East River Water Falls As Art

Did you see it?

any art venue that is put up just for the purpose of generating revenue is usually a "stay away" for us. I said to myself when I saw the trailers of this event on Tv
"Now what will I do with the rest of my time after Ive spent the requisite 7 minutes looking at the East River being thrown into my face. MMMMMM\\\.

I wonder if they strain out the "brown trout"?

New York has such beautiful waterfalls such as Watgens and Ricketts Glens. WHy hose down the side of a bridge and some docksides with polluted water?

Am I jaded re "public art"?

I like it. I think they should make it permanent. The city has wasted 15 million on far crazier things. Personally, I found the Christo saffron thing rather ho-hum. I've been more inspired by laundry lines in Brooklyn.

i like his yellow shirt. it's a dress shirt, but it's yellow. it stands out.

i don't think i myself would pay to go see an artificial waterfall. i don't care much one way or another, but there are many other things i'd much rather do in new york.

If I happened to be visiting NYC while it was still there, I'd go see it. A special trip? Not so much.

I reckon I could do something similar for under $1000.

A couple of 10 hp onga pumps some 2 inch poly pipe.

I have not seen it yet but will use any excuse to go to NYC. I believe it is not as great as the gates but still it is the East River finally getting some attention.

Surely they strain the water somehow if not yuk. I did wade in the Hudson last year a bit north of the City. I now think of it as a mistake, it was a hot humid day and there were kids in the water and on a lark I took off my shoes and went in up to my waist.

A while later I actually thought about it as a stupid thing to due but so far no adverse effects.

Eliasson is pretty well regarded - I've been following his work for a while, though not closely. Much of what I remember has been interior installations.

I remember squawking on a2k some long time ago about some art in the nyc skyline. Can't remember what it was right this minute. Something done with planes..
anyway, that irritated me at the time, some gut feeling about don't use the sky..

In this case I'm presently neutral. I don't actually hate it, but it does carry some of the same onus that I feel about people who design ponds at the top of a property instead of downhill - the contrivance, unnaturalness gets me.

On the other hand, I've liked images of the waterfall in Paley Park in the middle of Manhattan, so I'm not entirely consistent. And I've liked some of the Christos' work, Michael Heizer's, and others.

In the interview with the artist he said that many felt his work with the water falls to be an unnatural scene. But acurately pointed out most of Manhattan is constucted and not natural. Pointing out that even Central Park was man made including the giant granite boulders hauled into the park for effect.

I don't dispute Manhattan is a contruction upon an island, and certainly not that Central Park is designed and constructed. That was my reaction - basically an aesthetic one. I leave room to change my mind - I might enjoy it in person.

Great answer ossobuco. One that I can enjoy especially as all art is in my mind so, so subjective to the individual eye and ear.

I was in NYC in 2003 and missed, in my walking, checking out Paley Park by about a block. (Nuts!) Wonder if I would have Not liked it in person, and would LIKE this waterfall in person.

My critical mind has perhaps some equilibrating to do. I also enjoyed the water garden at Villa d'Este in Tivoli, near Rome, but most enjoyed the water garden with a more gravity based design, at Villa Lante, somewhat to the north. The first was more like an antique disneyland of water, the second a more, uh, intellectually designed villa garden with all the water apparently flowing from a grotto at the highest elevation. Which makes me want to read more. Villa d'Este may also be spring fed...

Here's some more of Eliasson's work..


http://www.olafureliasson.net/selected_works.html

Hmmm. There's a small photo of the waterfall on his own site, here, about 1/4 down the page, that might make me change my mind.. not that it's any more natural, but for the beauty.


http://www.olafureliasson.net/relaunch/index.php?section=work#

It does nothing for me, but that says more about me than it does about the installation.

I walked the Manhattan Bridge the other day and saw both of the waterfalls as I crossed. Big deal was my immediate reaction. I guess when you're walking across a huge bridge with a view of the entirety of NYC, a little manufactured waterfall doesn't seem so magnificent. I did see them during the day though. Maybe they're lit up at night. I guess that would look a little more interesting. I also hear that the best way to see them is on the circle line cruise or one of those water taxis.

Would only a tourist do that Kicky?

What, go see those waterfalls? I don't know. I think people that live here are interested as well, just like they were interested in the Gates in Central Park. It's just that it seems to me that these waterfalls would look much better in a smaller place, where they would really stand out.

makes sense