MAKING ONE OF OPPOSITES: Structures are bridges

I have been thinking about bridges lately. They're interesting for a number of reasons;

Bridges are transitional spaces. They assume movement from one place to another, and are never dwelling places in and of themselves.
The main function of a bridge is to provide a more efficient means of travel than what exists without it, whether the alternative is to swim, boat, fly, dodge traffic, or cover a longer distance.
Bridges compensate for some sort of discrepancy.
Bridges create standardized experience; traveling over the bridge is assumed to be the same as traveling on the road before the bridge.
Bridges are structures.
It requires faith to cross a bridge. In crossing a bridge, there is always a belief that the other side is in some way more useful or more desirable than the side you are on.
It requires doubt to cross a bridge. In crossing a bridge, there is always a doubt concerning the usefulness or desirability of the side you are on.
Bridges do not negate the existence of the space over which they pass, but in most cases, change it in some way.
It is impossible to be on a bridge and under a bridge at the same time.

With that said, I guess a question arises, having something to do with whether or not bridges are actually a good thing. (Isn't that always the question?) I can't get over the fact that these structures are all about trading one experience for another presumably more valuable one.

For my public art sculpture final I decided to focus on the bridge as a form in order to talk about the relationship between structure and and the spaces (physical or otherwise) that structures are designed to elaborate on. I began thinking about these physical structures in relation to linguistic structures that are constructed for the purpose of communication, and wanted to complete a project that would prompt the viewer to link the use of language to the use of a bridge, and to question the alternatives to each of these structural systems, and the the value of each option. In the same way that a bridge is a standardized, systematic means of moving over terrain otherwise more complicated, language is a code based on the abbreviation of experience that is otherwise more complicated.

Beyond the connection that stands to be made between these two systems, I really wanted to pose a question about what is being lost in the choice to participate in the process of simplification that the use of both bridges and words imply. If it can be agreed that an experience is primarily valuable insofar as it incites critical thinking and appreciation, is a standardized way of navigating a space less valuable than a more complicated, varied one? Does the fact that these structures are man-made make them less valid, or are the systems complex enough in and of themselves that they hold just as much potential for appreciation?

I made two cloth banners, each 2 feet by 48 feet, and painted on one the definition of the word "deficit," and on the other I painted the definition of the word "compensation." I hung them on opposite sides of a 150 foot pedestrian bridge that crosses the Wissahickon Creek in Manayunk.