Enough with the Christo bashing!

All over the Internet, people who do not like "The Gates", or who do not like any of Christo's art, are not only trashing it (and saying that it isn't art), but are complaining that he could have used the money for some important humanitarian purpose.

First, if Christo's environmental installations are not art, I am hard pressed to figure out what they are. Second, the creation of art is an activity of supreme humanitarian purpose. After much of London was obliterated by the Blitzkrieg and someone criticized the rush to re-build an art museum, Churchill said "I thought that's what we were fighting for."

There is also the fact that it costs absolutely nothing to view Christo's installations. And the fact that for decades, proceeds from his non-environmental works have gone to fund everything from Third World children's funds to American environmental projects.

What bothers me most, though, is that people take out this "the money could have gone to something important" argument when they talk about contemporary artists. I am willing to bet that those same people go to professional sports events, rock concerts, and films and never say "The money could have gone to some more important humanitarian purpose."