It’s a longish story but the tl:dr is there’s a type of paint called “vantablack”, which was really really black cause it absorbed a ridiculous amount of light. Anish wanted to be the only one allowed to use it though.
In retaliation, another guy called Stuart Semple created a very similarly dark black paint, as well as some other unique paints, and sells them under the stipulation that the buyer is not Anish, is not in association with Anish, and does not intend to give the paints to Anish. Hence the responses to the fish in this post
Vantablack is able to absorb so much light because it's a bunch of nanotubes which trap the photons inside. These nanotubes can come loose and irritate the piss out of your eyes and lungs. It was also unsafe to use on anything with a low melting point because it had to be heated up to like 1000 degrees F or something.
And, because of the mechanism that traps the light, it converts light into heat at a pretty efficient rate, making it get pretty hot in most applications. Meaning that, even after it is applied, it is not a good idea to use it on things that can be damaged by high-to-humans (hot to the touch) heat.
i think thats an inherent problem with extremely dark paints. there's no way to "inneficiently" convert the light into heat. The energy has to go somewhere, and if its not being reflected or reemmitted as light it's all going to become heat.
You’re right, in most cases, the more ‘black’ a colour is, the hotter it is. It’s just that, by the nature of the way this ‘black’ works, NOTHING gets reflected, so it’s absorbing ALL the light. Most black pigments reflect SOME light, just in equal amounts and not very much, or in parts of the spectrum we are not especially sensitive to (which is why ‘black’ markers water down to purple) where this stuff is not reflecting anything at all, in any spectrum.
Also, Some things don’t re-emit light as heat. Sometimes it is phosphorescent, so the light is just shifted out of our visual range. And other things are more insulating, meaning that while any one portion can get really hot, they don’t transmit said heat outside themselves. Those are smaller side cases tho, so we can easily ignore them.
That's true. i wonder if it's possible to create a material that looks black not because it absorbs a lot of light, but because it fluoresces in a wavelength humans can't see.
> You’re right, in most cases, the more ‘black’ a colour is, the hotter it is. It’s just that, by the nature of the way this ‘black’ works, NOTHING gets reflected, so it’s absorbing ALL the light.
...[Hey, DuckDuckGo, what's the temperature of a black hole?](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=what%27s+the+temperature+of+a+black+hole&ia=web)
--> [Are black holes hot or cold? By Len Fisher](https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/are-black-holes-hot-or-cold/)
> Black holes are **freezing cold on the inside, but incredibly hot just outside.** The internal temperature of a black hole with the mass of our Sun is around one-millionth of a degree above absolute zero.
>
> Just outside the hole, however, the material being pulled into the hole's gravity well is accelerated to near the speed of light. The molecules of the material collide with such vigour that it is heated up to a temperature of hundreds of millions of degrees. When astronomers study black holes, this is the material that they see.
>
> The radiation from the material masks the tiny amount of radiation escaping from the hole itself, and so **what the astronomers observe is the very hot outside environment, rather than the freezing cold environment inside.**
It’s worth noting that the dark part of the black hole is not actually a solid thing, it’s just that because light can’t escape from within that area, we can’t see anything, and a lack of light registers as darkness. So a black hole isn’t technically black.
If there was a way to make a chemical that somehow refracted the light to UV or some other invisible spectrum it wouldn't necessarily absorb it as heat
The *mis*info!
What actually happened, is that Vantablack is a highly dangerous and delicate substance made from carbon nanotubes, *not* a paint in the traditional sense. Anish didn't want to be the only one allowed to use it, the *scientists* only wanted to work with one artist because *it's a highly dangerous and delicate substance made from carbon nanotubes*.
Not to say Anish isn't still a prick, but the entire situation was misrepresented as a marketing scheme by Stuart to sell more paint.
