The Gates of Second Life - Art Installation, Please Join In!

Installation by Aestival Cohen, Lex Neva and YOU!

Inspired by Cristo's the Gates in Central Park, this animated gate automatically billows. Each gate is only a part of the piece of art. Several placed in sequence become a cool interactive sculpture responding to the wind, including flying AVies! The more people who place them the larger the work of art becomes!

Can we cover Second Life? Let's find out!

Buy them for FREE at my AtherStyle boutique in Grange (158,107)* and then give them away! Or find them on SLEX too!





READ ME IF YOU WANNA PLACE GATES!

1) When placing gates DONT be in Edit Mode - that's when you have the little edit window open - just drag it out onto the ground with no other windows open.

2) You HAVE TO drag each gate out by itself! You can't hold SHIFT and drag when it edit mode to make a copy. The best way is to drag out the number of gates you want to place first, then place them!

3) As you create each gate, it will ask you if you want to link, say YES or else it won't work.

4) If you want to reposition or rotate the gates, grab the frame of the gate only! Anything else will mess stuff up!

5) About half the time, the gates just mess up anyway. Sorry! SL is a little flakey with hinge physics. Just delete everything and drag a new one out (remember to close your edit window!)

6) If the curtain gets spinning really fast around the frame, just ctrl-grab the curtain a few times to steady it.

Enjoy!
Aestival & Lex

*No this isn't an advertizing gimmick. We have to sell them instead of makethem free to copy 'cause they come in two parts. IM either of us for a copy or give them out to your friends if you don't want to come by!

I'm in. Great, creative move, guys -- it's fantastic to see you pairing up on this project. Lex let me know earlier today, and well, you know me, I get hooked on this type of stuff!

I saw a set of these today in Goguen. They are a very beautiful, fun, and technically well done. You really have to see tem in-world to appreciate them fully, pictures simply do not do them justice.

I hope you offer them in other colors - it would be great to see whole rainbows of flapping curtains.

I wonder if the same is true of the real Gates. Because right now, based on the photographs of the New York installation, all I can think about is how I wish Christo would get hit by a truck, and prevent the further denigration of art. The man's entire career consists of and endless repetition of the same idea, and it really wasn't a good idea in the first place. Then again, I think Alphonse Mucha was an amazing artist, so my opinion is probably pretty worthless.

I'll check them out, probably more neat than the RL gates since its more of a technical achievement.

As long as I can sneeze into them and use them as a tissue like the RL gates I'll be happy.

Not to be a stick in the mud, but the artists who did the Central Park gates exhibit, "Christo", are also known for destroying wildlife on a Florida island that they covered as an "art" installation.

I'm all for artistic expression, but the husband and wife team responsible for this in RL are a pair of irresponsible, spoiled rich folks who seem to be more about publicity than they are about the consequences of their actions.

Just a little perspective. I love to see art in SL.

Aw thanks everybody for the kind words! Please do pick up the gates and share!

OH AND PLEASE PLEASE POST PICS! ^_^ Of yours or of anybody else's you see!

Aestival, I seriously envy your draw distance :) Nice shots.

As to the environment stuff... well... I guess Christo sucks :( But these things are cool, and they're not too much of a drain on sim resources compared to how cool of an effect they are. The source code has been opened, so you can see how I scripted it. It's pretty simple, really :)

LOL! It's pumped up just for photos! ^_^ Normally I run around at the lowest setting SL will let you have! ^^;;

Eh, I don't care about the RL couterpart, since anyone can toss a sheet over an arch. But it took some real skill to make the SL version.

Oh, and Alphonse Mucha was an amazing artist.

Except there was no grand underlying philosophy behind his work. He produced art for art's sake (and for money, of course). Hence the intended contrast between men and women like him, and people like Christo, who forget the talent and neglect the art, but have plenty of philosophy. That's how I see art today, and it saddens me. Artists do not receive accolades for being talented, but rather for being eccentric. Consequently, artists cultivate their personas rather than their talents.

So the idea wasn't to disparage Mucha (because his work is really high quality) but to emphasize the discontinuity between artists of the past and those of now.

Hey! Do y'all wanna talk about art or make it?! Yeah you, the one reading this post instead of playing SL! Come on, get going!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ^_-

Here's a pic of some Gates in Lannercost!


