Armin hates bananas.

I don't see why this as a 'waste' of bananas, it is just that they are not being used for their primary use, i.e eating them.
Let's face it, any money or energy spent on art could have been used instead to feed the homeless.

Whether materials used in any endeavour, artistic or otherwise, are wasteful depends on whether you perceive any benefit from it.

I think it'd be great if they collaborated with a bakery and made banana bread for the homeless.

Again, not an attack on Stefan, just an observation.

This is not the first time Stefan Sagmeister has wasted fruit on a project. Two nights ago during his presentation of Things I have Learned in My Life So Far, Stefan had made mention of a "Plum + Banana" invitation that had gone horribly wrong. The invite, which sounded more or less like a plum and banana packaged together and wrapped in printed tissue paper wasn't timed properly and as a result, much fruit went bad and was thrown out. By no means is this an enormous, world-changning dilema, but it IS a significant waste of yummy fruit.

How do you know Sagmeister isn't going to compost those bananas?

Whaleroot, I don't know. I e-mailed Stefan to let him know about the post. If there is any updates or retractions necessary, I'll make them.

Although, would that make it okay? If they were used for compost?

7,200 perfectly good bananas seem better suited for eating than for compost -- at least if purposely decided so.

Maybe his next project will involve him eating all of those bananas and then deriving 20 things he'll have learned from that experience.

Originally I wrote an articulate, non-vile tirade that when I re-read it, sounded like it heaped all the blame for all the world's problems on this guy and his art show.

Pretty useless.

Toby's right--money used for art and other things like TV commercial media buys, Viking kitchen gadgets, personal jets, and Bentleys could be spent on solving world hunger. Similarly, passenger jets could theoretically turn off the engines at high altitudes and save tons of gas. It doesn't happen, though.

People buy Bentleys, corporations spend money on TV spots, we buy things we could probably do without and so on and so forth. You have a right to. This is a free country and thank God for that, and we can proselytize about compassion and giving and virtue and doing the right thing and being responsible and on and on and on and it's all fine and good but it doesn't actually change anything.

And while I realize that, that doesn't mean it's okay to excuse stupidity and irresponsibility. If anything, our culture's become too lax and tolerant of misguided behavior; on the other hand, it can be awfully quixotic, castigating every self-absorbed blogger out there and lambasting each narcissistic art exhibit. Tiring, to say the least, and a dubious use of one's time.

But this was a pretty stupid use of bananas. Bananas are healthy food and there are a lot of hungry people out there who wouldn't mind having a bundle or two. This *is* a different situation than spending 10,000 bucks on a diamond pendant (or excessive expenditure of your choice) because well...he's actually wasting the food. He literally glued the fruit to a wall for his art show. Given the guy's track record for talking about thinking, he's not exactly putting on a master class in thoughtfulness here.

It's unfortunate. Why would anyone do that?

this is the most ridiculous thing i have read today. it's sarcasm, right?

He can add this to the Things I have Learned in My Life So Far

• How to needlessly waste a shitload of bananas.

I don't agree with Armin on two things:

first, because, although i don't really like this wall that much, i think it would be less amazing with things like buttons or light bulbs;

Secondly, because, like Toby, i don't thing using food is worst then spending a lot of money on an art object, or even spending on it hundreds of old teddy bears that would perfectly suit the needs of the children in Africa (ok, maybe it is morally wrong, but it is definitely not different).

Do you think they shouldn't do the la tomatina in Spain?

Thanks for the review and the photos. I wish I were in NY.

Will the bananas still be good enough to make 3,000 loaves of banana bread for the homeless (like Haik said)? Maybe a local zoo will feed it to there animals.

It seems that there wouldn't be a better product that will change so predictably. The change in the bananas can't be duplicated with something that is not perishable. It is a very dramatic and beautiful change. Maybe he could have used all the discarded beef from California. Oh the smell . . .

