> Given the decay of time and the risk of turning it on, the team is using custom-built LED triangles that sit atop each hand-blown glass prism to light it up.
I think they've inadvertently created an interesting new dimension to the artwork here. Software developers especially should be able to appreciate the feeling of being unable to properly reengineer a flawed system due to expense or expedience, and just slapping another layer on top instead. Sort of like a celebration of path dependence. I'd like to see more examples of long-form artworks that gradually evolve through different artists and eras.
>> I'd like to see more examples of long-form artworks that gradually evolve through different artists and eras.
Much of this is actually illegal in many counties. Re-working a sculpture is seen as trampeling on the artists rights, specifically "moral rights" which cannot be contracted away. The classic example case of this is Snow v. Eaton Center.
"In Snow, a 1982 case at the Ontario High Court of Justice, the defendant had purchased a sculpture of 60 geese that they placed inside their shopping centre. During their Christmas celebration the defendant tried to attach ribbons to the necks of the geese. The plaintiff alleged that the addition of the ribbons modified his work in a manner prejudicial to his honour or reputation."
* right to prevent the use of one's name on any work the author did not create
* right to prevent use of one's name on any work that has been distorted, mutilated, or modified in a way that would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation
* right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation
In this case, since they're keeping close to the original vision I doubt there's a VARA claim.
Today, most places that would commission a piece like this would make artists sign a VARA waiver.
Edit: also, I'm not a lawyer. I just play one on the internet.
You can't. Artists cannot divest themselves of future moral rights via contract. If you want to change a work, you have to go back to the artist each and every time. If artists could simply lift them, moral rights would be just another thing waived in every sale. But moral rights are not copyrights. They cannot be used to prevent future sales (ie first sale doctrine).
apparently art is like software.. You have a license to enjoy it?
Any private land owners is going to think twice about art on their property after 5-points in NYC and the artist that stuck a small girl to stand down the wall street bull which lawsuits.
> here is the truth about “Fearless Girl”: It features a branded plaque at its base. The companies that installed it had a permit. They are advertising firm McCann New York
Wow! Seeing those pictures makes it obvious why they decided to add new electronics and lights instead of reusing the existing ones. Even with documentation that looks like it would be a real pain to interface with.
How many raspberry pi's would it approximately take to replace all these older electronics? I've seen an impressive LED matrix controlled by one raspberry pi, strobed to music and displayed low resolution images and videos. Thoughts?
A rpi + the driving circuits for the diodes would do the trick just fine. Actually a rpi might arguably be overpowered for such a task. This monument was inaugurated 6 years after Apollo 11, it's basically prehistorical as far as electronics are concerned.
Oh, so sad. Its looks like so much work went into the piece's computer. I wonder if anyone has done a blender (or whatever) animation of what the goal was. I would love to see it. Why on earth would they cement the wire in? bizarre. Put in a hollow tube so you can pull new wires in. That can't be a new idea. Still, great story.
It may also be of interest to HN that Jona Bechtolt & Claire Evans who are leading this project are the core members of the band Yacht. Claire recently published Broad Band [1] to acclaim, which explores the history of women involved in the early years of the internet. She also edits Vice’s science fiction site. Both are very cool people who continuously crank out interesting projects.
>Its primitive, custom-designed computer couldn’t execute Young’s intentions; the sound came out wrong, and the lights rarely synced as they should have.
I'm a bit surprised by this. Most professional artists I know put a huge amount of effort into working with / experimenting with the medium they're working in get the results they want. I don't know any (i'm sure there are some) who do one off experiments, they're usually pretty experienced with the materials / medium they work with.
Awesome! I have walked past it a few times and wondered how it was ever supposed to have worked, so its going to be wonderful to see it in action one day ..
Walt Disney Concert Hall is more derided. Maybe that would be "architecture", which counts as "public art" for me, but perhaps not thee. Some would also name Ramón C. Cortines School of Visual and Performing Arts, but I like that one.
"Hey, there's this new piece of technology, I think it will enable great things! Let's start off with a really big budget, very public project, first thing!" Ouch. Not that the software developer community has any room to talk.
I wonder if the estimated multimillion restoration cost includes rewiring the structure. Perhaps the existing wiring just isn't suitable for use at all.
A lot of people do consider it an iconic American landmark, but don't necessarily see it as a good thing.
In this particular case, for me the first things Hollywood sign evokes are "megalomania", "shitty blockbusters", "overinflated ego". I'm super biased (I don't even really know Hollywood history) and it doesn't necessarily make it the "most derided piece of art", but it wouldn't surprise me
It wouldn't even be in the top thousand for public art in LA, especially since it wasn't intended to be "public" or "art" when it was unveiled. (It was originally intended to be temporary signage for a housing development called "Hollywoodland" that failed. Some decades later, the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce paid to restore part of the sign. A few decades after that, it was restored again and has been more or less maintained to that level ever since.)