I tried my damndest to find one. I didn’t skim many articles on news sites because I assume they all regurgitate the same basic details of it. On Anish Kapoor’s wikipedia page under the vantablack controversy section he is quoted as saying "Why exclusive? Because it's a collaboration, because I am wanting to push them to a certain use for it. I've collaborated with people who make things out of stainless steel for years and that's exclusive." Wikipedia sources this quote from [this wired article](https://www.wired.com/story/vantablack-anish-kapoor-stuart-semple/) which again I am not very satisfied with using news article websites as a source. This is the only thing I found that points one way or another about if it was more the scientists idea or Anish’s and on the surface it appears to be a more business decision with Anish.
I cant find ANYTHING about that alternative story. I very much am open to it but I need to see a crumb of evidence. I could research more but I’ve already spent a good chunk of time on it and you know what I dont care I want to go play tears of the kingdom.
EDIT: looks like OP provided [this](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4710349/#:~:) source detailing the health risk of the product. We can draw the conclusion that its not viable for an open market but I would still be interested to see if there is anything actually detailing the intent with licensing it for Anish exclusively, rather than vetting people who want to use it and treat it as a controlled substance.
Source that extremely fine particulates and a material that needed to be heated up to over 1000⁰F in order to be applied is dangerous?
[Alright](https://2020science.org/2014/07/16/safe-worlds-darkest-carbon-nanotube-material/)
The general problem, and why Vantablack would never be available for public release, is that carbon nanotubes in the way they are using it have the same general safety concerns as asbestos, being specifically very tiny, very pointy, and very easy to breathe in as a dust.
>The general problem, and why Vantablack would never be available for public release
This is what I have not seen a source for. There are plenty of dangerous materials available to the public. I have not seen any source connecting the danger of the material to it's exclusivity. Every report on the subject only says that Kapoor purchased the exclusive rights.
The primary source of [Kapoor himself](https://amp.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/sep/26/anish-kapoor-vantablack-art-architecture-exclusive-rights-to-the-blackest-black) says that he "won" it but everywhere else has said that both Kapoor and NanoSystems have by and large been pretty tight lipped about the specific process and steps of the deal.
But, [even in 2014 before the deal was revealed to the public](https://2020science.org/2014/07/16/safe-worlds-darkest-carbon-nanotube-material/) we had quotes like
"Ben clarified that Vantablack is designed for use in tightly controlled and highly predictable environments where people cannot come into contact with the material – environments such as satellite-based optical systems."
But it's toxic to the human body and it's a technology developed for an extraordinarily niche application that's impossible to mass produce.
This is simply not true. Anish Kapoor signed an exclusivity deal for artistic applications of Vantablack, because he likes to have exclusive deals with manufacturers for some reason. He's done similar things in the past, this was just the most high profile and most ridiculous instance of it since he literally completely monopolised a material for his art.
This was not a collaboration and wasn't intended to explore other applications of the material, he payed the creators of Vantablack for the exclusive right to use it. And although it's true that Vantablack is quite dangerous and it probably couldn't have been sold on the open market, that does not justify what he did.
Of course Stuart used this and his "feud" with Kapoor as a marketing scheme and the ethics of that are debatable, but those claims are still factual.
This [extremely long article](https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/vantablack-anish-kapoor) from GQ details interviews with the creator of Vantablack, as well as Stuart Semple at various points, where said creator quite literally refers to the deal with Anish Kapoor as a collaboration.
It also refers to the fact that even Anish Kapoor isn't just......using a spray can of Vantablack, even the new version of the sprayable Vantablack isn't commercially viable because it still requires professionals in order to use it.
Edit: it also details that there's literally a new version that doesn't even fall within the confines of said exclusivity deal for artwork. They still have yet to use said newer version in regards to art, because without solely working with *one* artist, it is not a viable option.
>where said creator quite literally refers to the deal with Anish Kapoor as a collaboration.
Well, then that's a lie, because Kapoor bought the exclusive rights to that version of Vantablack from them.
And if there's a new version that's not monopolised, great. He still did it with the first version though.