It also seems like the the blank books would leave just as much (or more) of a carbon imprint than the bananas. Except I assume the banana trees are still alive and producing oxygen. I think art is important and Stefan has made some interesting works here. While we should always try to use the most ecological friendly solution, sometimes there is no alternative.

A lot of trees died (and had their pulp chemically bleached) to make that wall of books. Those monkey inflatables I assume are made from polyvinyl chloride. Are we only concerned with the delicious parts of the environment?

I have to admit I've wasted perfectly good bannanas too, they're rotting in the kitchen as I speak, was there any meaning or metaphor behind the reason for using bannanas? I mean why bannanas? So many questions. So little time.

I wonder when they'll be taken down, I they just there for show or something?:S

Maybe his intention was to garner a reaction such as this: to bring attention to the fact that so much food is wasted in the wold. Wouldn't it be worth "wasting" 7200 bananas if it meant that it brought future awareness to homelessness, or wasting food, or global poverty - or other associated issues?

Wish I would have been there to see it.

Like most art, I think we're WAY over analyzing it.

I don't know Stefan personally, but have had the pleasure of meeting him on a couple of occasions and enjoying conversation with him.

I certainly can't speak for Stefan, but I have a hunch he did it because "hey, cool...it's a wall of bananas!" Do we really need any other reason?

To say these could have been better used to feed the homeless is fine, but you hear that argument all the time used against public art funding. Why waste all this public money on a sculpture in the park? They could have filled a pothole with it. Why spend money on public architecture...that empty Wal-Mart would work just fine! Etc.

Yea, there's a point in there, but it would certainly make for a much less interesting world if we took it literally.

Sometimes a wall of Bananas is just what the world needs.

I certainly can't speak for Stefan, but I have a hunch he did it because "hey, cool...it's a wall of bananas!" Do we really need any other reason?

Yeah. We do.

The money used on a public sculpture (say...Federal Plaza and Richard Serra...) is siphoned off to do just that. People vote, representatives get elected, committees are formed, decisions made, and we have something resembling funding for the arts because of a democratic process. I'm generalizing (wildly), but there's approval for using certain portions of money for certain things.

This is OBVIOUS WASTE OF PERFECTLY FINE FOOD. There's NO other reason than it struck him as cool. Maybe Patrick has a point, that maybe it calls awareness to wastefulness in general but man...I think you're reaching. It's my kind of reaching though, the kind that assumes good intentions, and there's nothing wrong with that. While Sagmeister's intentions can hardly be construed as "evil," they are as I said before, thoughtless.

If anything, it's the mindlessness that REALLY pisses me off here. If the reason is just as you're saying, Darrel, then that's sad and discouraging. Because it's fucking stupid and brainless.

It's really easy for privileged people to muse about meaning and intent in ANY art, but when that art includes perfectly fine food (as opposed to deceased sheep, cows, and sharks a la Damien Hirst), yeah, I think the discussion changes. We're not talking about plaster or oil pigments or clay, we're talking about stuff that people can use.

I'm now equally as disgusted with some of the comments here as I am with the show. Good lord, when did critical thought become such an inconvenience?

Armin,

I think the bananas might be better suited for compost than eating. Think about — and excuse the crudeness — 7,200 people eating these bananas and then shitting them out into the sewage system where we used way more resources in the refinement process, or 7,200 people belching or farting due to their banana consumption and producing methane. 7,200 bananas being composted to help feed crops, forests, organic etc. seems the better route to me.

I would find it interesting if Stefan is thinking about this, I look forward to an update. And about the carbon footprint, also ask Stefan if he bought the bananas from local markets/co-ops or if he had them trucked to his location.

"If the reason is just as you're saying, Darrel, then that's sad and discouraging. Because it's fucking stupid and brainless."

Oh good grief. It's art. Made out of bananas.

I'm walking over the Walker Art Center for lunch and demanding they take down every damn painting as that canvas could have been better spend clothing the homeless. ;o)

i wish we'd stop blurring the line between art & design and go back to things that make sense (aka design)

:)

uh... haven't seen the exhibition, don't really understand why Armin is so upset with usage of perfectly good food however.

