SF Bay Area bridge 'Bay Lights' go dark

boing
1

Originally published at: SF Bay Area bridge 'Bay Lights' go dark | Boing Boing

…

4 Likes
2

That’s a cool piece – I hope they can find the funding to implement a robust replacement. That technology has changed a fair bit in the last decade but that is a truly harsh environment.

5 Likes
3

It’s pretty, but a huge contributor to light pollution. And how much does it cost to keep running? Maybe that funding could support dozens of other artists making public art?

14 Likes
4

These are terrible for wildlife, birds in particular. Not to mention the waste of electricity. Shut it off permanently. Leave only the red lights necessary for safety.

10 Likes
5

I’m of the opinion that way more installation art is or should be more ephemeral than it is now.

4 Likes
6

I’m in favor of darkening skies in general, but I would gladly donate to the more-lights nonprofit if they’d named it The Illuminati.

4 Likes
7

I understand the sentiment, but decay is part of life, and like it or not, part of art. What symbolism to let 'em go as long as possible! Some segments would hold out for quite a few more years, and would be celebrated for their perseverance. Give people pause to consider that all infrastructure is in a state of decay and needs love to last.

ETA: “But Bunbain, what would the investors think if SF looked the least bit poor!?”

3 Likes
8

I’m not sure why lights on a bridge makes art. Or if we should be making more light pollution at all.

1 Like
9

Yeah, when they were first installed in 2013 they were only meant to stay in place for a few years as a temporary art installation. It wasn’t until 2016 that they officially decided to try to make it permanent. It’s been a successful public art project that lasted years longer than originally intended so there’s definitely no big loss in moving on and allocating the funds to support new art installations elsewhere.

I don’t think people were too upset when they eventually unwrapped that bridge in Paris, right?

2 Likes
10

They’re not just lights. It’s a generative sculpture and a really cool one at that!

2 Likes
11

Could you explain the cool part?
That’s the bit I’m unable to grasp.

1 Like
12

I tried to find a good video of it without a lot of news commentary:

4 Likes
13

The lights were created as a generative sequence and the pattern never repeated. So the lights weren’t just static, they undulated and were really quite mesmerizing. Plus they reflected on the water. Quite lovely! I did include a video if you’d like to see. But perhaps it was better to have experienced in person!

4 Likes
14

The patterns never repeated which always amazed me!

3 Likes
15

I read that it cost $11,000/year in electricity to run the lights. All the funds were private not public.

1 Like
16

Are you asking someone to explain the concept of aesthetics and visual expression?

You don’t personally enjoy it; fine. But self-appointed art police get tiresome.

4 Likes
17

From 2016: https://goldengateaudubon.org/blog-posts/art-for-all-and-less-light-pollution-for-birds/

1 Like
18

Well that’s not the main cost, is it? Back in 2015 they thought it would cost about $12 million to maintain the bridge for 10 to 12 years, and they managed to raise the money (good for them!) but it turned out not to be enough.

Obviously if the nonprofit were able to raise even more money they could try to do that, and maybe they will. But it’s a huge amount of money to maintain a single art installation.

19

That headline seems to be misleading. I read that whole linked article and it only talks about how the old sodium lights aimed at the roadway were replaced with LEDs and how that would lead to certain benefits, but it didn’t specifically talk about how the art installation itself would or would not affect birds. Maybe the birds aren’t bothered by it but the article never says that.

1 Like
20

This made me think of a local installation that was removed 25 years ago. Looked it up and kind of disappointed the “never repeated” bit was just a legend,

Local legend held that the computer (a futuristic touch in itself, ca. 1967) controlling the seemingly endless random patterns could run for hundreds of years without ever repeating. In reality, the program cycled through 120 sequences every six minutes.

Nice article anyway,

1 Like