NYC Waterfalls – Unnaturally good public art

09Jul08

O.K., so the first time I saw Olafur Eliasson’s New York City Waterfalls, I was thoroughly underwhelmed.  On my morning run to the Staten Island Ferry, I got to see all four of them, three from afar and one from up close, and none of them seemed to match the majesty of the falls depicted in renderings.  And as one of the biggest fans of The Gates that I’ve ever encountered, I was disappointed but also worried that a lackluster spectacle could dim the public’s desire for more large-scale public art projects.

But after many views, these waterfalls have begun to grow on me as art, in that they’ve challenged the way I’m used to seeing the city and provoked me to reconsider my idea of public art.  Although I still agree with Howard Halle’s take that Eliasson’s insistence on making the scaffolding front-and-center is a bit overintellectual for the East River, there’s a lot more to the Waterfalls than the artist’s intentions.

The Waterfalls do not hold a candle to a real waterfall, but then again, that’s not the point.  New York City is not trying to be Rio de Janeiro or Hong Kong or Bogota in terms of offering a contrast between a city and natural beauty.  Instead, they are part of the city itself, and so what you have to do is compare and contrast them to the city.  The falls, between 90 and 120 feet tall, are dwarfed by the towers of the Brooklyn Bridge, which stand 277 feet tall.  But 120 feet is nothing to shake a stick at – it’s just shorter than the Statue of Liberty.  The project allows new ways to appreciate the city’s grandeur.

Most importantly, though, people are talking about art, just the way they did during the Gates.  It’s an event that everyone can participate in, and I’ve overheard Waterfalls-based conversations among Wall Street types, Latinos grilling out along the East River, and hipsters walking around Brooklyn.  New York City needs these conversations. Along the waterfront, which is arguably the most neglected asset the city has, all people, rich, poor and in between, have something to take pleasure in.

People sometimes forget that architecture is one of the greatest forms of public art, and due of a variety of reasons (financial, special interests, lack of planning and a stranglehold on NYC development by a small cabal of developers) we haven’t seen nearly enough exciting architecture in recent decades.  Still, I was in Berlin right after Jeanne-Claue and Christo wrapped the Reichstag, and I was in London for Eliasson’s earlier Weather Project, and I’m thrilled that public art is compensating somewhat for our lack of new architecture.  I hope the precedent established during the Bloomberg years continues in future administrations.

Filed under: Art, NYC, Urban Planning   |  Leave a Comment