• themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    78
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    28 days ago

    For what it’s worth, Vantablack isn’t a pigment, it’s a process for applying carbon nanotubes that absorb light. They don’t sell the “paint” part by itself because it requires special equipment and it finicky. They don’t sell it because then a bunch of social media influencers would try to spray their bathrooms with the stuff and make a bunch of videos about how it doesn’t live up to the hype.

    The owner of the exclusive license to use it for art might be a douche who uses the licensing to make himself feel powerful, but there is a justifiable explanation for why the licensing exists in the first place.

    • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      50
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      29 days ago

      The effect is also completely ruined if you handle it, and the broken off nanotubes from handling it are a serious health hazard. It’s expensive, dangerous, extremely fragile and almost impossible to clean.

      But like mostly, having seen “Anish Kapoor” (which is the real name of the installation where that dickhead debuted his vantablack art), it… sucks. It’s impressive in photographs, incredibly lame in person. And, it can’t be cleaned without ruining the coating! so the dust from all those people builds up and just ew. You can see overlapping outlines, in some cases you could pretty clearly see the shadows from the contours of the coated object because of all the accumulated dust.

      (also, and just on a personal note, he took nine years and did absolutely nothing conceptually interesting with it. Seriously it was the early-2000s 3D movie of art. Just one gimmick, repeated over and over with no change to the formula. “Look, it’s black”. It felt more like an ad for the lab that developed the coating than an art exhibition). It would have been cool if he’d developed the process, but we all know he didn’t, so it just fell so comically flat.)

      • Doxin@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        24 days ago

        On the other hand I’ve seen vantablack on crumpled aluminum foil and it was in a plexiglass box. I’m sure it must’ve been incredibly black, but it was completely impossible to tell over the reflections on the plexiglass. Never mind that they mounted the fucking thing in a corner on the ceiling for some reason.

      • monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        29 days ago

        Damn just looked up the MSDS because i wouldn’t expect carbon nanotubes would be very dangerous. Probably not immediate cancer but definitely not something to handle outside a controlled environment for application. It is relatively safe once it is applied though.

    • kadu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      28 days ago

      a justifiable explanation for why the licensing exists in the first place.

      “because people doing it wrong would make it look bad” is a terrible reason. I’m fairly certain I can buy an OLED TV and mess with the settings and make the picture look horrendous - time to create a restrictive license on who gets to buy TVs?

      • TassieTosser@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        28 days ago

        That’s not the reason. The reason is that vantablack potentially has some military applications so the company that invented it isn’t allowed to sell it. They got permission to collaborate with one artist to promote it. Amish has to ship his art to the company to get it covered in Vantablack. Everyone blaming him for a government decision just because he was an asshole about it.

    • Stalinwolf@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      28 days ago

      Carbon nanotubes are real? I thought that shit was invented for upgrades and repairs in No Man’s Sky…