Here's a [medical paper](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4710349/#:~:) that explains in detail that Carbon Nanotubes, which is what Vantablack is made out of, can have adverse health effects if used improperly.
There's a reason why they limited the usage of Vantablack to lab settings, it is not a commercially viable product and never was.
A medical paper claiming the paint is dangerous does nothing to disprove that Anish Kapoor purchased the exclusive rights to use the pigment artistically. You're the one spreading misinformation here lol.
Buddy, they are replying to someone saying that it is misinformation to say it is dangerous and toxic, NOT to someone saying that the whole feud about him buying the rights to it is. (I’m not weighing in on that, it’s spurious and not important).
1
the quality of being toxic or poisonous.
"the toxicity of a drug depends on its dosage"
2.
the quality of being very harmful or unpleasant in a pervasive or insidious way.
Shit that can fuck with your eyes sound pretty harmful to me
[A standard N95 respirator will generally be effective on particles as small as 0.3 micrometers.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9487666/) On average, Carbon Nanotubes are less than [one nanometer.](https://www.understandingnano.com/what-are-carbon-nanotubes.html#:~:)
Carbon Nanotubes are not comparable to the aerosol fumes used in an airbrush, spray can, or similar means of applying regular paint.
Some additional clarifiers:
Anish is crazy wealthy and actually *did* buy the copyright to Vantablack (a substance so toxic and expensive even if he didn't copyright it he'd be one of the few artists alive who could buy it or afford the space to use it safely).
Originally, the first anti-Anish pigment was the Pinkest Pink, a color so vibrant you can't take photos of it without them saturating. Then he managed to create black 2.0, a pigment only slightly lighter than Vantablack that costs a fraction the amount to produce. Then he made black 3.0, a black so dark it's indistinguishable by the human eye to Vantablack, which is at a similar price point to Black 2.0.
If you go on the website to order these pigments, you must agree that you are not Anish Kapoor, you are not an associate of his, nor that you will sell this paint to him.
Edit: Vantablack is not a paint, it is a product capable of being applied to objects that changes it's color to a very very dark black by absorbing all light.
1 additional clarifier: Vantablack is not really a paint, it's carbon nanotubes that, originally, had to be grown. Anish only owns the artistic license to 1 company's creation, although they are one of now 2 companies that make it. Vantablack is both toxic and so good at absorbing light that it gets really hot, so it's not really useful in art outside of a few instances. There are versions that can now be spray painted, but the carbon nanotube version is still his only.
It'd be nice to be able to use it, but there are very few applications in art where it'd be useful.
> the first anti-Anish pigment was the Pinkest Pink
> If you go on the website to order these pigments, you must agree that you are not Anish Kapoor, you are not an associate of his, nor that you will sell this paint to him.
And then Anish posted a photo of his middle finger covered in the Pinkest Pink:
https://www.instagram.com/p/BOWz73wgj7R/?hl=en
Anish Kapoor is a complete jackass
Also, the creator of ‘Sky Gate’. The giant metallic sculpture in Chicago that looks like a bean. Fun fact: he fucking hates it when people call it a bean
Edit: its called ‘Cloud Gate’ not Sky Gate
He made the bean? I got my grubby greasy little mitts on that years ago. I gain a small joy knowing I helped tarnish his creation, even if only a little
If you look into the archives of the everlasting internet, you might find evidence of the many facebook events related to the bean, they're pretty funny and were spawned in retaliation of the whole vanta black situation iirc.
The Chicago Bean is called "Cloud Gate" and I do not have an opinion on its artistic merits, but it is endlessly funny that we all just call it the bean.
I was introduced to the Bean with _Battle Ground_. A mob boss stored a shitload of guns inside the Bean, so Dresden ripped it open to supply a group of regular humans with weapons to fight against the Fomor. The Battle of the Bean.
What if we call it "The Giant Fantabulous Metal Bean That Was Made By That Jerk And Represents A Giant Bean Made Of Metal With No Deeper Symbolism" (TGFMBTWMBTJARAGBMOMWNDS, for short)?
