- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
This looks so sick, I had to share it
Instagram : https://www.instagram.com/chavismarmol
Bluesky : @chavismarmol.bsky.social
This looks so sick, I had to share it
Instagram : https://www.instagram.com/chavismarmol
Bluesky : @chavismarmol.bsky.social
You acknowledge it as art while at the same time ignoring the ability of art to shape public perception. Interesting.
That is not what I said.
Conservatives burning Nikes shaped public perception too.
First, I don’t think it did. Second, fire is good imagery for wanting something gone. This is much more evocative. And finally, I suspect those Nike-burning videos didn’t start with used Nikes, because shoes wear out pretty fast. That means those supported Nike in their defiance as much as clowns shooting cases of Bud supported Anheuser-Busch in their defiance. While money for that Tesla certainly went to Musk, it’s quite likely that none of the artists money for that Tesla went to him.
It doesn’t matter if you just bought something or bought it ten years ago you’ve still given money to the company that made it.
Given the state of sales for Tesla, I think it’s safe to say that’s incorrect. No one else is buying that Tesla for it’s intended purpose, and it’s increasingly likely that the person he bought it from isn’t buying another. This piece of art isn’t supporting Tesla or driving their sales.