“I'm having a flashback to the 1980s culture police after reading all these posts. Erik Kessels work allows us to experience - in real, physical terms - our current fascination with images of ourselves. Whether you love or hate this work, it should be an artist's choice to consider environmental factors alongside other aspects of a work of art. Woe the day when environmental criteria and censorship determine what we (as artists) make or whether the artwork should be considered valuable. If this is the lens through which we judge art, Rodin's The Thinker wouldn't exist (mining material, heating bronze in 900 degree furnace, etc. - huge carbon footprint ...), Titian's Venus of Urbino and other paintings wouldn't have been made (use of toxic mercury for red coloring), Christo and Jeanne-Cluade's The Gates in Central Park wouldn't have been installed (excessive use of material), and the Louvre should be closed (too much energy to heat, cool, and light the space).
The purpose of a project like Erik Kessels and any good creative project is to MAKE US THINK and if you disagree with it, so much the better. To dismiss it based on material use is overly simplistic. The amount of money and natural resources that are put into art are extremely minimal compared with the resources that go into Beyonce's wardrobe, snail mail requests from the March of Dimes, US Defense research projects, or the creation of Pokemon cards. Perhaps better targets for your environmental activist energy.”