I'm an easterner, and there is a bit on implied ignorance in some comments here, on par as if people back here think that the west is full of ignorant ******* cowboys. We all know sterotypes are not full true. C'mon guys, let's take people on an individual basis.
But, anyway....
I will say that Jean Claude and Christo's work ALWAYS has a level of controversy
and that is a small part of the point they are making in recontextualizing the things that they wrap. Teh Central Park project took decades to happen, specifically because there were so many people who did not want it to happen. I saw it. It was a cool project.
I'm a fan of their work intellecutally, but in actuality I, too, would rather see mother nature left alone. The river is a sacred space to me, and I feel this is kind of like a decorator walking into a church and saying "this is nice but it really needs my touch to be cool". Kind of weak sauce.
In grad school, one of the most difficult things to explain to most was the intense experiences that I've had outside, WITHOUT having any external signifier of it. Seems that many artists (particularly those who live in cities, or heavily populated suburban areas) really really WANT to express some kind of natural inter-relationship, but can only seem to justify it by forcing external signs or recontexualizations of the existing natural surroundings.
In reality, the "art world" needs this as something to talk about, something to show, something to market. But, the artists themselves don't.
Kind of more to the point of the first few posts:
1. I"m not a fan of this project, and would be happy to see it never finished
2. I think it's a bit harsh to be happy about someone's death.
