Dumbo NYC

Notes from the DUMBO, Brooklyn NY neighborhood


Eliasson’s Waterfall Begins

June 26th, 2008

Olafur Eliasson’s Waterfalls project started this morning at 7am. Seems like every NYC news channel and blogs are covering this. From what we’ve seen, there is an increase in number of foot traffic in the area. As we previously mentioned, the installation will create at least $55 million in extra tourism revenue for the city and a lot more people coming over the Brooklyn Bridge to check out the falls.

Also open now is the Brooklyn Bridge Park’s Pier 1. Pier 1 offers a cafe run by Dumbo’s RICE along with picnic tables, benches, landscaping with trees and grass, and a sand play area. Pier 1 will be open June 26 – Labor Day, seven days a week, from 10:00am – 10:00pm and located on the East River at the base of Old Fulton Street and Furman Street.

The rendering from a Daily News article shows what the Brooklyn Bridge Park will eventually look like:

The waterfalls will operate from 7am to 10pm every day until October 13th, except on Tuesdays and Thursdays, when they’ll be turned on at 9am. Check out some initial photos from rsguskind of The Gowanus Lounge. (Above image from rsguskind).

{Pop-Up Park Pops in Brooklyn Bridge Park, Brownstoner}
{The Waterfalls Start Falling, Brownstoner}
{The Waterfalls are Here!, Gothamist}
{Where To See The Waterfalls, Gothamist}
{The Freakin’ Waterfalls Are On: The Press Conference, Curbed}
{The Freakin’ Waterfalls Are On: Brooklyn Bridge Edition, Curbed}
{And, Now, the Brooklyn Bridge Waterfall, Gowanus Lounge}

Filed in Brooklyn Bridge, Brooklyn Bridge Park, Dumbo Events, Dumbo in Media at 2:42 pm
Comments
  • Laura
    I don't understand why everyone thinks this is so awesome. It's a metal scaffold with dirty East River water pumping through it. There appears to be no artistic value or special effects (lights, colors, mirror effects, etc - SOMEthing besides dirty river water to look at) from what I can see. The one under the Brooklyn Bridge probably looks pretty cool, I can see that. But this one over by the FDR - booooooring.
  • Joe
    Looks like something built by a 5-year old with an erector set and a hose. Big waste of money and energy.
  • Beavis
    What is the ugly gray slab in front of the Watchtower in the proposed park rendering?
  • mike d
    Do you guys get paid to whine?
  • Laura, Beavis, and Joe
    Yep! Whiners R Us.com
  • htrthrthrthtthrthrth
    i agree...dumbest art installation ever! honestly, this is really, really stupid, ugly and boring. what a waste.
  • low bmi
    Agreed - Nothing to it.

    The empire stores bathed in multicolored lights (from Christmastime) belw this away. Perhaps if they backlit it with random mood lighting and put a shroud over that tower, it would look much better.
  • VH
    Ditto. Saw it last night. I was more impressed by the fact that I can now buy beer at the RICE tent and sit in the poop park.
  • Laura
    Woah! Poop park? What the hell is that?

    Beer tent? Niceeee...

    Whining aside, I agree with low bmi and that's precisely my point. THAT was extremely simple, beautifully done, and very enjoyable. This waterfall project is just retarded. Those of you who think we're whiners and are enjoying it...you REALLY need to get out of the city more often.
  • htrthrthrthtthrthrth
    also, you need to be literally on the river to get anything out of these monstrosities (and even then there's little to get). from land all you see is ugly scaffolding. is this some kind of sick joke? my one year old makes better art.
  • Mr. Dumbo
    $15.5 million for that?? The pro "Waterfalls" people are all wet!
  • ugh
    the people that post on this blog make me hate this neighborhood.
  • low bmi
    Hi ugh - Don't hate the neighborhood because of some folks who think the waterfalls are no big deal and are posting negative feedback.

    I assure you, if the waterfalls were good art, we would post positively. The fact is, they are not, and the comments section on our neighborhood blog is where we can discuss it openly and yet annonomously.

