« Thursday Links Pop-Up Park Pops in Brooklyn Bridge Park »
June 26, 2008
The Waterfalls Start Falling
At 7 a.m. this morning, the Olafur Eliasson-designed waterfalls started cascading at four locations around the city. We've got photos here of two: The one under the Brooklyn Bridge (shot from the new Pop-Up Park—more on that later) and the one between piers 4 and 5. (The other two are on Governor's Island and Pier 35 in Manhattan.) Wish we'd had a boat to go out in this morning! Update: Gothamist has a short video (with nice sound) posted here.
Waterfalls Project Rising in Brooklyn Bridge Park [Brownstoner]
Waterfall Art Project Coming to Life Under the Bridge [Brownstoner]
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/5333
Comments
I checked these out this morning. They're actually kind of cool. Waterfalls are nice.
Posted by: KHuebbe at June 26, 2008 9:27 AM
saw them as well during the commute. actually like them, and while people are going to jump on it questioning whether its 'art' or not , just enjoy it for what it is, art or not, and the fact that (from what i know) it was not publicly funded.
Posted by: guest at June 26, 2008 9:35 AM
Checked 'em out this morn from the B train as it made its way over the Manhattan Bridge. Very cool.
Posted by: Fjorder at June 26, 2008 9:57 AM
Whether or not it's art is, to me, immaterial. Like "The Gates" did, these will (hopefully) start a meaningful discourse on art, what it entails, creativity, etc...Warhol said art is "anything you can get away with".
Posted by: guest at June 26, 2008 9:59 AM
The fact that people are arguing over IF it's art just goes to prove that it is.
Bring on the Waterfalls. Now we just need Homer Simpson to clog all the drains in the city and we can have our own little Venice.
Posted by: Adam Dahill at June 26, 2008 10:06 AM
I could have used these when my bathroom was being renovated.
Posted by: guest at June 26, 2008 10:30 AM
So Adam, does the fact that everyone here argues whether all the new construction is attractive or not, prove that it is good architecture?
If it gets people to come to NYC and specifically Brooklyn then great, but personally, I think the structures are ugly, the waterfalls arent really that nice (waterfalls are beautiful b/c they are acts of NATURE) and ultimatley will just cause traffic because of rubbernecking.
I fail to see the difference between this and simply putting one of those Las Vegas style fountains in the middle of the East River
Posted by: guest at June 26, 2008 10:44 AM
I like the concept of waterfalls but not crazy about the scaffoldings around them, I think it could have been done in a nicer way.
Posted by: guest at June 26, 2008 10:46 AM
"The fact that people are arguing over IF it's art just goes to prove that it is."
I could argue with someone over whether or not my dog's crap is art. Does that make it art?
I LIKE the idea of a big Las Vegas-style fountain in the middle of the East River! Someone should do it.
Posted by: guest at June 26, 2008 10:56 AM
I'm also underwhelmed, I didn't think the MOMA / PS1 show was anything special either. An interesting idea in the abstract is clumsily rendered - the ugly scaffolding is huge, the 'waterfall' is wimpy. It looks like water being shot from hoses on scaffolding - not like a waterfall. Similarly his big mirror on the ceiling at PS1 was cheap looking with seams and ripples where the mylar wasn't pulled tightly enough. And he reverse waterfall at PS1 just looked like a mess. "there's no there there"
Posted by: WillBklyn at June 26, 2008 10:56 AM
All water no slide.
Posted by: guest at June 26, 2008 10:56 AM
"I could argue with someone over whether or not my dog's crap is art. Does that make it art?"
10:56#1, I was going to say the exact same thing!
"I fail to see the difference between this and simply putting one of those Las Vegas style fountains in the middle of the East River"
The difference is Las Vegas style fountains would have been more appealing than this!
Posted by: Biff Champion at June 26, 2008 11:19 AM
*****
Waste of resources.
*****
Oh, and poorly realized.
Good luck if you're a trendoid tourist expecting to be wowed...
Posted by: guest at June 26, 2008 11:20 AM
I thought it would have a bigger impact visually- whether or not you liked the gates, their artistry was in that they altered their environment. The Falls looks more like an afterthought or a failed attempt.
