How Does Visualizing Statistics Change Our Understanding of American Culture?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Numbers Running
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a new art series that visually represents large quantities in American culture, aiming to make statistics more tangible and impactful. The artist uses intricate prints made from thousands of smaller photographs to depict vast numbers, such as two million plastic beverage bottles used in the U.S. every five minutes. Participants express mixed feelings about the effectiveness of this approach. Some argue that the art successfully conveys the scale of consumption and encourages viewers to connect with the statistics emotionally, while others criticize it for potentially promoting innumeracy and oversimplifying complex issues. Critics assert that the art may mislead viewers into thinking they understand the statistics without grasping their true implications. The debate highlights the tension between using visual art to evoke awe and the need for accurate comprehension of statistical data.
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
8,194
Reaction score
2,473
This new series looks at contemporary American culture through the austere lens of statistics. Each image portrays a specific quantity of something: fifteen million sheets of office paper (five minutes of paper use); 106,000 aluminum cans (thirty seconds of can consumption) and so on. My hope is that images representing these quantities might have a different effect than the raw numbers alone, such as we find daily in articles and books. Statistics can feel abstract and anesthetizing, making it difficult to connect with and make meaning of 3.6 million SUV sales in one year, for example, or 2.3 million Americans in prison, or 426,000 cell phones retired every day. This project visually examines these vast and bizarre measures of our society, in large intricately detailed prints assembled from thousands of smaller photographs. My underlying desire is to affirm and sanctify the crucial role of the individual in a society that is increasingly enormous, incomprehensible, and overwhelming. [continued with pics]
http://www.chrisjordan.com/current_set2.php


Depicts two million plastic beverage bottles, the number used in the US every five minutes.
1178745781.jpg
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Nice link, thanks. :smile:
 
Last edited:
The images are neat, but I think it's rather despicable. Not only does the artist appear to be promoting innumeracy, but trying to moralize through it as well.
 
Hurkyl said:
The images are neat, but I think it's rather despicable. Not only does the artist appear to be promoting innumeracy,

Yeah, and once you start there is no end to it!
 
The Seurat, and the Ben Franklin reproduction are neat.
 
Hurkyl said:
The images are neat, but I think it's rather despicable. Not only does the artist appear to be promoting innumeracy, but trying to moralize through it as well.
I don't see how it promotes innumeracy.
 
At a glance I assumed that Hurkyl was joking.

A picture is moralizing?
 
You two did read the page, right?

The main theme of his art is to awe us at the sheer scale of our global society, and I think that's a neat idea.

The problem is that he wants us to "connect and make meaning" with various statistics through this awe: he has specifically stated he wants to blind us with large numbers!

And given his choice of things to depict, I find it hard to believe that the artist isn't trying to send a moral message.
 
Thanks for that link, Ivan. I like the guy's message and his method of conveying it.
 
  • #10
Hurkyl said:
You two did read the page, right?

The main theme of his art is to awe us at the sheer scale of our global society, and I think that's a neat idea.

The problem is that he wants us to "connect and make meaning" with various statistics through this awe: he has specifically stated he wants to blind us with large numbers!

And given his choice of things to depict, I find it hard to believe that the artist isn't trying to send a moral message.
Running the Numbers
An American Self-Portrait

This new series looks at contemporary American culture through the austere lens of statistics. Each image portrays a specific quantity of something: fifteen million sheets of office paper (five minutes of paper use); 106,000 aluminum cans (thirty seconds of can consumption) and so on. My hope is that images representing these quantities might have a different effect than the raw numbers alone, such as we find daily in articles and books. Statistics can feel abstract and anesthetizing, making it difficult to connect with and make meaning of 3.6 million SUV sales in one year, for example, or 2.3 million Americans in prison, or 426,000 cell phones retired every day. This project visually examines these vast and bizarre measures of our society, in large intricately detailed prints assembled from thousands of smaller photographs. My underlying desire is to affirm and sanctify the crucial role of the individual in a society that is increasingly enormous, incomprehensible, and overwhelming.