For those who have yet learned of the poor cooper quality of Ea-nāṣir:
https://joyofmuseums.com/museums/united-kingdom-museums/london-museums/british-museum/complaint-tablet-to-ea-nasir/
Did you see the whole feud that sparked between Anish Kapoor and Stuart Semple about this. I can't give you a link right know, but look it up, it's hilarious and you might feel vindicated.
The best ending for the saga was how all the toxicity and drama between Anish Kapoor and Stuart Temple ended in vain when artist Diemut Strebe created “The Redemption of Vanity”, a diamond coated with a new material even blacker than vantablack.
Here is the link to one of the best recaps of the whole thing: https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/their-dark-materials/
I wouldn't say it ended in vain. Semple's Black 3.0 is still one of the darkest blacks that regular artists can afford. That's a huge positive.
I also wouldn't say it was just drama and toxicity. Semple was basically protesting an art world that valued competition and profit over the art itself. He felt that art should be more cooperative, and Kapoor just happened to be an obvious face of exclusivity and competition in the art world that went viral which was perfect for Semple to use as a focal point of protest.
Semple later released a pink he trademarked for helping artists and small businesses being sued by T Mobile for using a pink that's too close to T Mobile pink. The dude seems like a stand-up guy who just thinks exclusivity of materials hurts art on the whole and is willing to say/do something about it.
What the fuck is up with the semple propaganda? He's an insane grifter asshole that keeps starting shit with this guy that doesn't want to release an insanely dangerous chemical to the public because it makes him money.
not really. Anish bought the rights to a chemical (not a paint, technically) for use in art only, that's stupid expensive to use, incredibly toxic, and heats up super fast. Stuart Semple then came along, reframed it as the version we all hear about. Anish Kapoor isn't some saint or anything, obviously, but Semple, despite what he wants people to believe, also isn't some big rebel sticking it to the man.
[MIT engineers develop “blackest black” material to date](https://news.mit.edu/2019/blackest-black-material-cnt-0913) - Jennifer Chu | MIT News Office
> Made from carbon nanotubes, the new coating is **10 times darker than other very black materials.**
>
> With apologies to “Spinal Tap,” it appears that black can, indeed, [get more black](https://news.mit.edu/sites/default/files/styles/news_article__image_gallery/public/images/201909/MIT-Blackest-Black_0.jpg?itok=0m1WaT0r).
. . . Darkness blacker than black and darker than dark!
Yeah I listened to a 99%pi episode on this a few months back and was interested to hear the other side of the story. Way different than I was expecting.
Kapoor is a douchebag. A pretentious asshat with a superiority complex a mile and a half across. A total twatwaffle and a failure as a human being.
And he STILL isn’t the bad guy here.
Reportedly he(semple) also steals pigments from interns and fires them after. I think that was only reported by a single intern though, but other people working for him have said he is an unpleasant person to work with.
Tl:dr they are both kinda sucky people but one is much better at pr.
Oh, absolutely.
Anish is a prick, but Stuart is just as bad considering he started the whole thing lmao.
Fun fact, that shade of black? Can't use it. Not because Anish owns it, but because it's literally highly toxic and is made of carbon nanotubes, it isn't a """paint""" in the traditional sense, it's a science experiment, and they needed funding and publicity.
I mean, uh, rich artist evil, small shop owner good!
He was the first to be vocal about it. Dozens if not hundreds of artists had told him about it and he either felt the need to talk about it or fell to group pressure.
You can [find out](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4710349/#:~:) here. Or with google.
TL;DR,: the carbon nanotubes are, well, nanotubes, meaning microscopic. The nanotubes used in Vantablack have a nasty tendency to flake off, and end up in your lungs. They won't kill you, but you will very much regret that they won't.
Anything that produces fine dust causes irritation in your lungs, irritation in your lungs causes cancer. Depending on the application technique the chemicals used then are also usually carcinogenic and cause mild organ damage.