Top contender usually goes to the light sculptures at the entrance to LAX, or else to the frescoes adorning the sidewalls of the 110 and 10 freeways.
The Hollywood sign wasn’t always considered an icon. For many years between its initial construction in the 1920s and its restoration in the 1970s, it was poorly maintained and considered an eyesore: https://theconversation.com/the-history-of-the-hollywood-sig...
atlasobscura.com seems to show up an awful lot on HN, and I rarely find the links to be technically relevant or useful, but always full of ads. It would be nice to be able to filter them out
I rarely find the links to be technically relevant or useful
Reading articles like this one gives you things to talk about, which makes you someone people are more keen to engage with. That will give you an edge in a lot of interactions but particularly in sales. If you can't sell then your startup will fail. That's why they're relevant.
You need to be able to talk to other people about what they are interested in. That requires broadening your interests. A few articles about things you wouldn't typically read can be very useful.
install uBlock Origin, seems to work for me with JS enabled, though does seem to have a fullscreen nag, and a scroll nag...
The WORST imho are the sites that ask for notification permission, to which my initial reaction is FUCK YOU... there's no call for that without a user initiated action.
I think they've inadvertently created an interesting new dimension to the artwork here. Software developers especially should be able to appreciate the feeling of being unable to properly reengineer a flawed system due to expense or expedience, and just slapping another layer on top instead. Sort of like a celebration of path dependence. I'd like to see more examples of long-form artworks that gradually evolve through different artists and eras.
Much of this is actually illegal in many counties. Re-working a sculpture is seen as trampeling on the artists rights, specifically "moral rights" which cannot be contracted away. The classic example case of this is Snow v. Eaton Center.
"In Snow, a 1982 case at the Ontario High Court of Justice, the defendant had purchased a sculpture of 60 geese that they placed inside their shopping centre. During their Christmas celebration the defendant tried to attach ribbons to the necks of the geese. The plaintiff alleged that the addition of the ribbons modified his work in a manner prejudicial to his honour or reputation."
The artist has the:
* right to prevent the use of one's name on any work the author did not create
* right to prevent use of one's name on any work that has been distorted, mutilated, or modified in a way that would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation
* right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation
In this case, since they're keeping close to the original vision I doubt there's a VARA claim.
Today, most places that would commission a piece like this would make artists sign a VARA waiver.
Edit: also, I'm not a lawyer. I just play one on the internet.
Any private land owners is going to think twice about art on their property after 5-points in NYC and the artist that stuck a small girl to stand down the wall street bull which lawsuits.
http://gothamist.com/2018/09/26/5_pointz_judgment_appeal.php
http://gothamist.com/2017/04/12/fearless_girl_charging_bull....
https://hyperallergic.com/364474/the-sculpture-of-a-fearless...
> here is the truth about “Fearless Girl”: It features a branded plaque at its base. The companies that installed it had a permit. They are advertising firm McCann New York
[1] https://clairelevans.com
This seems like quite an ambitious project for 1975!
(It took around 80 years to get a decently working implementation)
I'm a bit surprised by this. Most professional artists I know put a huge amount of effort into working with / experimenting with the medium they're working in get the results they want. I don't know any (i'm sure there are some) who do one off experiments, they're usually pretty experienced with the materials / medium they work with.
Outside of specific corporate/academic/military facilities they basically would have been unable to "experiment" at all.
It's pretty remarkable they came up with anything that functioned at all considering the barriers to entry of the time.
which would make the whole restoration thing completely pointless, and subject to even more mockery
In this particular case, for me the first things Hollywood sign evokes are "megalomania", "shitty blockbusters", "overinflated ego". I'm super biased (I don't even really know Hollywood history) and it doesn't necessarily make it the "most derided piece of art", but it wouldn't surprise me
Top contender usually goes to the light sculptures at the entrance to LAX, or else to the frescoes adorning the sidewalls of the 110 and 10 freeways.
Is the Hollywood sign really the target of that much mockery? Caricature surely but that's not the same thing.
Not everyone is the same, and I appreciate your point of view as well.
Reading articles like this one gives you things to talk about, which makes you someone people are more keen to engage with. That will give you an edge in a lot of interactions but particularly in sales. If you can't sell then your startup will fail. That's why they're relevant.
You need to be able to talk to other people about what they are interested in. That requires broadening your interests. A few articles about things you wouldn't typically read can be very useful.
The WORST imho are the sites that ask for notification permission, to which my initial reaction is FUCK YOU... there's no call for that without a user initiated action.