NYC Waterfalls: Night Moves

Yesterday's overcast skies were not the optimum conditions for documenting the launch of Olafur Eliasson's NYC Waterfalls; photographs from the first day tended to deemphasize the falls amid the uniformly gray background. But that's part of what's compelling about the work; it's never the same waterfall twice, being constantly affected by the light, air and your point of view. And as we suggested yesterday, while the project may seem underwhelming when you stare straight at it expecting 'capital-W' Waterfalls, they're much more beguiling when you catch them from a distance, out of the corner of your eye. Spotted from an adjacent bridge or a side street near the water, the fluctuating installation works as a sort of unpredictable conversation between the city's skyline and the water that surrounds it.

Roberta Smith has a review in today's Times; she invokes Walt Whitman and calls the waterfalls "relatively unobtrusive and brilliantly insidious. They go against the grain of the often spectacular nature of quite a bit of the best-known public art, including some made by Mr. Eliasson himself." Below are some stunning shots from the installation taken last night, which make a pretty convincing argument for the project when viewed up close, as well.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By John Del Signore in Arts and Events on June 27, 2008 10:08 AM

Comments [rss]

Nyctini11

I didn't know these were coming back, didn't they just finish not too long ago. Everyone i tell from out of town about these things just looks at me like, OK there.

Can't we at least try to get some use out of them, Hydro-power the bridge lights or something, I just don't see the point, it was cool the first time, for like a day.

sonyactivision

Of course they had to light them up at night. Now they just need to get David Byrne to play them.

killerasp

god..this waterfall thing is such a waste of money. i agree with Spear_Chucker, they need to increase the water flow rate and make so it doesnt look like someone pissing off the side of a building.

drewo

Can they keep the lights on past 9pm on weekends? It's not a school night.

chris

I saw them and it still is pretty weak. It looks like a sanitation plant with colored lights behind it... I mean the greenpoint sludge eggs with lights on them look more interesting.

http://gothamist.com/2008/06/04/greenpoint_slud.php

I don't see anyone wetting themselves over those.

Spirit of 76

I think the pictures are deceptive. Any floodlit flowing water in long night exposures will look very different from what the human eye will see. A video would show it more realistically.

Gothamist_Cynic

they definitely look better at night. lighting falling isn't exactly original though.

Editrixie

Finally, someone at Gothamist who knows how to write. Thank you, Mr. Del Signore.

TK

I wonder where the inspiration comes from? The lighting of falling water at night is a totally original idea. Its not at all like Niagara falls.

eyekantspel

You know what else looks nice at night? pretty much any fountain under colored lights.

SikBug

Wow these look much better at night! I wish they'd light up the BK bridge like they did a few weeks ago too.

citizenerased

agreed, or just cover the ugly scaffolding with something.

Spear_Chucker

Calling this a waterfall is ridiculous. There's just not enough flow rate. It's like having me piss off the roof of my building and calling that a waterfall. Lame.