative past anything else for Christo and Jeanne-Claude, however, is creation. Their responsibility is towards their art, everything else follows. Their work is not left-wing or right-wing, it is beyond current or specific politics; this proving more topical now than ever before as we live in a world in which one is defined, at times judged, by one’s religious, social, political, or even scientific views. They are beyond these pithy differences. In the film Umbrellas Christo is often heard telling the Japanese press he is doing the project for no one but himself, for the joy and satisfaction of it. For this reason they do not allow any outside funding, retaining complete control of their work in a world in which complete control over any aspect of one’s life is a rare commodity.

The transitory nature of their art adds a perceptible sense of urgency to their works. Urgency to take action, get out and experience the art for one’s self. This causes an acceptance of one’s own ephemeral state, the work’s sense of urgency being applied to one’s self much like a modern day vanitas, on a scale as yet unmatched.

Their revolutionary statements and social criticisms are hardly paralleled, stirring meaningful social change that stems not from anger or brash political statements, but rather from the beauty of a memorable experience which creates a more positive and lasting impression. Their works are solitarily revolutionary. Change occurs on a mass scale but in an individual, introverted and singular manner. They allow for a wide array of possible interpretations, reactions and outcomes. Each viewer’s experience is widely varied. As with any true shift within the public’s collective consciousness, a revolution must start with the individual before it can take hold of the masses. One must change one’s self before moving on to any other. The Christos aid this like no other artist before. They have taken the notion of mass dissemination to commercial and international levels that are embraced by popular media and that could not have been envisioned almost a century ago. They have turned blue-collar work into the labor of artists, and vice versa; they have invited every worker to be both an artist and an art critic; they have understood Warhol’s and Haring’s works to be a beginning and not the end of the popularization of artworks in contemporary culture, becoming as they were in their time celebrities… (portrait to right by celebrity photographer Annie Leibovitz)

Is their work too ahead of its time, or worse, irrelevant for today’s masses, too layered, its various agendas too veiled? Is a more straightforward voice needed to make any difference today? Yes, but this has always been the case. There have always been artists who call for immediate change on a mass scale and, equally, artists that work on the individual, shifting our collective conscious over time. The Christos, who work in the sublime, only incite change in those who seek it and deserve it. Only over time are the benefits reaped. Only over time does it pay to be shrewd and discreet.

For references, leave me a comment.