First of all, its pretty apparent its a time based piece, not just a display of "kewlness" Plastic fruit generally doesn't decay/

Secondly, if we're speaking about "world hunger" or the "plight if the hungry", the scope of that problem goes far beyond 7200 individual pieces of fruit.

Finally, the author confesses that he is equally wasteful, but blithely glosses over his equally "irresponsible" usage of the air conditioner and power grid in general.

So what was the point of this article exactly? Other than the hypocritical condemnation of waste, Armin seemed pleased enough by what he saw.

I have to agree the bananas are not the only ecologically damaging or wasteful material in the exhibit - they are the most obvious however. The plastic, the paper, all of this material has a "carbon footprint", I wonder which has created more damage, greenhouse gas, deforestation, etc

Soon all such resources will be measured and we will be uber-socially conscious to not do a damn thing, even make art, statements, critique, dissent, disagree. Very interesting where all this discussion and ideas of destruction has lead us. To knew forms of censorship?

I would love to hear from Mr. Sagmeister on his choices, materials and politics.

Great post Armin. Makes us each think of our own choices.

7200 school lunches could use a banana (instead of an apple tart).
7200 people in shelters could use the bananas.
7200 air travelers could use the bananas.
7200 people in the street could use the bananas.
7200 train commuters could use the bananas.
Heck, we could probably find 7200 better uses for the bananas.

I believe in art, and in doing things for the sake or art, yet I also think one has to consider the impact, the perception and the final message received. The: It’s OK to waste all these bananas, and you can do this too, is not something I would not like to encourage. What happens when the show is picked up by other galleries? Does each new location require a new banana wall? I sure hope not. But I can see the same book wall gathering signatures and notes across the globe—hence the environmental impact is greatly reduced, as the various pieces that make up the show are actually, in a way, recycled.

You can eat the invite for example, which I find refreshing and better than all the junk in my mail box—and you could create impact by giving them away in Times Square in a massive banana inspired improv. That would have more impact, as I can see local newscasters going bonkers.

We can all improve our environmental impact, one thoughtful banana at a time, even if we insist on blasting the AC.

I think it is imperative, even in times like these (global warming, mass poverty, etc.) that artists, or designer/artists, be allowed to waste 7,200 perfectly good bananas for the sake of art. This is culture at its finest! Right? I wish I could see it in person and smell its sweet stench myself!

I'm glad I was there for the opening and didn't need to smell it.

I'm surprised that the M&Co. banana promo hasn't been talked about more. That was the first thing I thought when I saw the wall, and I assumed it was very intentionally self-referential of Stefan to not only use the bananas in the show but also to use them as invites. It's as if bananas bookend the experiences that led to what he's learned.

The bananas most certainly seem "wasted" in terms of providing nutrition, but whether or not that is a huge act of wastefulness on Stefan's part remains questionable to me.

In this case, a representation of "irresponsibility" has trumped what may or may not actually be irresponsible. Guy DeBord would be proud. Akin to Gary Boodhoo's comment above, 7200 bananas is pretty much in consequential when compared to the scale of the issues I presume Armin is alluding to.

Maybe, once all the bananas are black, they'll make a giant loaf of banana bread.

i'm sorry to say this post is ridiculous.

sagmeister is a designer but in this case he surely does art. these are two different things and they should be treated like such.

moreover, i think if people start using cars that work on bananas instead of gas, it wouldn't be such a bad thing after all, wouldn't it?

Isn't all art wasteful?

Thank you, Michael, but no, not all art is wasteful.

Recalling Goya's "Los desastres de la guerra" or even Picasso's "Guernica", I'd say it can be useful.

Art for art's sake... definitely a waste.

7200 bananas rotting on a wall... criminal.

The "This is America" comment I read earlier... also criminal.

