Roberta Smith in the New York Times on Eliasson's water falls: "The experience of Mr. Eliasson’s artful addition to the urban landscape depends on everything around it — the city’s changing pace, light and (real) weather. And on you. The falls can be looked at from near or far, alone or in groups, on foot or bike, from boats and bridges, in snatched glimpses on the move or staying-in-place contemplation. They fake natural history with basic plumbing, making little rips in the urban fabric through which you glimpse hints of lost paradise and get a sharpened sense of Whitman’s, the one you already inhabit."

Does the science barge thing go down this side of Manhattan? I can't remember, but it would be very interesting to see that or the Robert Smithson barge of a few years back with this waterfall in the same view. It really turns nature and built work/technology and their relationship to one another on its head. Or perhaps it comments on exactly what that relationship is perfectly, as so much of Manhattan is built upon fill.
Posted by: becky | Jun 26, 2008 at 05:02 PM
You know, I've only seen pictures and (lots of pictures and video), but I tend to share Richard Lacayo's skepticism on this one...
http://time-blog.com/looking_around/2008/06/by_a_waterfall.html
I'm sorry the following's in German...
http://www.faz.net/s/Rub117C535CDF414415BB243B181B8B60AE/Doc~EE69110ACAD9843969294452651411B13~ATpl~Ecommon~Sspezial.html
... but it's an interesting argument: the more monumental Eliasson's work becomes, the more decorative it becomes.
Posted by: David Hudson | Jun 27, 2008 at 03:08 PM