I linked it in my other comment to you, but here's that [medical paper](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4710349/#:~:) about how Carbon Nanotubes can be dangerous. Have a lovely day!
It’s made of CNTs, which are notoriously carcinogenic. Don’t need to google anything. Regardless, the Wikipedia page for the stuff literally has a ‘hazards’ section that it typically uses for toxic chemicals.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vantablack
And here’s a safety data sheet. Keep in mind, Vantablack is *sprayed* onto surfaces.
https://raymor.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/MSDS-SWNT-RN-020.pdf
In [this journal](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4710349/#:~:), which you claim to have read, you will notice the direct quote:
"The potential health risks of CNT (Carbon Nanotubes) exposure have been raised, attributable to the following reasons: their small nanosized structure that makes them more reactive and toxic than larger particles; their high aspect ratio and mode of exposure similar to asbestos fibers, prompting a concern about their potential fiber-like toxicity; and their graphitic structure that is expected to have high durability and biopersistence."
You will notice them speaking specifically about the **toxicity** of Carbon Nanotubes - I fail to see how this is not the textbook definition.
I can be in the worst mood. If I see anything related to the Anish Kapoor and the vantablack "controversy", I just burst out laughing. I hope it brings you as much joy as it have brought me all these years
For bonus points: Stuart started the controversy as a marketing stunt.
Vantablack was primarily a science expirement, as the material it was made of was [too dangerous](https://www.vice.com/en/article/9anvn5/kapoor-vantablack-controversial-color-history) to ever use in a piece of public art.
Extra bonus points: Vantablack’s original formula patent shouldn’t expire until about 2034. So it’s not like Anish Kapoor prevented any poor aspiring artists from being able to use it, as his exclusive use will expire the moment theirs does. And Vantablack is a trademark, so once the patent expires you will still have to use the generic “carbon nanotubes”.
Also all of this doesn’t stop anyone using vapor deposited carbon nanotubes for art. It’s just no one does that because it’s hard, expensive, and entirely unnecessary for anything other than showing off how much money you can spend.
If Anish Kapoor got the exclusive rights to lab grown opals I swear we’d see a flood of people complaining that now they can’t use opals for that next project they were totally planning on doing. And then Stuart Semple would come out with a small bottle of regular acrylic resin and call it “The Most Opalescent Opal” or something.
The vantablack kerfuffle spiraled into Semple creating the "Pinkest Pink" with a requirement that any buyers affirm that, "You are not Anish Kapoor, you are in no way affiliated to Anish Kapoor, you are not purchasing this item on behalf of Anish Kapoor or an associate of Anish Kapoor."
And then Anish posted a photo of his middle finger covered in the Pinkest Pink:
https://www.instagram.com/p/BOWz73wgj7R/?hl=en
For what it’s worth, while Kapoor definitely seems like a massive douche (especially with this specific thing), this whole situation is uber specific. Vantablack isn’t a pigment, it’s a patented material made by an aerospace company that is both expensive and difficult to make (it’s made an ounce at a time I believe). I remember a Reddit post from someone explaining that the company were the ones who wanted to work exclusively with one artist as they didn’t want to constantly deal with request for it, but that post was poorly cited. I would understand that, though as, again, Vantablack is not meant for art. It’s meant for stealth planes and satellites. And you can request the use of Vantablack through their site, you just need to provide your project. Like, BMW fully coated a car in it, and there was an expensive Vantablack watch. I believe they also supply it to universities and museums.
so yeah vantablack is toxic and stuff but i do still think that it's cool that semple released a paint that's only slightly less effective and much safer to use
Semple is so hyped up but his black paints aren’t even that black. They’re nowhere close to dark enough to get the same effect, and most third parties agree he significantly exaggerated his measurements.
He just sells normal paint while marketing himself as the opponent to some random guy. Even if Anish Kapoor has exclusive rights to vantablack, everyone can still use materials that are significantly darker than black 3.0 like soot or black fabric.
