Neutralizing Drones

From Oneohtrix Point Never to Disney: Drone art’s very fast trip to the mainstream

Experimental art projects don’t always turn into mainstream endeavors. But you would be surprised how quickly it happened in the case of drone light shows.

In 2012, a French art collective called the Marshmallow Laser Feast generated an art display at the behest of one of the largest ad agencies in the world. As part of Saatchi & Saatchi’s 2012 New Directors’ Showcase, the collective brought together a bunch of drones and had them move around the sky.

It posed a question: Can you turn a device infamous for destruction and surveillance into something positive and friendly? Sporting a commissioned soundtrack from the experimental electronic composer Oneohtrix Point Never, show co-director Memo Akten put the concept of this light show as such:

Their role in this performance is an artistic subversion of their original purpose. We concentrate on the key feature of these flying robots: the ability to follow trajectories in space without being bound to external fixed supports—programmable vertices in space, the floating cornerstones of a kinetic light sculpture. Thus, the vehicles are in fact not the stars of the show. They are the puppet masters operating in the dark, that carry the light, synchronized and choreographed to a bespoke score by Oneohtrix Point Never.

Point made. Drones could be more than just machines of conflict, just as the internet could have commercial applications, and fireworks could make gunpowder beautiful.

Just a few months later, another artistic collective, Ars Electronica, did something similar in spirit, using a fleet of 49 drones at an installation in Austria. “[A]lthough it's not quite as impressive technically as the martial demonstrations of military drones, it's a lot prettier,” an NBC News article stated at the time.

In future years, Ars Electronica would team with Intel to expand their efforts, which Intel then immediately expanded upon itself. It was clear that commerce would quickly knock on the door of drone art.

But that was nothing compared to what was happening in the United States. In 2013, Disney’s theme parks division filed a trio of intriguing patents that seemed to suggest its Imagineers were earning their salaries.

One patent filing described a mechanism where four drones could hold and manage a projection screen in the air, allowing for a makeshift airborne display. The second described a method to control marionettes with drones (complete with a drawing of Jack Skellington to underline the idea).

But the third—credited to Imagineers Clifford Wong, James Alexander Stark, and Robert Scott Trowbridge—is likely the most interesting and broadly applicable. It gave the concept of floating drone lights a name: The “flixel,” or floating pixel.

It makes sense that Disney would put their best people on it—after all, they spend a lot of money on fireworks. According to one estimate, Walt Disney World alone puts on four fireworks shows per night, every day of the year, at a cost of $33,000 for each show. Disney certainly has the budget, but that’s tens of millions of dollars per year on fireworks alone for a single theme park.

If you can build a similar spectacle with a more cost-effective method, the investment could be worth it—even after the presumably massive R&D.

Plus, there was the fact that Disney was starting to reach the limits of what it could do with traditional methods. From the patent filing:

Presently, aerial displays have been limited in how easy it has been to alter the choreography and to provide a repeatable show. Some “aerial” displays have relied upon very complex fountain systems to provide sprays of water upon which light may be projected or directed. These shows can be difficult to change or modify to provide a new show and are limited in the amount of the air space that can be utilized as the spraying water only reaches certain heights. Other aerial shows rely on fireworks, which can be dangerous to implement and often provide a different show result with each use. Other displays may use aircraft such as blimps dragging banners or even large display screens. While useful in some settings, these aircraft-based displays typically have been limited in size and use only a small number of aircraft and display devices.

If building a better Goodyear Blimp was the goal, this would be a spectacular way to do it. But Disney’s ambitions went much further:

The aerial display system makes use of the concept of a “flixel” or floating pixel (of a flying pixel object). The flixel or floating pixel assembly is provided by each UAV with its display payload, and the flixel is used to create dynamic aerial displays. In general, a pixel is the smallest element of an image that can be individually addressed or processed in a video display system. Likewise, the aerial display systems described herein make use of the sky or a predefined airspace as a display “screen,” and the flixel is the smallest controllable element of the generated aerial display on or in this display screen/airspace. Many flixels may be controlled by a fleet manager module of a ground control system (GCS) to fly in a flocking and/or synchronized manner (non-swarming control) to create virtual 2D or 3D displays or to flash colors so as to mimic fireworks (e.g., to provide reusable/sustainable firework-type displays).