My only caveat about this series is that the prints must be seen in person to be experienced the way they are intended. As with any large artwork, their scale carries a vital part of their substance which is lost in these little web images. Hopefully the JPEGs displayed here might be enough to arouse your curiosity to attend an exhibition, or to arrange one if you are in a position to do so. The series is a work in progress, and new images will be posted as they are completed, so please stay tuned.

~chris jordan, Seattle, 2007
He has NOT specifically stated that he wants to "blind us with large numbers" as you put it. He is trying, in fact, to give more concrete meaning to the statistics by visually showing the viewer what large numbers of things actually look like.
 
  • #11
zoobyshoe said:
He is trying, in fact, to give more concrete meaning to the statistics by visually showing the viewer what large numbers of things actually look like.
Yes, that's exactly the problem. He wants to be awed at how the scale of these things are so much beyond that of our individual experiences, and he wants us to use that awe as a substitute for understanding statistics in a rational manner. When our reason is supplanted with "oooh, big", that is what it means to be blinded by a large number.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Hurkyl said:
he wants us to use that awe as a substitute for understanding statistics in a rational manner.
I doubt that he wishes to substitute one for the other. Art appeals to the senses of course, and awe is a goal of course, but it does not have to be a substitute, it can easily be an adjunct that gives a warmer meaning to cold numbers. Who knows, getting first an emotional response to big numbers could even turn some people on to stats.
 
  • #13
Hurkyl said:
Yes, that's exactly the problem. He wants to be awed at how the scale of these things are so much beyond that of our individual experiences, and he wants us to use that awe as a substitute for understanding statistics in a rational manner. When our reason is supplanted with "oooh, big", that is what it means to be blinded by a large number.

The way that I see it, what you called blind, I call perspective. Sometimes it makes sense to step away from the blackboard and try to get the big picture. What this does is to bypass the dilution of the scope, that happens with large numbers in the abstract.

Your logic would suggest that one gains a better perspective by looking at a topographical map of the Grand Canyon, than the real canyon. To fully appreciate the GC, one has to see it.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
I don't see how he's promoting innumeracy. If anything, I thought he was trying to make it more tangible to the person for whom those large numbers mean very little.

And, of COURSE he's making a moral statement...that's clearly his primary purpose. Most artists have a purpose in their art, and a whole lot of them have a moral purpose in their art...this one's seems to be to highlight the environmental impact of a lot of things people do, or to comment on our throw-away society. You can agree or disagree with his point of view, that's fine...to me, that's what makes art interesting, that it provokes those sorts of discussions more so than that you buy into the artists' opinions.
 
  • #15
Some of these pictures remind me of blocks of thousands of transistors on an integrated circuit.

Edit - especially the cigarette one.
 
  • #16
I agree that this is a misuse of statistics to make a political statement. [edit: not the same as innumeracy. I liken this to those astronomy animations we've seen that show the scale of celestial objects]

I also agree with Moonbear that it does, however, make for interesting looking art.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
Ivan Seeking said:
The way that I see it, what you called blind, I call perspective. Sometimes it makes sense to step away from the blackboard and try to get the big picture. What this does is to bypass the dilution of the scope, that happens with large numbers in the abstract.
These images remind us the world is a lot bigger than we experience, but that's it. A picture of building blocks doesn't tell me anything about the the state of health care in the United States -- to make this analogy, one has to strip all meaning from the original statistic, leaving only an abstract number behind, and then substitute in an entirely new meaning for the abstract number. That you would suggest this could possibly help one understand the original statistic... there is no emoticon to express my bewilderment!
 
Last edited:
  • #18
Hurkyl said:
Yes, that's exactly the problem. He wants to be awed at how the scale of these things are so much beyond that of our individual experiences, and he wants us to use that awe as a substitute for understanding statistics in a rational manner. When our reason is supplanted with "oooh, big", that is what it means to be blinded by a large number.
I think the difference between the number 1,000,000 on paper and the actual sight of a million things is very interesting. That's all. I don't think it encourages innumeracy to appreciate this different perspective.
 
