4 ms·

If the goal was solely to ensnare trawler nets, then it could probably be done a lot more efficiently by just sinking some concrete blocks. But by putting sculp

If the goal was solely to ensnare trawler nets, then it could probably be done a lot more efficiently by just sinking some concrete blocks. But by putting sculptures down there instead, it gets media attention and public interest as well, which leads to funding to continue the project.

kawsper 4y ago
That's what Greenpeace is doing in the UK: https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/live-greenpeace-boulders-brighton-fishing/ https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/live-greenpeace-boulders-...
- overlordalex 4y ago
  Huh, seemed pretty effective at first glance. It also lead me down a wiki rabbit hole from the dogger bank to similar nearby features, which came full circle with the Cleaver Bank where Greenpeace also sunk some boulders. Except apparently they were removed by the fishers... The Cleaver bank is in 2015 considered for protection as a Marine protected area. The Greenpeace organisation considered the actions of the Dutch government in this direction too slow and sunk some large boulders on the seabed in May 2015 to increase the nature value.[7] Dutch fishers lifted the boulders on 16 June 2015, because they were afraid the boulders would damage their fishing gear.[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleaver_Bank https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleaver_Bank
  - arcticfox 4y ago
    This seems like an asymmetric win for Greenpeace. It has to be like 10x easier to chuck boulders around than find and retrieve them.
  - theptip 4y ago
    Maybe that's a benefit of something like artwork - removing it would presumably be a crime?
    - a_shovel 4y ago
      If not a crime, at least it would look way worse in the press than removing some featurless concrete blocks.
  - melagonster 4y ago
    if fisherman adopt more environment friendly technology, they will find stone increase number of fish.
- givemeethekeys 4y ago
  They've done a boneheaded thing or two - like opposing fusion, but I find myself in support of whatever ends the factory harvesting of animals.
ambicapter 4y ago
> If the goal was solely to ensnare trawler nets It's not. The sculptures also serve as a base for the plant life.
- jrwoodruff 4y ago
  And probably as an attraction for divers and others in the area.
chrisweekly 4y ago
It started w concrete blocks -- but it proved too difficult to fund them in sufficient supply to be effective. Sculptures OTOH were a stroke of genius, flipping the script so they actually generate revenue and a virtuous cycle of attention and more installments.
- ISL 4y ago
  Artists are also likely to be real interested in the opportunity to have free marble in large formats on which to work. Furthermore, if the sculpture works out well, you can get a bunch of press. If it doesn't, you get to sink it in the ocean forever.
thaumasiotes 4y ago
One of the best things the Greeks decided to do with their artwork was label all the characters. If we're going to be sinking sculptures into the sea, presumably intended to stay for a long time, I think we should carve statements on them saying why we put them there.

kawsper 4y ago

That's what Greenpeace is doing in the UK: https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/live-greenpeace-boulders-brighton-fishing/ https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/live-greenpeace-boulders-...

overlordalex 4y ago
Huh, seemed pretty effective at first glance. It also lead me down a wiki rabbit hole from the dogger bank to similar nearby features, which came full circle with the Cleaver Bank where Greenpeace also sunk some boulders. Except apparently they were removed by the fishers... The Cleaver bank is in 2015 considered for protection as a Marine protected area. The Greenpeace organisation considered the actions of the Dutch government in this direction too slow and sunk some large boulders on the seabed in May 2015 to increase the nature value.[7] Dutch fishers lifted the boulders on 16 June 2015, because they were afraid the boulders would damage their fishing gear.[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleaver_Bank https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleaver_Bank
- arcticfox 4y ago
  This seems like an asymmetric win for Greenpeace. It has to be like 10x easier to chuck boulders around than find and retrieve them.
- theptip 4y ago
  Maybe that's a benefit of something like artwork - removing it would presumably be a crime?
  - a_shovel 4y ago
    If not a crime, at least it would look way worse in the press than removing some featurless concrete blocks.
- melagonster 4y ago
  if fisherman adopt more environment friendly technology, they will find stone increase number of fish.
givemeethekeys 4y ago
They've done a boneheaded thing or two - like opposing fusion, but I find myself in support of whatever ends the factory harvesting of animals.

ambicapter 4y ago

> If the goal was solely to ensnare trawler nets It's not. The sculptures also serve as a base for the plant life.

jrwoodruff 4y ago
And probably as an attraction for divers and others in the area.

chrisweekly 4y ago

It started w concrete blocks -- but it proved too difficult to fund them in sufficient supply to be effective. Sculptures OTOH were a stroke of genius, flipping the script so they actually generate revenue and a virtuous cycle of attention and more installments.

ISL 4y ago
Artists are also likely to be real interested in the opportunity to have free marble in large formats on which to work. Furthermore, if the sculpture works out well, you can get a bunch of press. If it doesn't, you get to sink it in the ocean forever.

thaumasiotes 4y ago

One of the best things the Greeks decided to do with their artwork was label all the characters. If we're going to be sinking sculptures into the sea, presumably intended to stay for a long time, I think we should carve statements on them saying why we put them there.