P.S. Somebody can love Mucha and Christo's work ya' know! 'Course you could hate both too, tho'... Anyway I think both offer something wonderful, though you gotta be there to really get Christo's work. Funny, neither is anywhere near my favorite artist... ^^;;

BRAVO!!!! Excellent post.

In case anyone missed the Daily Show about this....

http://zero.hastypastry.net/gates/

Thanks, John, those clips were hilarious. I agree that the Gates of SL are much cooler!

Yay! I'm going to get one!

Here's a shot I took last night. Not shown is the wind guage, which indicated, well, strong wind forward/left of the camera view ;) If you want a copy of the wind guage (shows direction and wind speed), let me know.

We're having a blizzard in Manhattan right now and the gates actually look quite pretty in the swirl of orange, white and evening shadows.

I'm not a big fan of the RL exhibit -- most of Christo's stuff I consider fun showmanship rather than art.

That said, I think Lex's work in LL is really fun (as I posted in the Briarcliff thread -- I'm stuck at work and can't get to the party ) and somehow the gates are much cooler in SL. Maybe because in SL they have no pretensions at being something greater than they are.

I'm not sure it's your intent, but what a silly thing to say. Denigrate art? Please, you remind me of anyone who ever disliked anything NEW in art. Any big step forward (and I'm not saying this or the artist is) has been surrounded by people who say it isn't "real" art.

Myself, I don't care about the guy, the background or the endless faff generated about it.

For me it comes down to two things

1) when I see it, do I like it?
2) does it raise an emotion?

Good art generally does both of those things. Bad art doesn't (other than "blah that's bad!"

I see the arches, and think they are striking, almost beautiful. And they are beautiful because of the repetition.

And well done Aestival, I think those are a lovely SL rendition and I'll be checking them out soon! I'd love to see more installation art pieces in SL.

Aw.. thanks Pirate! I'm so glad you like em! It was really a joint effort!

Please host a few even if only for a little bit!

p.s. Love your blog!

If you'd like to define art as you do, feel free. It's ever so difficult to actually define such an abstract concept as art, and even more difficult to do so without allowing one's personal tastes to pervert that definition. However, I maintain that there is nothing original, innovative, or interesting about Christo's work. There is no greater meaning, nor any deep insight. There is nothing but a ton of fabric, in an almost raw state, flapping in the breeze. It is neither a demonstration of talent nor a deep statement.

Though I said that you are free to define art as you'd like, I find myself rereading your definition and finding it lacking. Your definition of art is one which is completely subjective. Per your definition of art, something may be art to one person and not art to a dozen others. You must distinguish between that which is visually appealing and that which is art, or else the importance of art is all but eliminated. If anything which is visually pleasing is art, then even the most mundane things are artistic.

Though I don't wish to impose my own definition of art on you, I will at least define the three characteristics which I feel are necessary for something to count as art.
1. The work of art must be an expression of the artist's talent. Designs which are accidentally or unintentionally created are not art. They may be visually appealing, but art is something which is wrought. It is not found.
2. The work must invoke an emotional or aesthetic response, either positive or negative. For example, I find Guernica to be absolutely hideous, but it is tremendously emotionally poignant.
3. The work must be the embodiment of creativity. It is this characteristic which is the most ambiguous to define, but I also feel that it is the most important in determining what is or isn't art. Even a masterly painted scene might fail to be artistic if it is lacking in this quality, but a poorly made abstract could be a masterwork if this quality is in abundance. To get pointlessly esoteric, I feel as if this quality is a minute portion of the artist's soul, captured forever in the act of creation. This criterion is unfortunately highly subjective.

The Gates fail two of these three points. The Gates are extremely simple in design, and do not demonstrate any particular talent or creativity. Christo has been doing similar things for a great while. The Gates may flap wildly in the breeze, but to me they are completely drab and lifeless. When I look at the Gates, I do not see the creator's suffering for his art. I do not see his passion, I do not see his creativity. They are completely lacking in that vital energy. However, I am willing to backdown on the aesthetics of the Gates. Thus far, I have only seen the Gates in a fairly static environment. However, the description of the Gates against the contrast of the swirling snow does sound delightful. Despite that visual appeal, the art fails to meet the other two points of my definition, and so I do not wish to classify it as art. As for the denigration of art: Christo has consistently demonstrated a greater willingness to improve upon his personality to the detriment of his talent and creativity. He is more concerned with eccentricity than he is with originality.

