How this amount of light pollution that completely neglects the existence of natural animals and deprives them of their place can be seen connected to "creating hope"? How this is searching connection to nature or "creates awareness for the planet"?
Instead here the purpose of the art/culture seems to be to replace both, and thus these words are empty. ("Glow" is as empty as "Flow".)
Elsewhere the artist claimed that "without culture we have nothing"
and for the same reason this is a lie.
Problem of "culture" seems to be that it has to be some kind of an accession of "production", and in that it megalomaniacly imagines to be representing something "good". It doesn't in any "moral" or other way seem to be surpassing production, but both seems to be on the same cause of destruction (culture just expands to where production didn't dare to venture), with their empty phrases of chaos.
It is thought that art forms somehow "progress" when they're let free from their functionality to be practical. Self-sufficiency of culture, however, still seems only an expansion of production, to destroy there where production didn't venture.