This site is closed to new comments and posts.

Notice: This site uses cookies to function.
If you are not comfortable with cookies then please don't browse this website.

NYC Waterfalls - Page 2 — Brooklynian

NYC Waterfalls

2»

Comments

  • daver
    daver
    The Gates were entirely privately funded and brought in $250+ million in tourist dollars. As far as this thing, it was technically financed by the Public Art fund, which "is a non-profit art organization supported by generous contributions from individuals, foundations, and corporations, and with funds from National Endowment for the Arts; New York State Council on the Arts, a State agency; and the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs." This particular project has a list of corporate sponsers as long as your arm, view it here. It was $15.5 million, they hope to bring in $55 million on it. *shrug* 90% of the materials will be reused building other stuff when they take it down. Realistically, I would say that the city will realize FAR more money with it than what they put into it, if thye put anything. Which is good thing, especially since those there are tourist dollars that aren't coming out of our pockets.
  • queencallipygos
    queencallipygos
    The few shots I've seen of it have been largely unimpressive -- if I couldn't see the scaffolding somehow, it'd be more of a thing, but this, meh.

    But I don't understand the sheer ire that others have directed towards it -- I don't dig it, but I don't hate it with the strength of a thousand firey suns, as it seems others do. That kind of ire I don't quite get either.
  • stacey
    stacey
    Carnivore wrote: I saw these last night and thought they were kind of "meh."

    Anyone else remember the big stream of water they used to have shooting out from the southern tip of Roosevelt Island into the East River? The waterfalls are kind of like a less cool version of that.
    Someone once told me that those shooting streams meant that the United Nations was in session - truth or urban legend?
  • carnivore
    carnivore
    stacey wrote: [quote=Carnivore]I saw these last night and thought they were kind of "meh."

    Anyone else remember the big stream of water they used to have shooting out from the southern tip of Roosevelt Island into the East River? The waterfalls are kind of like a less cool version of that.
    Someone once told me that those shooting streams meant that the United Nations was in session - truth or urban legend?
    I don't know. I never heard that. Sounds like a question to write in to Michael Pollak's F.Y.I column in the City section of the Sunday Times.
  • hamilton
    hamilton
    stacey wrote: [quote=Carnivore]I saw these last night and thought they were kind of "meh."

    Anyone else remember the big stream of water they used to have shooting out from the southern tip of Roosevelt Island into the East River? The waterfalls are kind of like a less cool version of that.
    Someone once told me that those shooting streams meant that the United Nations was in session - truth or urban legend?


    ****************************

    Another example of synchronized flushing.
  • nearnostrand
    nearnostrand
    Well, I'm happy that it appears that the city will make money on this art installation. I'm also happy that it is not purely funded through public money. I still wish that the art selected (the waterfalls) for the city was more interesting. For me, it was like I Am Legend starring Will Smith; a lot of hype but very little payoff, and we love Big Will movies (mostly) but hated that one. We love art, nature, architecture, and the three combined for the waterfall installation, seemed like something that our family would fully enjoy as well. I guess we're just not that impressed. I personally just don't see anything particullarly new or inspiring.

    I also don't think there's very much in the way of ire coming from those who don't care for the waterfalls. I think people here are just having a good time poking fun at them. There's nothing wrong with that, but I do think there is something wrong when someone seems to suggest that I'm off base for expressing my dislike for a piece of art. Art is in the eye of the beholder.
  • daver
    daver
    nearnostrand wrote: Well, I'm happy that it appears that the city will make money on this art installation. I'm also happy that it is not purely funded through public money. I still wish that the art selected (the waterfalls) for the city was more interesting. For me, it was like I Am Legend starring Will Smith; a lot of hype but very little payoff, and we love Big Will movies (mostly) but hated that one. We love art, nature, architecture, and the three combined for the waterfall installation, seemed like something that our family would fully enjoy as well. I guess we're just not that impressed. I personally just don't see anything particullarly new or inspiring.

    I also don't think there's very much in the way of ire coming from those who don't care for the waterfalls. I think people here are just having a good time poking fun at them. There's nothing wrong with that, but I do think there is something wrong when someone seems to suggest that I'm off base for expressing my dislike for a piece of art. Art is in the eye of the beholder.
    Nice post. Can we gets the stars back.

    Pleeze? :D
  • rtraindweller
    rtraindweller
    Drunken Revival wrote: I don't see anyone of you building a waterfall....
    i meant to build one last week but i got drunk and forgot. sorry.
  • hamilton
    hamilton
    It was rumored Bloomberg was using child labor to maintain the flow required to create the image of a natural waterfall.

    Well here 's the proof he did.

    image
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In

Categories