This is terrible.
Aluminium cans should have gone in the recycling! ♻️
You guys have recycling?
That’s just trash with extra steps!
Aluminum is actually one of the most recyclable things we have. To the point where it’s better, environmentally, to have single use aluminum cups that get recycled every time.
And in contrast, plastic sucks 100% for recycling. Remelting it for recycling results in polymer degradation. Going so far as to be basically useless for some cases. We tried a bunch of high quality recycled materials - for instance ground up and repelletized lego bricks. Bumpers from cars. All abs, all possible to be broken by hand when extruded. New pellets never had that and could basically withstand everything we threw at them. What people usually do is mix like 5% of recycled into the new stuff.
The cost of plastic is so cheap, that I could have ordered a metric tonne, use up 50kgs out of that, throw the remaining 950kg out and still turn a healthy profit. It always surprised me why someone would make something out of shitty plastic, when the good stuff is barely more expensive. It also surprises me why people bother with recycling it for the exact same reason. The drawbacks are huge for maybe 5 - 10% difference in cost.
Plastic is basically free. It’s a waste product from refining oil. That’s why it’s so cheap. Instead of telling the petroleum industry they needed to properly deal with their hazardous waste we let them sell it. It would be like a coal mine finding a use for the chemical soup that remains after processing, and then just yeeting it everywhere.
For some products it is fine that the plastic is not pure virgin material, like traffic cones. That 10% savings might be what keeps a company profitable, and new oil wasn’t needed. A lot of plastic goes to fuel pellets too. Not great, but better than new oil
Except aluminium cans nowadays have a plastic lining that make recycling them harder.
I’m talking about straight up aluminum cups. No need for the can liner.
Beer can artwork temporarily made interactive.
To be fair, I feel like that’s kind of what the artist was hoping for. Would you be reading about his piece if some Philistine with no concept of what constitutes art hadn’t thrown it away?
Art exists solely as it is interpreted by the observer.
In this case, the observer interrupted the art as trash.
I believe this kind of art should embrace the impermanence. The concept is more valuable than the object.
I mean, that makes it a pretty damn successful work.
There was another story like this. The exhibit depicts an after party scene with champagne bottles and other party “trash” everywhere. It was placed in a room. The custodians thought there was a party earlier and promptly cleaned the room.
tbh i would have thrown it away even if i knew it was “art”
Sounds like museums and art centers aren’t your thing.
i love museums and art centers.
the great thing about art is everyone is free to define it how they want, and no one is wrong.
“art” to you, “garbage” to me
That title is a garden path sentence! I was like beer can artwork? Is that grammar correct?
If beer can artwork, then so can you!
I am beer can artwork!
I don’t want to be canned
Yea, headline writers are often… Casual.
It should be something like “Beer-can art” with it without the quotes (I’m not sure, really).
The idea that someone’d think someone’d littered like that in a museum tickles me a bit.
Good. That’s not art. That’s trash. Throw the “artist” in the bin while you’re at it.
The labels on the cans were hand painted with acrylic, so there was more effort put in to this installation than if they just grabbed some beers at the local convenience store and dumped them out.
That’s different then. My bad.
There’s always someone arguing about the purity of art. Art doesn’t have a strict set of rules. Anything can be art. Saying otherwise limits it’s ability.
Saying anything is art doesn’t make it art. If I throw a couple beer cans on the ground, that’s not art just because I say it is, it’s trash. In this particular case the artist hand painted the labels, which I wasn’t aware of when I commented. So, this is art, despite the quirky presentation.
If the piece designed to make you think about it then it’s art. That’s the only requirement. It can take as little or as much effort as the artist wants. There is not effort, cost, or material requirement for art. Yeah, just throwing cans on the ground isn’t art, but if you place cans in a way to make someone consider the thoughtlessness or waste of society, that’s art.
So, if I randomly find an empty beer can two meters from a trash can, and think about the lazy person who probably threw it there, is it art? If he did it for the sake of art and I had a though about it, is it art if I am not aware of it?
Art is just dumb, give me back my paintings and sculptures.
Yes to both questions.
Edit: I think the problem is that many think that art must have intrinsic value. Well I disagree. Art can be trashy but still art.
Good times are symbolized by littering alcohol cans?
