4 ms·
Well I'm sure there will a huge amount of negative takes on this, I haven't looked yet, so here's a positive one to balance them all out, this person is an arti
by idk1 4y ago
Well I'm sure there will a huge amount of negative takes on this, I haven't looked yet, so here's a positive one to balance them all out, this person is an artist who may care very deeply about the environment and is using their talent to draw attention and start a discussion about the topic. It's difficult to measure the impact that discussion or experiencing this art may have on people. I expect a lot of children and students will visit this installation and learn about waste, they may change their world view based on this. Yes this is a very sugar coated idealistic view I'm taking here. Also I would like to apologise in advance if this thread is wall-to-wall platitudes about the art installation.
- Silverback_VII 4y agotoday's art is not about creativity or skill, it's about connections and politics. You almost certainly never see art produced by right leaning individuals in art galleries. I always get downvoted and flagged ... are we on reddit?
- hairofadog 4y agoArt, when it's good, is about pushing boundaries, and conservatism is about creating and enforcing boundaries. That's my guess as to why you're not going to see a lot of "right-leaning art" in galleries or anywhere else. Do you have an example or two of right-leaning art or artists that you think should be getting attention?
- Silverback_VII 4y agoFen de Villiers for example.
- hairofadog 4y agoHe does indeed seem like a right-leaning artist: "art used to be good but now it's not and I want it to be like it was, real art". Anyway, you feel he's being repressed by the art world establishment?
- jonnybgood 4y agoWhat does art from a right leaning individual look like?
- zemvpferreira 4y agoArt has always been about connections and politics.
- zppln 4y agoI expect no one will visit the installation and that it will have no impact whatsoever. :)
- dylan604 4y agoMy daughter's age and younger have been taught in schools much more environmental impact, recycling, reducing concepts than I ever was. I can only assume that the little that I learned was more than my parents, and extrapolating that pattern to be true going further back in generations. To that point, my dad would dump oil in the back yard, burn things in the barrel regardless of what they were, etc. (I grew up "in the country") Companies would openly dump waste into rivers (still happens, just not as openly perhaps because of the guilt/shame/criminality). The recycling of plastics was something just being taught as something to do when I was in school, but taught heavily for my daughter's age. Now, that's becoming a myth, so it'll be interesting to see how the teaching changes around plastics recycling. The point is that some changes are not instant and are multi-generational concepts. The "talking about" is how that happens. To those that have already learned, it seems repetitive and ineffective. But that would be like telling an elementary teacher they are ineffective as they are always teaching the same things. The point is that it's new students each time. Those hearing the same thing they've already learned should just accept that they are not the target audience and move along rather than the negative commenting. Much like today's HN link on how transistors work. Um, like, duh, we learned that in school years ago. OR, maybe someone reading right now only learned software and is starting to get interested in hardware because of some project they want to try on an Arduino type of kit, but now really wants to know about the components.