  • #19
zoobyshoe said:
I think the difference between the number 1,000,000 on paper and the actual sight of a million things is very interesting. That's all. I don't think it encourages innumeracy to appreciate this different perspective.
Neither do I. The problem is that the artist doesn't merely want us to appreciate this perspective; he wants us to use it to "connect and make meaning" of the original statistics.
 
  • #20
To most people, when they see numbers like a thousand, a million, and a billion, they start thinking "big number" without an appreciation for the fact that a million is a thousand thousands and a billion is a thousand millions. This artist is helping people conceptualize the stats, and gain an appreciation for just how big these numbers really are.

I read somewhere a while back that the average person enumerating groups of randomly-arranged objects without counting tops out at about 7 items before having to resort to mentally sub-grouping or counting the items to be certain of the total number of items. That's a far cry from having an appreciation for just what a group of a million objects looks like.
 
  • #21
turbo-1 said:
To most people, when they see numbers like a thousand, a million, and a billion, they start thinking "big number" without an appreciation for the fact that a million is a thousand thousands and a billion is a thousand millions.
Of course, this art doesn't help with that.


This artist is helping people conceptualize the stats, and gain an appreciation for just how big these numbers really are.
(1) Those are two different things. I have no problem with the latter.

(2) The artist is not helping people conceptualize the stats: aside from some superficial similarities, these images have absolutely nothing in common with the statistics they depict. Telling people that these images can help them understand these statistics is a terrible thing to do.
 
  • #22
Hurkyl said:
(2) The artist is not helping people conceptualize the stats: aside from some superficial similarities, these images have absolutely nothing in common with the statistics they depict. Telling people that these images can help them understand these statistics is a terrible thing to do.
I don't understand. If he says "we consume 1,000,000 widgets every hour" and he shows an image of 1,000,000 widgets, he is helping people conceptualize the stats. The people can look at that sea of widgets in his image say "Wow! The US uses up that many of these things every hour." I have a hard time understanding how giving people that "aha" moment visually can be "a terrible thing to do." As art goes, it's pretty darned effective at conveying messages.
 
  • #23
Last edited:
  • #24
turbo-1 said:
I don't understand. If he says "we consume 1,000,000 widgets every hour" and he shows an image of 1,000,000 widgets, he is helping people conceptualize the stats.
No he doesn't. He simply makes them go "ooh, big".


The people can look at that sea of widgets in his image say "Wow! The US uses up that many of these things every hour."
... while having virtually no understanding of what they just said. I could discuss all of the problems in abstract, but I suspect a nice, concrete examples will help you understand:

The building block picture depicts the number 9 million, and is an enormous 16 by 32 foot image.
The toothpicks picture depicts the number 8 million, and is a mere 5 by 8 foot image.

Do you think the typical viewer comes away from these images thinking they saw numbers roughly the same size?

The toothpicks picture is meant to depict a rate of 8 million per month, and is a 5 by 8 foot image.
The plastic bottles picture is meant to depict a rate of 2 million per 5 minutes, and is a 5 by 10 foot image.

The latter rate is over two thousand times bigger than the former. Do you think the typical viewer gets that impression?


These images cannot work without first removing all meaning from these statistics -- and even then they cannot convey those abstract numbers properly. You consider this a good way to "conceptualize a statistic"? Something has been conceptualized, but it's certainly not the statistic...

I have a hard time understanding how giving people that "aha" moment visually can be "a terrible thing to do."
It's terrible when it plants a false idea into their heads.

A celebration of the vastness of society would make an excellent exhibit. Maybe even a gallery that depicts the idiom that the whole is made of individual parts.

