I'm sure I don't "get" most esteemed works of art, but I'm still undecided about whether my reaction to New York City's waterfall art project is "wow" or "huh?" Four waterfalls designed by Danish artist Olafur Eliasson will show around NYC until October. Three cascade into the East River and New York Harbor from scaffolding towers, while the fourth falls from the Brooklyn Bridge.
Money-wiz Mayor Michael Bloomberg says the art will create $55 million in economic activity for his city (it cost $15.5 million). In a truly American fashion, companies will offer $10 boat tours of the falls, as well as a $50,000 Waterfall Package dripping with luxuries like a private boat tour, champaign, diamonds, dinner for two, and a luxury hotel stay.
Do you find public art to be an eyesore, or a beautiful economic waterfall windfall for cities?
Roksanda Ilincic
Schuh
Temperley London
Wow ... this is SO necessary
1My sister in law can see three of the four waterfalls and she told me that the water traffic is ridiculous. She's never seen The Circle Line so many times in the years that she's lived in her building. She also said that the artist could've done a better job. It looks like an incomplete project, it has no WOW factor.
2I can't wait to see this!!!!! I'm going to New York this summer only to see this exhibition. He is one of my favorite artists, and he is a nice guy too.
3He really could have done more his time, money and energy. I dont think i would go and pay to see that.
4it looks like scaffolding with water. kind of incomplete. maybe in a photo on a sunny day it would look better.
5He could have done better I think. Niagra Falls is more breathtaking than this.
6Um yeah looks kinda ... I don't want to say retarded but I am at a loss for a proper synonym! Anyone?
I read that there are lights on them at night, so perhaps they'll look better once the sun goes down?
7For some reason, I thought it would look different. Had a different vision in my mind when I first heard about it.
8OOPS! My original commented was flagged - sorry Citizen!
I said that I thought the waterfalls looked ... crazy! But I've read that they are lit up at night so HOPEFULLY that will make them more appealing!
Headed to NYC for the 4th so I guess I'll get to see for myself eh?
9I think they look pretty cool, but are an obscene waste of water & energy
10Whatever if it's going to increase revenue...who cares?
11Sashak - apparently it is some sort of eco technology involved in the pumping(the water is the water under the bridge), so it's not that wasteful. I don't have time to find the article, but it might have been the NYT or something similar.
12the waterfall is an eyesore to me....it looks incomplete
13I think they are beautiful, but then I am a big fan of most modern art.
14Eh, they're ok.
Janneth, have you ever been to the Saatchi gallery in London? If you're ever in London, definitely go! It's super interesting and I feel like a lot of people miss it because they do the Tate Modern, but I liked the Saatchi better.
15$55 million for a waterfall?!?! And we think it's OK to tax the rich in Santa Fe?!?! Let's take that $55 million and send it to Santa fe, where they could use the money.
16I love Olafur Eliasson's works because they force the viewer into an interactive experience. And if it can earn $40M in profit for the city, so much the better!
17The funniest thing about this, there's this big attraction in upstate NY, called Niagra Falls that is eerily similar...
18a couple of weeks ago I was in the city and we walked across the brooklyn bridge and we saw these and were like, what the heck? definitely not a show-stopper, if you don't know what they are (maybe i was just behind the times on this, but i had no idea they were an art exhibit until later last week...)
19Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.