Yes, you will not solve problems with art. But I'd rather have seen Sagmeister donate 7200 hours of his time in a soup kitchen than this.

If you feel you deserve that iPod, or to staple 7200 bananas on the wall because it's cool and you work damned hard, and this is America and you have the freedom to do what you want, then yes, the homeless and hungry of America, and the 400,000 to 800,000 dead Iraqis are on your head. At the end of the day, I pay my taxes, and that kills me, because I know what it's being used for.

Alternatively, if you can wake up in the morning and with confidence tell yourself that you've made the world a better place, then kudos. If not, what are you waiting for?

Final note: This freedom of speech we're all boasting about... why are so many afraid to use it to say something of value?

Armin... I'm with you on the bananas. Bloody criminal.

I do not know about banana agriculture, but one thing I wonder about is the assumption we are all drawing (myself included) that these bananas were fit to eat to begin with.

Drive through Illinois and you'll see huge tracks of land (erm, corn)! Should you try to stop and eat an ear or two, as many people do, you'll get a mouthful of the unfortunately tasting "feed corn" that is used to feed cows and the like. It won't do you harm, but it certainly isn't right by the taste buds.

Maybe the bananas were grown on a contaminated farm, and were not eligible for human consumption. Or maybe Mr. Sagmeister really did use 7200 bananas for art.

I have posted an update based on a response from Sagmeister.

Armin,

It is a shame that you feel you needed Mr. Sagmeister's permission to criticise his work.

He is admittedly self-indulgent, and clearly has enough confidence to waste $2000 on 7200 rotting bananas.

Twice that amount to the Coalition for the Homeless could have been thrice that amount, but he opted for the sensational, and wrote back in hopes that our pity for his fragile ego and awe at Lou Reed's positive response would quiet our contention.

On the contrary, it strengthens my resolve in calling it criminal. Irrefutably so.

Maybe instead of his self-indulgent pseudo intellectualism, if he had used this work to direct us to read Dan Koeppel's "Banana", it would still be criminal, but at least would have some conscience attached.

Or perhaps he could have used the rotting Palestinian bananas sitting at an Israeli checkpoint. But that kind of stink would have been controversial in the truest sense, and would have garnered a response Mr. Sagmeister would not be able to handle.

As a final note, how many homeless praised the exhbition?

By the Medicis, for the Medicis.

> It is a shame that you feel you needed Mr. Sagmeister's permission to criticise his work.

Raymond, it's not a matter of needing someone's permission, it's simply a matter of getting the full information.

Well, at least he didn't tie up a starving street dog to a wire in an all-white, pristine corner of an all-white, pristine art gallery and let it DIE as part of his exhibit. This is what an "artist" in...I think it was Costa Rica...did. Not just the artist, either. The gallery owner who gave the show its venue and all the stupid viewers who saw the dog and did nothing to help it.

I could find the link and post it but I'm not going to because it's too disturbing.

Most art, I think, is navel-gazing and worthless. I don't have much patience for work that has no purpose other than drawing attention to the artist.

Armin,

Myself and 40 other students are currently putting together the layout and presentation of our BA degree show, to take place in June, here in London.

We originally spent many, many meetings trying to find a way to make the show entirely carbon neutral and have all boards, modules, stands and seating made from recyclable materials. Within reason, making the show a fully recyclable event. (as a matter of course, not a boast).

We quickly found this strategy to be a very deep rabbit hole that gets deeper each time it appears to end - constantly finding problems in supposed solutions, finding problems in those solutions..... It just isn't a practical method for creating any kind of successful exhibition. Or piece of work, for that matter. Where to stop?

Whilst nobody would argue that 7000 bananas is hefty use of fruit, in proportion it's fairly small. Stefan seems to have covered his bases as far as this is concerned anyway; and saved $6000 in the process.

As evidenced in some of the embarrassing Creative Review responses, an individuals' conceptual credibility is the easy target off the back of these kind of ideas, and as a result conversations quickly turn into 'the purpose of art' and 'the responsibility of the artist'.