But this is a gallery that makes false promises of conveying understanding...
As art goes, it's pretty darned effective at conveying messages.
and because of this, it is even more important that we give it the condemnation it deserves.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
I could see Hurkyl on a mountain top cursing at the irrational numbers. :smile:
 
  • #26
Pi-e-root2.

Oh, you said at...
 
  • #27
Could it be that drawing 5 balloons next to the number '5' can help you understand what that symbol means, while drawing a billion balloons next to the number '1,000,000,000' causes innumeracy? I think it's very plausible...especially, if the audience doesn't take the effort to really look at the picture and extract anything more than an "ooh" out of it.
 
  • #28
Hurkyl said:
and because of this, it is even more important that we give it the condemnation it deserves.
Stalin said something to the effect that when one man dies it's a tragedy but when a million men die, it's a statistic. In other words, the "blindness" that should be condemned comes from reducing things to numbers and forgetting in the process that they represent actual things, or events, or rates. We wouldn't keep statistics on these things if they weren't important to keep track of in the first place. The illustrations presented by this artist operate as a reminder that the point of gathering statistics is to keep track of real amounts of real things in the real world to help make real decisions about how to proceed.
 
  • #29
When I saw the one with the plastic bottles, I had to stop and think that I believe I've only bought/thrown away about five 'plastic bottles' in the last 3 years.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
zoobyshoe said:
the "blindness" that should be condemned comes from reducing things to numbers and forgetting in the process that they represent actual things, or events, or rates.
Eh? You say this as if you're contradicting me. So, please tell me why your thing should be condemned but my thing should not.

We wouldn't keep statistics on these things if they weren't important to keep track of in the first place.
And the reason we use numbers is because the phrase "a lot" isn't precise enough to be useful. And the reason we analyze statistics is because a number in isolation isn't useful.
 
  • #31
a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot
 
  • #32
Moonbear said:
I don't see how he's promoting innumeracy. If anything, I thought he was trying to make it more tangible to the person for whom those large numbers mean very little.
I agree. This is the opposite of promoting innumeracy. The bald numbers are meaningless to most people who make no mental distinction between a thousand and a billion.

Edit: I only now noticed page 2 of this thread, so others already said what I did.

Anyway, I liked the bit about the Yukon Denali. The mountain in the picture it creates is, of course, Denali itself (AKA Mt McKinley). Did you notice that the blacked logos were switched so that they read "Denial" instead of "Denali"?

Edit edit: oh, that's the title of the piece: "Denali Denial." You know, those SUVs could be powered by synthetic fuel from reprocessing all those plastic bags and bottles! That would take care of three or four of his "works"

You know, the statistical "wow" is the only neat part of these works. It wouldn't care to go out of my way just to look at them; I wouldn't want them on my wall. Maybe the Seurat rip-off.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Chi Meson said:
I agree. This is the opposite of promoting innumeracy. The bald numbers are meaningless to most people who make no mental distinction between a thousand and a billion.
The most dangerous form of innumeracy when people believe they really do understand what the numbers are telling them.
 
  • #34
Hurkyl said:
The most dangerous form of innumeracy when people believe they really do understand what the numbers are telling them.

I've heard that a million times
 
  • #35
Hurkyl said:
The most dangerous form of innumeracy when people believe they really do understand what the numbers are telling them.

I still don't think "innumeracy" is the correct term for your condemnation. I can see your point as the works being statistics taken out of context, and therefore falling under the "lying with statistics" banner. Or more simply using the power of "oh wow, that's a lot" to take the place of making a valid political point ( I think that's sort of what you said). But I really do not agree that making a visual representation of large numbers contributes to "innumeracy."
 
