Some observations on the design of long-term public installations

I've been thinking about some of the more prominent long-term public installations that I've seen recently and have a couple of things that I want to get down, mainly concerning a slight unease I feel about the relationship between dynamic public artworks and the public themselves;

Essentially my argument is this; I get the distinct feeling that too often the viewer is only properly considered after the aesthetic has already been determined - "this is what we want to build, how can people relate/interact with it". This bothers me in a number of ways;

Firstly, quite often the main ethos behind the design of such pieces is the showboating of new technologies and software. My issue with this is the question of how long it takes for the appeal of such tech-centric pieces to wear off? It's practically a given that the first time I walk past something dynamic it will catch my attention, but what happens when I have to pass the same thing every day? At best I'll filter it out, as we tend to do with traditional billboard advertising. At worst I'll start to resent it. "Content is king" obviously springs to mind, but in this application this is typically translated to "lets add new graphics / colours / animations". A better solution is surely to consider the long-term relationship between installation and viewer at the time of concept creation, so that it becomes an integral part of the piece. One of the easiest ways of achieving this can be through data visualisation - i.e using dynamic long-term public artworks to present real-world, relevant information to the viewer. There's a wealth of environmental data out there that could easily be integrated into such pieces, resulting in an artwork that informs as well as visually appeals. This would be one way to ensure that an installation has lasting appeal once its initial novelty has worn off.

My second point relates to the above and is more of a question than anything - if the main concept of a piece is indeed to relate information to the viewer, how important is it that the viewer understands exactly what they are being shown? For instance, if an installation has been designed to visualise wind speed, does it matter if the viewer needs to be told what they're looking at before it makes sense? Does the viewer even care how fast the wind is blowing?

My last reservation concerns some of the larger-scale long-term dynamic installations that I've see of late and relates to the apparent lack of regard for the impact they have on their immediate environments. Light travels. Movement attracts attention. If a piece contains dynamic elements, especially if it is designed to be most prominent after dark, it is vital that thought goes into how this will affect the environment that the piece will inhabit. This obligation to responsible design plays a large factor in architectural lighting design, but I wonder if it is given the attention that it deserves in the design of public artworks?

Just a few thoughts :)