3. What problems and special challenge occurred due to realize the project in the public space?

As with any event that I have ever done in public space, the logistics were intense: we filed several reports to the department of National Security, obtained permits from air traffic control, installed coaxial internet feeds through the hotel's bathroom ventilation, stopped street traffic while cranes lifted the searchlights and so on.

4. What meaning has the interactivity for the project? What shall the Interaction produce, cause?

The input and feedback from participants becomes an integral part of the work and the outcome is dictated by their actions. Depending on public participation is a humbling affair because the work will not exist without the main protagonist, which is the public as actor. Historically searchlights have been used for military anti-aircraft surveillance. Also the theatrics of this power were used by the fascist Albert Speer and others. Instead I want to compare the work to a public fountain, activated through the public as an actor. I tried to introduce interactivity to transform intimidation into intimacy. That is, the capability to intervene in a space that was already authoritarian by virtue of its scale and meaning.
Though in this work the interpenetration of action and reflection was not so obvious since people could not really participate on-site. Even though we put computers in public access locations, that was not enough to have this more balanced outcome between acting and reflecting
What's also important is people are meeting and sharing an experience, as people do it less and less thanks to telecommunications, increasing work load demands, and work schedule flexibility, to name a few factors.