  • #36
Hurkyl said:
The most dangerous form of innumeracy when people believe they really do understand what the numbers are telling them.
The only danger is in ignorance. If the ignorance can be alleviated by visual imagery, instruction in the mathematical concept of orders-of-magnitude, or maybe by a field trip to a recycling depot where millions of plastic bottles a day are sorted and processed, it does not matter. What matters is that you have made a difference in some persons' perceptions of our consumerism. Everybody has their own triggers. Someone may love this guy's work and someone else may be moved by Joni Mitchell's "Big Yellow Taxi" ("they paved paradise, and put up a parking lot"). Lots of people have campaigned against consumerism and over-commercialization over the years, and this artist has a pretty nice way of bringing his point home visually. If you want to complain that he's not teaching math, you're barking up the wrong tree. He's an artist with a message and a pretty neat method of getting it across. Most of the posters on this thread seem to understand that he is helping ordinary people (with maybe no post-HS math) mentally bridge the gap between large numbers of consumables, and insanely large numbers of consumables. To a person who thinks 1000 is a very large number and has trouble relating it to a million or a billion, this is a tremendous service. You and I can do this OOM math very easily. Lots of people cannot.

Point in case: There is a HUGE majority of voters in the US that don't realize that every trillion dollars of debt that our government accrues obligates us taxpayers to pay back one thousand billion dollars plus interest. If they did, the Reagan and Bush tax cuts would never have gone through.
 
  • #37
I was just thinking since my last post, that such a presentation of "visual aids to large numbers" should be followed by a simple question. Have people look at the works, then ask "is that too much"?

"There are 300+ million Americans, are there too many children without health care?"
"Are there too many trees cut down to supply only catalogs?" etc.

Either way, the pictorial aspect is one step of the way to understanding the numbers better.
 
  • #38
or that 100 million tons of coal, 100 million barrels of oil, and a billion cubic feet of gas are burned each day


(or something close)
 
  • #39
I totally understand what Hurkyl is saying. If I understand him correctly, I agree with him. The pictures are going to get people to "think" they know what the big numbers mean.

I still like the idea of the art though!
 
  • #40
Chi Meson said:
But I really do not agree that making a visual representation of large numbers contributes to "innumeracy."
What about telling people that they can make meaning of these statistics in this way?
 
  • #41
turbo-1 said:
The only danger is in ignorance.
Such as ignorance of the fact that these images have essentially nothing to do with the statistics they depict. A very real danger, IMHO, apparently even among educated people.

If the ignorance can be alleviated by visual imagery, instruction in the mathematical concept of orders-of-magnitude,
Of course, these images do not give such instruction. Didn't I already demonstrate that in post #24? And gosh darn it, stop focusing on the order of magnitude thing; the major problem here is that the meaning of the original statistic is lost entirely in the translation, yet the artist promises this is a way to make meaning of yet.


What matters is that you have made a difference in some persons' perceptions of our consumerism.
What also matters in this case is that you have perpetuated ignorance.


If you want to complain that he's not teaching math, you're barking up the wrong tree.
I want to complain that he is ignorant, he is perpetuating ignorance, and that you are defending it. (I assume he's ignorant; of course it might be that he isn't, and is just consciously trying to manipulate people with this standard propaganda technique)


Most of the posters on this thread seem to understand that he is helping ordinary people (with maybe no post-HS math) mentally bridge the gap between large numbers of consumables, and insanely large numbers of consumables.
Is it a large number of consumables? I wouldn't know. 2 million plastic bottles per 5 minutes is a lot more than I could deal with on a personal level, but for the entirety of the United States, I have no frame of reference for judging whether that's a large, insanely large, or even a small number.

The artist wants to tell me that it's large, or maybe even insanely large. Why should I believe him? Certainly not because of his art! But does the ordinary person realize that? Do you realize that??


To a person who thinks 1000 is a very large number and has trouble relating it to a million or a billion, this is a tremendous service. You and I can do this OOM math very easily. Lots of people cannot.
This art certainly doesn't do that. I even demonstrated how the artist has managed to almost entirely hide a factor of 2000 in rate of consumption. And as I've said over and over, an abstract number doesn't convey what a statistic is telling you.
 
  • #42
The artist is multiplying what should be divided.