You also accuse me of being opposed to change. I assure you that I do not despise the work of Christo out of some hatred or fear of vicissitude. Though I will admit that I find most modern art to be ugly, and I have become highly disenamored with the modern art movement because of the popularity of showmen like Christo. But I still recognize most of it as art. In particular, I've recently become interested in the works of Lee Bontecou. However, I think that architecture is currently undergoing a modern renaissance. The works of men like Gehry, and Santiago Calatrava are simply stunning. If you aren't familiar with Calatrava, I highly suggest checking out his work. His most recent work is Turning Torso, a simply stunning building which cuts an amazing figure in the sky. Most of his designs are so amazingly beautiful, that I often have trouble articulating that desire. Suffice it to say, he is fucking awesome.

Thanks for the interesting points, and I should note I probably came across too short earlier. I apologize.

Anyway, I expect we're going to just end up disagreeing (which is fine, it's art. If everyone agreed it would be boring), but I'll address your points so you can see my perspective.



Agreed. Perhaps entirely impossible. I have no philosophical objection to this.



See, for me, art requires neither of those things. For example, this:
http://math.hws.edu/vaughn/abroad/tate-weather.jpg
was an absolutely stunning instillation at the Tate Modern. I have no idea what it's about but it displays no inherent meaning and the skill entirely comes down to the builders, not the artists (the effect of the mirrored ceiling which the sun is 'dipping' into is, unfortunately, lost).

But walk into the room, and WOW, it was an amazing visual treat. To me, that's great art, yet I didn't know the name, meaning, artist or anything. That's fine, I require none of those for something to impress me.

There are better examples of incredibly simple, 'uncreative' pieces of art with no apparent meaning which for me, and others, are simply fantastic.




Now you're talking. That's what I hope for. It's 3am, so examples elude me, but haven't you ever caught a juxtoposition, or a spray paint on a wall, or something witty and colorful thrown together by some kids, or adults, just for fun and thought "Wow, that's really very cool"? If you have, then you've just found art, in my mind, and maybe you're the only person who think so. But does it matter? No. I think that's the best thing in the world. In fact, I think the ability to see beauty in odd situations is a gift. It's the kind of gift you see 'genius' artists and photographers display when they take something and show you it in an entirely new way.



Why should art be important? The whole of the last 50 years of art has been trying to do what you are talking about, at least partly. Why should art be this 'special' thing? I hope its importance is eliminated. Art is more than that sillyness.



Yes. http://utenti.romascuola.net/bramarte/pop%20art/img/war3.jpg



My favourite artist would be spinning in his grave about now. He expressed amazing control, but still let chaos creep in. He's a tame example of chaotic works widely considered art.
http://www.sulinet.hu/eletmod/hogyantovabb/tovabbtanulas/elokeszito/muveszettortenet/12het/pollock.jpg



Found, and artistic
http://www.brycemuir.com/New%20Layout/LayoutPix/May04pix/Log134Pix/FoundArt3B.jpg

Broadly, I agree with your other requirements.

However, I would love to see the gates in RL. To me, they are just.. very interesting and triking. My first response "cool!". Couldn't care less about the artist and that sideshow. I just see 'em, and I like 'em ..to pretend I have any rational system of deciding if I like them or not, to me, is silly, as I simply don't believe it's possible. So in the end, I waive on all that affectation and go entirely on my instincts of what I like, and don't like.

I just don't bother classifying what is or isn't art. It's impossible.

Nice architecture there too! I miss that now I'm back in New Zealand. There's no drive for it here like there is in the UK.

Oh, a slight thought. If I want to get picky, if the intent is to create art, by anyone, then what is created is art. Be that a painting, a ball of string, half a cow, a building, a random computer generated puddle of color.. anything. Intent is a pre-requisite to art. That's all for me

Well, I guess the thread has been diverted for a discussion of modern art ;) Personally, I see the second life gates as a sort of tongue-in-cheek tribute to the RL gates. I'm not sure I'm necessarily all that happy or excited about the ones in central park, but they did inspire me to develop a cool new technique that I haven't seen in SL yet. You don't have to like the Christo gates to like the SL version.

Hamlet's just posted an intervew with us in New World Notes:

http://secondlife.blogs.com/nwn/2005/02/the_gates_come_.html

^ great read.

In the meantime, I'll be putting up my variation of Lex + Aes's gates around inworld.

Can't resist the spirit.

Reminder, the Gates of Second Life are also the co Freebie Of The Month at YadNi s Junkyard with Jeffrey s Solar System...

Enjoy =D