Many blog grannies will be smashing their handbags over each others' heads over this issue way after this website ceases to exist.

Good post - Gavin.

PS. The luxurious nature of being a designer seems to be the reason for all this self-doubt.

You are not a designer without some form of comfort in your life (by that I mean the need to survive, eat etc.) but the contemplative, conscious nature of being one makes you pile pressure on yourself to perform on the moral scale and justify your existence.

Whilst this is damaging (especially to emerging designers who find it hard to get a foothold on their beliefs), it's even worse for us to lynch every single designer who tackles these moral, social areas by ripping apart their fabric and examining it for holes.

Barnbrook was practically hung out to dry on CR's blog last year for even ATTEMPTING to put on a politically themed show.

Yet we allow hundreds of mahogany chair designers in Milan to go about their merry-way as they apparently 'acknowledge' their wastefulness?

It seems blog tradition to bring up these issues of responsibility only when a designer creates something we can see fault with on the theme.

But as I said - praise for your balanced view and request for fair comments.

PS. The luxurious nature of being a designer seems to be the reason for all this self-doubt ('who are we to say?').

You are not a designer without some form of comfort in your life (by that I mean the need to survive, eat etc.) but the contemplative, conscious nature of being one makes you pile pressure on yourself to perform on the moral scale and justify your existence.

Whilst this is damaging (especially to emerging designers who find it hard to get a foothold on their beliefs), it's even worse for us to lynch every single designer who tackles these moral, social areas by ripping apart their fabric and examining it for holes.

Barnbrook was practically hung out to dry on CR's blog last year for even ATTEMPTING to put on a politically themed show.

Yet we allow hundreds of mahogany chair designers in Milan to go about their merry-way as they apparently 'acknowledge' their wastefulness?

It seems blog tradition to bring up these issues of responsibility only when a designer creates something we can see fault with on the theme.

But as I said - praise for your balanced view and request for fair comments.

Would it have been a waste of food if he had painted bananas on the wall using casein, egg tempera, or beeswax encaustic paints? Has anyone checked to see where his book was printed—it may have been done with petroleum-based inks, using up precious oil that could have been refined into gasoline, thus keeping the price of oil lower and staving off recession. Was it printed with soy-ink? Because those beans could have been used for a nice tofurky. And what about the paper? We could sure use those trees; a PDF would have been a lot more responsible, and not used any carbon being shipped.

It doesn’t matter what medium Sagmeister—or anyone else—uses, one can find some way to write a moralist rant about it. Design critics should challenge themselves to resist that urge and write something better.

Anyone who says that this is criminal, does not understand the concept or importance of Art.

Any designer who doesn't understand the concept, and importance of Art, probably isn't a very good designer.

Art, along with everything else in this world, ie science, music, film, math, cuisine etc. is what makes design useful and important.

Telling an artist that they cannot use as many damn bananas as they can afford, is akin to telling someone they cant say anything they want.

If you don't like the show, don't go to see it, and especially don't buy the book.

> Design critics should challenge themselves to resist that urge and write something better.

James, you can address me personally. Blanket statement implications like the above don't help.

I've held off commenting on all this because I wanted to think about it a bit more before I typed an opinion. Mr. Sagmeister has always been a clever commentator on Contemporary Design by putting out Big Statements. It's what we expect from him and he delivers.
I admit that seeing photos of a show is not exactly like walking through a gallery of THINGS, but it's all I have to go by.
I'm not very impressed and I wish I was because I admire Mr. Sagmeister's dramatic design work. This seems to be nothing special, all gag jokes. If something above and beyond a discussion of bananas and wastefulness has come of it then perhaps it makes a point about Americans and excess. But I think it's, at best - amusing and, at worst - useless and bombastic.
Real Art has the potential to open eyes, change minds and challenge assumptions. I know because I've experienced Art that has done these things.
I wish I could say something positive like an equivalent $2000 could have put a roof on a house in post-Katrina New Orleans Ninth Ward, I say to myself.... and then I shrug.

