Sunday, March 11, 2012

When Art and Environmentalism Clash

Saw this on Althouse and thought it pretty funny:
What is the carbon footprint of the 340-ton rock transported on a 196-wheel vehicle on an 11-day journey to an art museum in L.A.?

And why doesn't The New York Times, celebrating the project on its website front page, question the environmentalism of this project?

It's art precisely because it has no practical use. Meanwhile, driving a mid-sized car or turning on an incandescent lightbulb is an environmental sin, characteristic of our ordinary lives, for which the NYT never tires of shaming us.
Let's subsidize more art majors in our universities, though.

1 comment:

Ellen K said...

Let me correct that. It is art because some fool bureaucrat bought into the politically correct conjecture of the grant request. I could write a grant tomorrow asking for similar concessions if I was willing to check my conscience at the door. This is why I am not a "professional" artist and why I continue to contend that art which is not marketable is art that is not worthy.