Should Christo be allowed to cover a river in Colorado with cloth?

I'm against it for a few reasons...

1. That's not art in my book. Anyone can wrap fruity colored fabric over something. Ever see one guy trying to put TYVEK or HOUSE WRAP on a structure solo in a wind? That just isn't art.

2. What's the point of it all? It's not lasting other than some photographs. There's no legacy there. I highly doubt in 100, 200, or 300 years his name will ever be remembered. This form of art is nothing like Monet, De Gal,Rembrandt, Davinci, et cetra to infinity.

3. Granted, even if can be considered art, I don't see the point, the vision, the inspiration. I'm sure some of any profits would go towards conservation for the Arkansas. But who the heck sponsors this stuff? I have problems keeping gas in my tank, let alone shilling out money to fund some sort of nut job.

Right now there's a commercial playing. I think it's for Mastercard or American Express. In it the St. Louis Arch, along with some other world know geographic and architectural features are draped in a glistening tangerine fabric. When I see this, art is not the first thought that pops into my head. Ridiculous, stupid, retarded, waste...those are the things I think of.

How long does he plan to leave the cloth in place?

This sounds like the kind of thing which gives art a bad name. Still, it can't possibly be as trashy as the Heidelberg Project in Detroit. Talk about a massive pile of junk! Google it for a reference.

What a thing to talk about in the Hunting forum.

Note to Josh 4.0: That commercial is for AT&T wireless phone service. Talk about pointless.

That is ridiculous. Never understood most of what passes for "art", or the french type for that matter. No animal should be affected by any "art".

Pretty sure that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

If the hippies can mobilize enough to harass us we should be able to turn them against this guy.

It's too bad Christo's dad didn't cover his thingee with a condom when he boinked his ma.