I'm not quite sure what the big hub bub is all about? If it was a wall of clubbed baby seals, well ok, I'd be upset. Are bananas an endangered fruit?

The banana wall was simply beautiful. I'm not one to waste food, but Stefan's piece was witty, compelling and thoughtful.

If we can't have banana walls, we can't have orange fabric festooning Central Park. And: "Michael, nix the chapel ceiling murals. We're going with white. One must think of the poor."

Art was, is and will be a "waste" of time and resources. There's no scandal or suprise in that. We're in danger of slipping into propaganda when art is subject to social, political and economic expediencies.

haha, you got all whiny and tried to act all morally superior and the Sagmeister called you out on it and pwned you.

James, you can address me personally. Blanket statement implications like the above don't help.

I can, but that wasn’t my point. But to say it directly, why write piece like this? What good is being done by pointing fingers and moralizing in an industry where almost anybody, including you, can be the subject of this sort of complaint?

I could point out that your Stop Being Sheep series is a waste of resources because the content is already available online, a far less wasteful medium. But it would be pointless—you’re a designer, and creating ephemera is what you do. Getting mad about it is like getting mad at a dog for barking.

Check out "Bananas, A Storied Fruit with an Uncertain Future" from NPRs Fresh Air 18 Feb.

VR/

> I can, but that wasn’t my point.

Probably not the point, but by generalizing, you are implying that other design critics are writing about the same thing and could be doing "something better". This is hard to corroborate and unfair to other design writers. And for what it's worth, I don't consider myself a "critic". I am a designer that likes to write and doesn't mind expressing his opinions. I probably fail miserably at this test.

> What good is being done by pointing fingers and moralizing in an industry where almost anybody, including you, can be the subject of this sort of complaint?

Ah, good, now we are getting somewhere. Because otherwise we are all just doing things without consideration for others. I don't mind being called upon any of the things I do or write. If someone disagrees they can point the finger -- this action can only help to inform my next step. Without these interactions we are just coasting on our own impressions of ourselves. As much as it is up to any of us to do as we please -- and we are more than happy to remind us that this is our right -- it's also up to us to question (and celebrate from time to time) those actions.

> I could point out that your Stop Being Sheep series is a waste of resources because the content is already available online, a far less wasteful medium. But it would be pointless—you’re a designer, and creating ephemera is what you do.

That's the problem. It's not pointless. If you wrote on your blog "Damn this Armin and his wasteful marketing techniques" and a dozen other people said the same thing, trust me, my ears would perk up and I would give more thorough consideration to whatever I did next. It is then my choice to decide what to do based on complaints or praises. Without them I have no way of knowing in which direction to go with increased certainty.

And these are the reasons why I don't mind putting myself in a position where what I say might be wrong, or getting mad at a dog for barking.

Probably not the point, but by generalizing…

You’re right and I apologize.

Without these interactions we are just coasting on our own impressions of ourselves.

I agree, but I think that this sort of questioning is better saved—and will be better received—when reserved for more thoughtless, even egregious, occasions. As you stated in the original post, you know that Sagmeister is very concerned about others. A designer in his place could have done far worse things than make art out of bananas. Shouldn’t there be times when you just cut a guy some slack? At what point does questioning turn into nitpicking?

"Are bananas an endangered fruit?"

Heh. Actually, they are:

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2005-06/can-fruit-be-saved

(to be fair, that's just one individual variety of the fruit)

100 Billion Cavendish bananas are consumed each year.

Stefan used 7,200 = %.0000072 of the annual crop.

OMG!

I'm glad to see so much consideration for global food issues in here, but, really, Stefan isn't the guy you need to be concerned about. Go read one of Michael Pollan's books or something.

It'll be good if he used some plastic bananas in it, so after two weeks the real bananas will be brown and the plastics still yellow to reveal a new sentence.

