Digital Cloud on the Horizon
The Cloud, as this architectural and technological wonder is known, is in the works for 2012. The planners are hoping for micro-donations from millions of people, making this structure for and from the public. Building on the theme of being of the people, there will be energy harnessed from the visitors' elevator journeys to and from the top. This will be accomplished by using the same regenerative braking seen in some hybrid vehicles. With the addition of solar panels on the ground and inside of the bubbles themselves, the entire project becomes "zero energy."
Different spheres will serve different purposes--as structural elements, LCD screens awaiting projected information, observation decks, or just decoration. The spheres will most likely be made of the same material that can be found in Beijing's Aquatic Center, known as ethylene tetrafluoroethylene. The entire affair will be stabilized against wind gusts using the methods that Japan uses in its buildings to protect against earthquakes, and will truly be a sight to see once finished. However, its final shape is not set in stone-- the size and complexity of the structure can easily be increased or reduced depending on the donations received.
Image: "Night View" from http://raisethecloud.org.
- 11-18-09
- Kovvy's blog
- Login or register to post comments
ShareThis- Printer-friendly version
Comments
So...
...which "people" is this for? Cause it seems to be a bit exclusive. I'm all for dreaming big, and it's really nice and everything to say we're going to do something "for the people", but this doesn't really give me a feeling that "the people" are going to benefit. At least, not "the people" who could benefit from the time, energy, and resources (excluding ethylene tetrafluoroethylene) that will be put into this.
Forgive my lack of enthusiasm. I'd just love to see this kind of energy and vision being brought to the actual people. Dreaming of a better future, dreaming of a state of harmonious living, and fancy technological sculptures seems redundant at this stage. How much more dreaming do we have to do before we start living what we know, in ourselves and each other?
true words
agreed
~I dissolve in order to dream-Releasing intuition
I seal the input of abundance-With the spectral tone of liberation
I am guided by my own power doubled~
---___---_---__---♫♪♫♪..d[^_^]b..♫♪♫♪---___--_-----__--
Why?
I disagree
These comments sound like the kind of argument people make against art in general--that it isn't useful and therefore a waste of time and energy. I think that judging art based on the typical capitalist notions of usefulness misses the point--art is about engaging and inspiring people to step outside of their everyday experience. This is not something for which the value can be quantified, but is perhaps one of the most powerful mechanisms for societal change. Art creates the undercurrents that great thinkers, inventors, and entrepreneurs ride to surface as they make manifest that which had to first be imagined.
peace,
jp
I agree
Hey Jen...the truth is, art is enormously important. I just think we need to make art of our lives before we lose ourselves. We're spread very thin among our oneness, and from my perspective, it is now only excuses being made for the continuance of the present approach to life. We have all of the necessary ingredients to create a veritable paradise for everyone, including the chance for each person to be a unique expression of consciousness, and we are choosing to perpetuate suffering, continue accepting poisons in the water, earth, food, air, and medicine, nevermind the toxicity of the conscious/psychological material in most mainstream media.
Art is a bridge, and this project seems to be a bridge that doesn't support many. With the emphasis on "for the people", I just don't feel personally that it lives up to that kind of hype or statement. It's too easy to say it, and the preview and description just don't move me. That's all I was getting at.
The fact is, the perspective I have on the world is obviously significantly different than the artists' as well. For artists living deep in London, focused on new technology, this vision probably does seem like it's "for the people"...the people they encounter from their own point of perspective. A very different world than the one I perceive.
It's the statement. "For the people." Words have become just so much flotsam when they're tossed around without regard for what they really mean, what they're really connected to, and what they direct our attention towards. Old Dutch Potato Chips' slogan is:
"We use only the finest ingredients."
i agree with Jen
I guess you didn't read the
I guess you didn't read the second comment. Actually, did you really read the first one? Where in either comment did I downplay the value of art? Where did I speak about anything negative to do with art? Or the other people, in fact? My point was more to do with accountability for the statement, "By the people, for the people." I'm an artist myself, so I'd say there's a lack of clarity in your position.
That said, it looks like you and some others may want to take a look inside yourselves and find out what that anger is about. I agree, it would be nice to forget about all "them poor folk" and just get on with what's good for me, but alas, I'm living in the reality that we're all connected, that we're as strong and healthy as the weakest link in our connectivity, and that we're going to go as fast in our conscious evolution as the slowest member, on account of that same connectivity. And as it turns out, this is not just good, but great for me.
Nevermind the fact that neither you nor Jen actually had answers to the questions asked. Go find some real art bashers to bash...maybe you'll all realize that bashing doesn't help anyone.
I wasn't bashing you
Hey Sean B,
I'm sorry if you think I was bashing you--I wasn't. I was merely disagreeing with the idea that art has to be useful and wrapped up in a social purpose. That said, this is a public piece of art that is intended for "the people" and you are right to question that intention--especially if you don't see anything particularly egalitarian about the project. I actually do think its going to be very much of the people, since its scale and position (in the sky) will make it seen by many. Also, its funding is not coming from a corporation or a gaggle of rich investors, but from micro-donations from "the many"--which is quite different from most big time art projects.
At any rate, I hope you will agree that it's fine that we disagree. I certainly didn't mean anything personal by my comment.
peace,
jp