    I know that some may say one's "ART" may be another's "GARBAGE", but please..... anyone who thinks that these scaffolds that are trickling water into the river are decent works needs to visit a few museums but quick.
  • dfdbdfb
    YEAH, so suck it, ugh!
  • dfdbdfb
    also, i agree with ugh.
  • ugh
    actually, low bmi, it's the ENDLESS bitching and moaning about anything and everything on this blog that i hate.

    but since you brought it up - when's the last time you went to a museum? oh wait, i know - it was the motorcycle show at the guggenheim, right?
  • mod squad
    low down bmi has been SERVED! finish him off ugh!
  • rfgdfgdfgdfg
    oh SNAP! Finishing move?
  • ugh
    Further more, low bmi, if that's your real name, I am of the opinion your mother is so obese, when she rolls over, she is in a new time zone. She is Dumbo's namesake! PWNED!
  • dumbostreets
    Eliasson’s waterfalls are urban and built with the same materials you'd find elsewhere in the city. I'd say the scaffolds make the waterfall very familiar... but the falling water is, of course, unusual. As a result, the scaffolds tend to blend into the urban backdrop, especially at a distance. The best views of the waterfalls, in my opinion, are from opposing sides of the river.

    Typically, waterfalls tend to be romantic devices in art history and Eliasson is going a different direction which is going against a lot of people's expectations. They obviously represent a very significant effort which I consider extremely successful. I much prefer this kind of project which is really trying to work itself into the site, from its materials to the organizing principle, to sticking a sculpture on a grassy knoll.
  • mod squad
    Dumbostreets. There is nothing wrong with going against peoples expectations, it should be encouraged, but when the effort is tentative and down right puny, compared to the Brooklyn Bridge above, we have the right to heap scorn on said effort. I agree, the project tries every day to work itself into the site but with little success. There are 2 problems I see with this thing. The sum is less than all the parts. Maybe if they were grouped together it would help, don't know. Also, from any distance it says "scaffolding" not "waterfall". Maybe a different color or simply shrouding it would of helped. The artist is successful on one count. As you say, typically a waterfall is a romantic device in history, now it is a public irritant.
  • dumbostreets
    You say "irritant" as if that's a bad thing.

    Most public art projects consist of unadventuresome stuff (for obvious reasons). I actually do not find Eliasson’s waterfalls "irritating" but I would be fine if they were.

    Why isn't this waterfall as grand and sublime as the Brooklyn Bridge you ask? Because this waterfall is not a grand, romantic structure. Why are they not grouped together so they are collectively more substantial? Because this waterfall is not a seeking to be monumental... which is, you guessed it, another kind of romanticism. It is about site.

    Scaffolding is everywhere in this city and the Brooklyn Bridge uses a permanent scaffolding-like beam system for support. This choice actually makes a lot of sense to me. If urban waterfalls actually were a "naturally" occurring urban phenomena, I'd bet on scaffolds and pylons.
  • mod squad
    you miss my point. the problem is these structures are scaffoldings first. the water coming off the top appears to be an afterthought, something to make it "art". If you want to call the scaffolding art I can't argue with that. I will call it bad art however, no matter how "significant the effort" is. Like I said before there is nothing wrong with challenging peoples expectations. This project is a irritant because most people are questioning the artists technique with no thought whatsoever to what these structures represent.
  • dumbostreets
    Maybe your eyesight is better than mine, but when viewing the waterfalls from the opposite bank I cannot see the scaffolding well. Even at an angle, at twilight, they disappear- especially in contrast to the water which is mostly white. When walking over the bridge and looking down between the walkway planks, I cannot see the scaffolding either. From Brooklyn Bridge park and Fulton Ferry I see the scaffolding, of course, because that view is from the "side." This is beside the point.

    Architecture and art which feature its supports as integral to the work is not new. There has been a great deal written about this sort of thing so I am not going to repeat it here. I think, however, it is absurd that you suggest the artist has given "no thought to what these structures represent." I am certain he has given it more informed thought than you have.

    This is a mechanical waterfall made from common-looking, industrial elements. There is a kind of unceremonious realism about these structures even as they are unusual. This kind of work is not about "technique" in the plastic sense - but there is plenty of operational technique at work. A complex filter system has been constructed to rise and fall with the tide, for instance.