Maybe he intended it as a "Homage to Construction with Leak" :-)
Posted by: bxgrl at June 26, 2008 11:34 AM
I was skeptical at first about the Gates but fell in love with them the first time I saw them and it was clear many locals and tourists did too.
As for this one, I envision most people scratching their head trying to figure out what this is and when it will be completed. I'll have to give it another chance in person, but at first glance, I expected something much more impactful too.
Posted by: Biff Champion at June 26, 2008 11:44 AM
It will be alot nicer to look at when it gets dark. Doesn't it light up?
Posted by: guest at June 26, 2008 12:13 PM
I thought that this was already open because I saw it up and working on Monday of this week. I guess they were testing it or something. The boats that spray the red ,white and blue water for July 4th are more interesting than this.
Posted by: guest at June 26, 2008 12:18 PM
The location is strange. It's under the BB, so you can't see it if you are walking over the bridge. The side view from the park emphasizes the cheezy scaffolding, not the lovely frontal rush of water. The only way to get that view is to head out into the river on a boat, I guess.
Anyone scope out how this looks from the pedestrian walk over the Manhattan Bridge?
Posted by: WonTon at June 26, 2008 12:20 PM
The Brooklyn to London telescope was much better than this is. Bring it back and get rid of the waterfall.
Posted by: guest at June 26, 2008 12:26 PM
Those are the fireboats that spray red, white and blue water. They're quite gorgeous.
Posted by: bxgrl at June 26, 2008 12:31 PM
!!! Should have put a reflective material like Mylar behind the waterfall to cover the scaffolding. Looks crappy with all those metal poles there ... Ruins the effect. !!!
Posted by: guest at June 26, 2008 12:39 PM
regarding the comments about the scaffolding being ugly, the use of it was intentional per the artist. he says something to the effect of wanting this to be reflective of nyc, of both its natural beauty as well as items of familiarity in the city, and that scaffolding is ubiquitous.
love it or hate it, it is somewhat thought out at least.
Posted by: guest at June 26, 2008 1:12 PM
Funny , how we are all talking about this when ,chances are none of us will actually go and see it. Being New Yorkers , we don't tend to go and see all the things that tourist come here to see. lol
Posted by: guest at June 26, 2008 1:27 PM
if you argue about your dog's crap being art it is not art. if you state and present your dog's crap is art.. well then it is. if you get two critics to argue whether your dog's crap is art .. well then it will be in art history books and can stand to make you a nice fortune!
just enjoy the waterfalls! RELAX people!
Posted by: guest at June 26, 2008 1:36 PM
1:27, I'll see the waterfalls every day, but regardless, what you say is generally true about all cities, not just New York. Tourists in every city typically frequent attractions and attend events that locals take for granted and don't do themselves. Who's more likely to walk on the Great Wall, the average person living in China or a tourist?
Posted by: Biff Champion at June 26, 2008 1:43 PM
"love it or hate it, it is somewhat thought out at least."
It's even WORSE now that we've learned the artist actually thought about it and STILL decided to go with this design. Looks like a bunch of random water hoses spouting off the top of some scaffolding. Less than inspiring.
Posted by: guest at June 26, 2008 1:57 PM
"The fact that people are arguing over IF it's art just goes to prove that it is."
"if you argue about your dog's crap being art it is not art."
You're not making any sense. Could it be you have no idea what you're talking about?
Posted by: guest at June 26, 2008 2:00 PM
teach your dog how to crap off the top of that thing and then we'll talk about art.
Posted by: guest at June 26, 2008 2:07 PM
Worst. Water park. Ever.
Posted by: guest at June 26, 2008 2:07 PM
Ha Ha! Of course the scaffolding was intentional! (imaginary conversation: Olafur: "Then we will cover the scaffolding in black granite, to create a neutral backing" Gallerist: "We can't afford that" Olafur: "The Scaffolding is intentional! It reflects ... sidewalk sheds!" Gallerist: "Olafur, you are money in the bank!")