Disney wanted to use drones to replace fireworks to offer a more consistent and impressive Magic Kingdom experience. Families pay hundreds or thousands of dollars to experience the heights of Walt Disney World—and this was an effective way to raise the game.

The company was so on board with doing this that when the Federal Aviation Administration announced plans to regulate drones, Disney was one of the first companies to ask for an exception, which it got almost immediately. (Made funnier, because Disney World has a no-fly zone that Disney itself asked for.)

By 2016, Disney was creating drone shows at its Disney Springs resort. And its parks, such as Disneyland Paris, have begun to implement the ideas put forth in those patents.

Drone art may have emerged as a form of artistic subversion, but capitalism found a way to unsubvert it in a matter of months.

How Milwaukee made a drone show work for its Fourth of July festivities this year. It was the city’s first time hosting one, per the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

How drone shows became a municipality’s best friend—and how the fireworks industry feels about it

This year, if you wanted to see a city-sanctioned fireworks ceremony in Salt Lake City, you were out of luck. Same deal at the Rose Bowl, which is noted for its annual July 4 ceremony. In fact, many cities, particularly in the Southwest, decided this was the year to ditch the fireworks in favor of drone shows.

Any news story you read about them will likely focus on two reasons: first, environmental impact; and second, fire risk. It was only six months ago that many Southern California cities suffered the dramatic effects of a devastating set of wildfires. In that context, a drone show seems like an obvious upgrade.

One expects that the risks of wildfires will eventually make giant urban firework displays verboten in much of the American West.

But it’s not just cities embracing them. Recently, Missy Elliott got a drone show for a party celebrating her first-ever headlining tour. Her crew was able to hire a company to put together the drone show, which meant anyone near the party could see images celebrating Elliott. Regulations or no, it would be a lot harder for Elliott’s team to get their own Missy-themed fireworks show.

But the popularity of drones is not guaranteed long-term. After all, it’s competing against a medium, fireworks, which has been closely affiliated with celebrations for centuries. That might be hard to replace.

One could imagine drone shows running into the same culture wars behind renewable energy’s recent loss of tax credits.

For what it’s worth, the fireworks industry hasn’t gone on the offensive against drone shows. The American Pyrotechnics Association, despite often speaking up about fireworks ahead of the holiday, has mostly avoided the drone discussion, as far as I can tell. Meanwhile, Steve Houser, a past president of the National Fireworks Association, told the Scranton, Pennsylvania-based Times-Tribune that he didn’t think drones were that cool on their own.

“I’ve seen drones with fireworks in shows, and that’s really cool … they blend well together,” Houser told the outlet. “And I’ve seen just drones, and you don’t get that boom, that explosion, and that’s an instinctive type of response. If you watch a drone show for five minutes, you’ve seen anything they can possibly do. It gets boring quick. I don’t think drones can ever replace fireworks. It just doesn’t have the same effect.”

Part of the reason folks like Houser may not be as full-throated in his pro-fireworks stance is because the mediums blend so well. It’s not like drones have to lose for fireworks to win.

To underline the point: There is a concept called the pyro-drone, which is essentially a drone that launches a firework. Speaking too harshly about drone shows might just cost the fireworks industry some business.

On top of that, drone displays are a relatively new medium. We’re talking about something that saw its first public display a mere 13 years ago. Drones have plenty of headroom to improve—and something tells me that they will eventually become more cost-effective, which may further tip the trend in their favor.

We haven’t been living with flixels all that long. There’s a chance they might just get better.