    Frankly, your comments indicate that you are passing judgement on something you haven't really looked at or thought much about.
  • mod squad
    didn't say that, don't know what the artist intended these things to represent. I said the structure itself precludes any attempt to decipher what the hell it all means.
    Frankly you sound like an academic lauding a student for his good effort without the courage to call it shit.
    You speak to a bigger problem however. An elitist attitude toward the common people. The snicker that comes over your face when "art" is not appreciated by the unwashed because they "haven't really looked at it" What does that mean exactly? Do we need a terminal degree to go to a museum these days? Maybe directions on those lighted signs on the BQE could say instead of CARPOOL or WATCH OUT FOR CYCLISTS, CAUTION, MODERN ART AHEAD.
  • dumbostreets
    You did say (and I cut and paste): "with no thought whatsoever to what these structures represent"

    If that is not snobbish, I don't know what is.

    This statement is not thoughtful or well observed. Most of the critical statements on this blog are, as you say, "heaping scorn." They are just mean and nasty. I am the only one who has attempted to defend this work a little and that somehow makes me "elite."

    Your complaint about the scaffolding means you haven't considered all the places from which it is not visible, which I mention in my previous post. That's what I mean by "looking at it."
  • mod squad
    I shoulda put a comma after "artist technique," in my post of 5:11 July 3rd. I meant that people viewing the structure are unable to get pass the vulgarity of said structure to find a deeper or higher meaning. The artist's thoughts and inspirations or whatever are irrelevant at this point, its what the thing says to the viewer. He could of been "inspired" by 15 million for all we know.
    Call me old fashion, but a 3 dimensional sculpture should work from any angle you choose to look at it, without a caveat. I think, don't get me wrong, that is the reason why people work in 3 dimensions.
    Yes, I agree, you are the only one defending this thing. You need to get off your high horse and boogie on down with the proletariat.
  • mike d
    I like them. I like football and hockey too. Mostly for the hitting.
    So what do I know.
  • low bmi
    Hello Ugh -

    I will not reply to you again.
    Your comments to me are not very nice at all.
    You should think twice before you post. Excuse me now; I have to leave this "Museum of Stupidity".
  • dumbostreets
    mod squad:

    Comrad, I don't think it is proletarian to consider scaffolding "vulgar." It is certainly narrow, if not elitist, to tell someone they "need" to agree with you.

    Most of the "opinions" against this work are mean-spirited and lazy... You know, criticism and well-formed opinions, like art, take effort too.

    I've tried to explain WHY I liked them rather than just say "they're cool and I like them because I like them. You're lame if you think they look cheap. ZING!"

    If you want me to agree with you, like you have asked, you are going to have to do better than insisting on the supremacy of your tastes... because they're, uhm, common and virtuous.
  • mod squad
    Just for the sake of argument, lets say an artist put a men's urinal in a show(I know this is craziness). Is it an irritant? Yes. Is it art? Sure, why not, the artist says it is. Is it GOOD art? Yea it is. It is simple and elegant and unencumbered. Nothing gets in the way. The message is clear, "anything can be art and some are great works of art. On the other hand the waterfalls are a bloated Rube Goldberg contraption with explanations needed about the pumping system and a map supplied by a bridge troll like you as to where to view them from.
    You need to get caught up, dumbostreets, whats your opinion on Hip HOP?
  • dumbostreets
    I am pretty sure Duchamp would agree with me on this one. I won't elaborate because, apparently, explaining things is "trollish." In that case, I recommend sticking with TV commercials.

    I feel I've made my point(s) and I am done here. I don't think you "need" to agree with me; but, in my opinion, it is not a bad idea to be a little more curious and little less damning when it comes to art.

    I like hip hop, but some artists better than others, of course... so I can't say I have an "opinion on hip hop." I also like Rube Goldberg.
  • mod squad
    Who's Duchamp?
  • dumbostreets
    About Duchamp's Fountain, here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)
  • dumbostreets
    Look up "Marcel Duchamp" on wikipedia. Check out the link to his piece "Fountain."
  • mod squad
    I'm a F**KIN genius!
  • joe
    Well, look at what we have here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp). Or go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Duchamp and click on 'fountain'
blog comments powered by Disqus
Other Posts of Interest