Posted by: WillBklyn at June 26, 2008 2:37 PM
"Art is making something out of nothing and selling it" - Frank Zappa
Posted by: guest at June 26, 2008 2:43 PM
They should put three of these on top of the Brooklyn Bridge. One with soap, one with a fuzzy roller, and one with just water. It could be the largest car wash ever! Think about it.
Posted by: guest at June 26, 2008 4:09 PM
While exact figures were impossible to arrive at, “we estimate that the project will generate more than $55 million in economic activity for our city,” Mr. Bloomberg added. Most of the project’s cost was financed by private donors, but the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation contributed $2 million." From the Times today.they said the project cost 15.5 million and is supposed to generate 55 million dollars in "economic activity"- whatever that means really.
there is also another picture of the falls under the bridge and in that shot it looks less than impressive.
Posted by: bxgrl at June 26, 2008 4:13 PM
Cars? 4:09, I was certain you were going to suggest it be used to clean all the tourists from France crossing into Brooklyn!
Posted by: Biff Champion at June 26, 2008 4:16 PM
Only if they pay, Biff. After all this is going to generate 55 million dollars in "economic activity".
By the way, the Times reader's comments are for the most part saying it's underwhelming, why did they waste the money and energy, it's ugly, etc. I think it sends the wrong message - frivolous and wasteful.And I'm someone who loves art and believes that we don't have enough of it.
Posted by: bxgrl at June 26, 2008 4:26 PM
bxgrl, what does it bother you what private donors "waste" their money on? you waste yours doing things others might object to - frivolous clothes, booze, fattening food, etc. at least this private money is used for the public to enjoy if they want to.
and can everyone stop b.s.ing about the supposed energy use of this? its less than insignificant. global warming freaks.
Posted by: guest at June 26, 2008 5:23 PM
just what brooklyn needs to turn into disneyland.
Posted by: guest at June 26, 2008 5:25 PM
Things to do list:
1) Find wholesale connection for Mr. Bubble
2) Rent boat
Posted by: guest at June 26, 2008 5:42 PM
5:23- why do you care what only I think? I'm obviously so important to you that you just can't leave me alone. as for knowing what I spend my money on- you have absolutely no idea. But to give you an inkling why I care :"Lower Manhattan Development Corporation contributed $2 million."- LMDC is not a private donor.
Now, why do you care?
Posted by: bxgrl at June 26, 2008 5:57 PM
"the remnants of a primordial Eden"... Roberta Smith and the NYT are officially done, as far as serious criticism. This project looks likes something you'd see in a W Hotel lobby.
Crap site installation that is one step beyond a fountain at a suburban mall in '60s whereverland.
Posted by: guest at June 26, 2008 7:16 PM
I am a visiting my child kind of tourist. I saw them this am as I left for home. I thought they were a lovely contrast to the hard bridge. Just like a waterfall in a lobby looks good, not art but pleasant. That said how will they generate
55 mill in income. Will they be selling sno globe replicas.?
To Biff Champion, the wall in China is loaded with Chinese people. The Olympics may make it different this summer but in spite of everything you read there are still not so many Western tourists.
Posted by: guest at June 26, 2008 8:12 PM
I think he was trying to illustrate that well known phenomenon of the classic New Yorker who has never been to the top of the Empire State building or the Statue of Liberty.
Our Mayor has not yet seen fit to explain how the waterfalls will generate that money unless its to generate electric power to run the print machines at the US treasury :-)
Posted by: bxgrl at June 26, 2008 8:25 PM
Don't give the Fed any ideas, bxgrl!
Posted by: guest at June 26, 2008 8:29 PM
Don't give bxgrl any ideas.
Posted by: guest at June 26, 2008 9:47 PM
Thanks bxgrl. While your interpretation is dead on, I was trying to give an example outside of New York City - maybe the Great Wall was a poor one. How about the classic Parisian who has never gone up the Eiffel Tower or the Arc de Triomphe? Or the classic Egyptian who doesn't visit the Pyramids at Giza and the Sphinx? Ok, you get the idea...
Posted by: Biff Champion at June 27, 2008 9:08 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.