Joe Moran-I heard that story too

I still say YES to Sagmeister's always provocative design work (though not particularly this show - sorry), and NO to the designer who thinks questioning it is some smug morally superior whine.
I don't think so, sport. It's just a personal sense of reflection on the use of funds. He did what he did and that's that.

I wonder if it is because it is Sagmeister's exhibit that it got this sort of reaction. He did, after all produce other pieces of sensationalist-like design:

Or his 'Sagmeister on a Binge' piece where he ate an exorbitant amount of food.

Did anybody complain about all the coffee beans that went to waist in the production of this piece?

If any other designer would have produced this banana piece do you think it would have gotten a different reaction?

Jamie B,

Was interesting, no? Not related to the "Meastro" per se (perse?), but related -- distantly. Ha!

VR/

Timing is everything, Armin. You showed up a few weeks late to this opening as well as the opening at AIGA/ FIT last week. I thought both event were excellent and thought provoking. The best piece (by far) was the one you decided not view: the process video in the steam room.

monkey boy: you can't judge the forest sitting in a banana tree.

Another great show form an inspired artist.

i really do not understand how some of these comments can compare a wall of bananas to "400,000 to 800,000 dead Iraqis are on your head". i mean, come on. are you serious?

For no particular reason: Ikea PS Gullholmen

This is possibly the saddest example of selfish, navel-gazing, ignorant reactionism I've ever seen on a design blog.

For all of those decrying his use of BANANAS in his art - I would like to know how much time and money you have specifically given to 'the world' or to the homeless.
What have you given up?
How many paper towels have you wasted?
How many gallons of gasoline have you burned?
How many kilowatt hours have you wasted staring at the tv or surfing the internet, arguing in design forums about subjective topics?
How much money have you spent on goods or services that are either wasteful or the product of exploitive commercialism?

I'd bet it's more than $2000.

So what's criminal?
His art or the victims of your own quest for personal comfort?

Sagmeister - I would say that this entire discussion proves that your art is successful. Maybe, like Christo, your art is not about the thing but about the process and people's visceral reactions to it.
If that's true - you've succeeded with people who have yet to even see the actual object.

Sagmeister should call his next book "Massive Banana Attack".

Isn't that already a gay porno?

Armin, Armin, Armin...

? ? ?

I agree that this is not a waste of bananas. People dont grow bananas to feed the world, they grown them for the same reason people do graphic design: to make a profit. To put the burden of feeding the world on the shoulders of people who grow (or buy) food is arbitrary.

Still, Im not sure the exhibit doesn't stink as much figuratively as it does literally.

Heh, the primary use of bananas is not eating, but reproduction of other banana trees.

(Although the bananas we eat in America are sterile, and because of that and temperature increases, the plants are actually near extinction)

I don't like the waste of food, I'm not the biggest fan of his commercial work, and I think this is a good discussion, but I'm not sure Mr. Sagmeister really deserved to be villainized...for this? No.

Yeah, I could've done without the questioning of Sagmeister's carbon footprint. Especially from someone who openly admits to wasting so much energy. Bananas are renewable.

The negative sort of reaction to the banana exhibit has more to do with who Sagmeister is and his timing (in light of global environmentalism) than the actual waste of bananas.

We always waste things. Sagmeister, in fact, was thoughtful enough to 'offset' his banana consumption with a meaningful donation to a worthy cause.

So, I don't think he was wrong. I do think he did generate some bad karma because he is a rock-star level designer and someone like him should be an impeccable example of responsible use of resources - especially imported fruit on that scale.

If someone else would do it (not as influential) they might get criticism, but Stefan is in a uniquely powerful position to influence and set examples.

I don't see why he couldn't have had the exhibit taken down earlier as soon as they all went ripe-yellow (and did not rot yet) and given them out to visiting guests? I for one wouldn't turn down a fresh, ripe banana if offered one.

Thus spake Elizabeth: Bananas are renewable.

Not so much.