• kahjtheundedicated@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    76
    ·
    5 days ago

    Almost certainly a bit of performance art. Makes for some interesting imagery, and provocative enough to be posted and discussed here. So he’s done well.

    • daannii@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      5 days ago

      Yeah that’s a good point. In the city there are walking around art pieces.

      They are intended to be understood as art.

      • unitedwithme@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 days ago

        Thanks to whomever mentioned airgradient the other day, I’ve got indoor and outdoor sensors coming soon! It will be so nice to have visibility into the surrounding air.

    • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 days ago

      Except there is no science behind it, and if anything, it misses the point and implies a person can live off a single house plant.

      • daannii@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        I think it’s implying that

        1. Draw attention to the point that we depend on plants to breathe.
        2. A general dystopian portrayal of natural air becoming poisonous and that we will need supplemental O2.
        3. A point about how even air will be owned and sold to us in the future when billionaires have made natural air unbreathable. More subscriptions to stay alive.

        Like most art. The artist allows for multiple interpretations unless they state otherwise.

        But usually the point is it’s interpretive. Because the interpretation is personal. Subjective. And becomes more about the viewer than the view.

        As with my 3 suggestions. Those points say more about me than they do about the artist.

  • laranis@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    4 days ago

    ITT people assuming it is for the human. I think this guy loves his plant and wants to ensure it gets an abundant supply of CO2 rich air.

  • Tudsamfa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    5 days ago

    That lousy plant ain’t doing shit to clean the air. You need like 100 gallons of algae for 1 adult, what is half a litre of a plant species going to do that also wastes energy on supporting tissue?

      • fartographer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 days ago

        That’s only 8 paint buckets. You could easily walk around with 8 paint buckets of water and algae on a wagon or cart. Y’know, once you get over the inertia, solve the splashing, and find a way to reduce the risk of momentum.

  • nlgranger@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    4 days ago

    There was actually a guy who did an experiment to find out what you need to be self sufficient with plant-based CO2 recycling. He used large containers of algae with powerful lights and water stirring to stimulate the process and it was barely enough.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWRkzvcb9FQ

    So that guy in the picture is faking it big time

  • craigers@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 days ago

    I saw a guy in YouTube test it. You need a shit ton of plants to produce enough O2 for one person. I’ll find the vid…

    video