Point/Counterpoint: A "Wrap" for Central Park?
May 29, 2002

By Henry J. Stern

 
     The following column appeared Tuesday, May 28, in the Ideas and Opinion page of the New York Daily News, under the title: “Point/Counterpoint: A ‘wrap’ for Central Park?” Clifford Ross wrote in support of the Christo project, the article I wrote in opposition to it begins here:

    I really like Mayor Bloomberg and appreciate the good work he has done with his appointees, budget and program for education. I am not, however, enthused over his support for a 22-year-old scheme to build 15-foot-tall structures containing thousands of orange streamers over the walkways of Central Park.

     The proposal from Christo and Jeanne-Claude is not as physically damaging as their earlier plan in that it would not drive holes into rocks or landscape.

     There remain, however, strong philosophical objections to the orange shrouds. Central Park is a magnificent work of nature and craftsmanship, an 843-acre oasis, a classic 1850s design, preserved and defended over the years from those who would exploit or abuse it. The park's lakes, hills, pathways, meadows and ravines are beautiful places, justly world-renowned.

    That is exactly what Christo and Jeanne-Claude want to capture for themselves. The history, dignity and celebrity of Central Park, the genius of Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux would be used to enhance their reputation and prestige — and to help sell their art.

     They are known for vast public displays — for example, wrapping the Reichstag in Berlin in plastic. Since the Germans approved, I have no problem. To me, the Reichstag is no shrine.

    But now they want to bedeck a monument in New York, the world capital. Why not St. Patrick's Cathedral, Temple Emanu-El or the Cathedral Church of St. John the Divine? They could build St. John's long-missing spire and wrap it in tinfoil or whatever.

    Of course not, New Yorkers would rightly respond. That would be sacrilege, exploiting God's holy places. Well, to many of us, Central Park is our natural shrine where the beauty of this wonderful planet surrounds us in the midst of the tall buildings of the world's greatest city.

    Although art has an honored place in parks, and I have supported the placement of both temporary and permanent sculptures, the art must be on an appropriate scale in a location for which it is suited. The artwork cannot dwarf or overshadow the park.

    Christo first made his proposal by letter April 9, 1980, almost a generation ago. Environmental sensitivity and respect for nature have increased in the last two decades. The immersion of Central Park in orange is no more appetizing now than it was then.

    Some say "The Gates" project will bring tourists to the city. If we need it for business reasons, ask him to bedeck some bridges or a skyscraper or the Metropolitan Museum of Art (do you think they would let him do that?).

    But please avoid this beautiful creation of God, aided by Olmsted and Vaux. Surely people of intelligence and goodwill can find a suitable place for "The Gates" without defiling the world's greatest park.
 
 

If you would like to read Clifford Ross’ column in favor of “The Gates,” please click  anywhere on the following line:

     http://www.nydailynews.com/2002-05-28/News_and_Views/Opinion/a-152301.asp?last6days=1

Henry J. Stern is the director of NYCivic.