Review of the Christo exhibit in today's Post

Did anyone else read it, and what are your thoughts? Here is the link to the scathing review given the current Christo exhibition at the Phillips, written by Blake Gopnik for the Washington Post. And here are my thoughts --

Number 1. Gopnik condescends that the artists are asking the viewers to consider art that "doesn't exist" and "may never be made". Well, I think he misses the point entirely -- that in fact, the art does exist, it exists (as the artists themselves stated quite clearly in their written and verbal presentations) in the process of acquiring permits; in the process of spending decades planning for it, raising money for it, creating the materials for it; and in the minds of those who are for it and against it. And perhaps then, existentially speaking, whether or not it is actually made (which it will, given their track record) is irrelevant.

Number 2. I don't think Christo or Jeanne-Claude have ever claimed to be "environmental" or green artists, so Gopnik's argument (that people driving to see the finished project in gas-guzzling SUVs and that the use of excessively large quantities of fabric is in contrast to the artists' values) is a bit off.

Number 3. This is what really got me going -- he claims that "everyone" agrees that museums are on a "special-exhibition treadmill" that is "exhausting" them and creating a "problem". As I see it, special exhibitions are perhaps the best way that a museum can actively engage in the current trends of the contemporary art market. And that they also provide a substantial revenue source for their budget, as well as invaluable publicity. For example, the recent Jeff Wall retrospective was immensely important for both the artist and the organizing institution for all the reasons I just stated. Without a special exhibition program, a museum is left with a permanent collection alone, which by itself is too slow-moving and arduous in acquiring new pieces (which can take years sometimes) to stay active and relevant in today's art conversation. I think that the REAL "easy measure" for the "worth of any show" is whether or not it makes someone want to visit the museum in the first place. And while they're visiting - either for the special exhibition OR the permanent collection - they will visit the other as well.

Certainly, this exhibition might not be for everyone, but just as certainly, it is not a waste of time for either the artists, the museum, or for many of us art lovers who understand and appreciate their work and vision.