300 million people and 2 million plastic bottles every 5 minutes.

I was thinking of making a feature length movie where 5 people sit around looking at his painting for 2.5 hours. During that time they share a bottle of water. Do you think it would spark as much controversy as this painting?

I can see the final scene already. The gaping darkness of the trash bin as the plastic bottle flies through the air in slow motion towards it. Eventually it is engulfed in darkness and the camera follows, fade to black, roll credits.
 
Last edited:
  • #43
The sequal will be a comedy. A family of 6 have stolen the world supply of bottled fluids and are expending them at an alarming rate of 4 million/hour each. The world becomes very angry at the family and hijinks ensue as national officials follow the trail of litter in hot pursuit.

The art doesn't strike me as focusing on any environmental impact. I don't see any environment in the photo. My first impression would be 'ooh, big numbers' and then I would think about consumerism. If this is the artists purpose then I find his representation to be misleading.

It would be easy for someone to walk away from this painting with an individual sense of responsibility for ALL of those objects. In trying to represent the number as a whole he has broken it apart from any meaning. The conclusions that people will draw from his art will likely be false. Persuading people to accept responsibility I think is a good idea. Doing it through deception or innaccuracy I do not agree with. The truth in this case would be expressed as a ratio, not one single incomprehensible, mind-boggling number.
 
Last edited:
  • #44
Hurkyl said:
What about telling people that they can make meaning of these statistics in this way?

Well I'd agree that this would further increase numeracy.

Just by teaching someone how to read words, without teaching them about subject-verb agreement, does not contribute to illiteracy. In the same way, a first step toward better understanding of numbers is not bad in itself.

Being fairly numerate myself, I would have to come down on the side of "this is indeed too much" for several (not all) of the displays. I think that too many paper bags and not enough plastic bags are used.

Those plastic bags should have a returnable price on them, they are valuable fuel. Have the scouts or whatever go on a bag collection routine; even at a penny apiece, they could (literally) rake it in.
 
  • #45
(How many=y) people out of (how many=x) people will walk away with (what percentage=%) increase in (what area=z) that may affect (an unknown part=p) *if* they (do perceive/recognize=%) that it even relates to (an unknown part=p) of a (part=p') of the way that their (part=p*) influences (both=input + output) and the (effects=a! to z!) of the (micro-environment niche=m^n) to the (macroenvironment=MEarth^n), and then (how many=YYY?) people will do (anything=me?^n) about it?
 
Last edited:
  • #46
Huckleberry said:
The artist is multiplying what should be divided.

300 million people and 2 million plastic bottles every 5 minutes.

I was thinking of making a feature length movie where 5 people sit around looking at his painting for 2.5 hours. During that time they share a bottle of water. Do you think it would spark as much controversy as this painting?
For this reason alone it would be worthwhile to prompt a question just like that. Boil that fantastically large number down to "you." IF the numbers appear to be too large "to you," then what does it take to be an average contributor to this number.

And who is to say that the viewers do not think of this. Some don't I'm sure, but to assume that we know the reaction of all viewers is presumptuous (well, yeah, by definition).

To deny that the artist is making a environmental point is silly. But I think that he is missing an opportunity of bringing the point home by not prompting further analysis of these numbers.

Yes I think we use too many plastic bottles just for dumb things like water that is no better than the tap water from the sink. But the alternative is not clear: the tap is inconvenient; the cups used with water coolers are plastic too (and more disposable and less recyclable); not many people want to carry a reusable Nalgene bottle around all the time. Plus, a large portion of those bottles are reused in one way or another, either in recycled plastics, or in energy recovery incinerators. So in the final analysis, after asking "is this too much" we have to honestly ask "is this a significant problem?"

In some cases, such as the children without healthcare and the "catalog-trees," I think the answer is yes. The former should go without saying, the latter is my considered and educated opinion.
 
  • #47
People see what they want to see, regardless of what someone wants to tell them.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top