Everyone is free to dislike the Christo installation, but like it or dislike it on its own merits, not by its price tag. The "I could've done it myself for less" gripe has been done ad nauseum since Warhol painted a Campbell's soup can. Everybody looked at it, scratched their heads and said "I coulda done that". But they didn't do it, Warhol did it and it changed history and inspired legions of future artists. Likewise with the "in this day and age" bit, as if there weren't world problems or catastrophes occurring in every day and age, not just this one. We could use that cliche, tried-and-true line of attack to invalidate any expenditure at any time. It's being used by the Bush administration right now to slash NEA funding because Art is Not Important. Yet Arnold Schwarzenegger's last movie cost $120 million and there is no moral outrage. Millions are spent DAILY in Iraq by the US, UK and others. As always art is the easy target to kick down with the excuse that we can't spend money on it without recognizing its power to transform or elevate someone's life or at least leave someone with a lifelong memory. The Gates was financed by private donors and a loan Christo took out which can all be made back through autographed Christo pieces that sell for $10,000 a piece. But the money is not the point. It's the 'same old-same old' that people can't step outside of themselves for 10 minutes to see the world through an artist's eyes. If you feel that strongly about it then take out your own loan for the tsunami victims or paint your own soup can. But don't disparage an artist just because he had a grand scale ambition and realized it.