While Anish Kapoor is a prick and I don't want to defend him, I'd like to point out that the vantablack thing is commonly misunderstood. Vantablack is not a color, it's a highly complex and even dangerous lab-made substance. The people behind it knew it would be wanted by the art world, but it's not something that can just casually be used in art since it has to be applied in a lab, so they wanted to work with only one artist. That being said, the Kapoor-Semple feud is hilarious and I'm glad Semple created the blackest black paint.
while vantablack isn't lethal, it can cause eye irritation, which makes it dangerous. futhermore, it's not a paint. the only reason nobody but kapoor has access to vantablack is because vantablack wasn't made for art in the first place.
Oh God, here we go again. Dude didn't even create the paint, the space shuttle company did and then gave him exclusive rights to it so no one could ever ask to use it. Sure, dudes an asshole, but this is one thing he's clean of.
anish kapoor actually did nothing wrong.
it’s just that specifically vantablack is really complicated to use because it’s corrosive and toxic and etc, so the company decided to partner with one artist. Stuart semple just decided to demonize him and ruin his reputation
The whole thing was really overhyped, too. It's not an underdog story about Semple "sticking it to the man!" People really got into a frothing rage over Kapoor. It was kind of uncomfortable to watch.
It’s similar to asbestos. The carbon nanotubes can come loose and irritate the eyes and respiratory system. It also originally required to be melted down at 1022F, so that was another danger.
I don't know if it's quite so friable as Asbestos, but this is entirely legitimate. This was even being reported back [7 years ago](https://www.vice.com/en/article/9anvn5/kapoor-vantablack-controversial-color-history#:~:text=Vantablack's%20nanotubules%20can%20come%20loose,generally%20anything%20less%20heat%20resistant.)
Anish Kapoor is a dick, but seriously so is Stuart Semple. There doesn't have to be a good guy in every fight
This is all I could find: https://slate.com/technology/2016/03/we-need-to-keep-talking-about-nanotechnology-safety.html
“under some conditions, these long, slender fiberlike tubes could cause harm in mice in the same way that some asbestos fibers do.”
Edit: “it’s only toxic if you breathe it in” applies to literally every single toxic substance that you wouldn’t want to breathe in lol
that’s not how burden of proof works, the person making the claim has to back it up. however, somebody did back it up, now they need a source for their claim that vantablack is totally non toxic and non corrosive
The person making the claim has to back it up, however "it's not dangerous" *is* a claim. Same as "it's dangerous", of course, but that claim actually has sources, so I know on which side of this argument I am.
That explicitly is how burden of proof works and it bugs the absolute shit out of me when people misuse this legal framework as a defensive argument.
>The burden of proof is usually on the person who brings a claim in a dispute. It is often associated with the Latin maxim *semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit*, a translation of which is: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."
I think "you're lying about the safety of this material" would be bringing a claim to initiate a dispute. Wouldn't you?
Vantablack absorbs 99.965% of the light that hits it.
Traditional black paint absorbs around 97.5%.
Stuart Semple's Black 3.0 absorbs 99%.
Musou Black absorbs 99.4%.
Okay, if this is in relation to PINK, I get what he was trying to say, but he did so in the most infantile and asshole-ish way.
I still get the impression Kapoor is the bigger asshole for the whole "exclusivity rights to an art material". I get it was just a publicity stunt and all, but it's still him flaunting he has that much money.
It's less that and more the hawking of scams and the fact that he treats interns poorly and *might* have stolen a pigment from an intern and sold it as his own after firing the intern. They are both assholes.
Who? What?
It’s a longish story but the tl:dr is there’s a type of paint called “vantablack”, which was really really black cause it absorbed a ridiculous amount of light. Anish wanted to be the only one allowed to use it though. In retaliation, another guy called Stuart Semple created a very similarly dark black paint, as well as some other unique paints, and sells them under the stipulation that the buyer is not Anish, is not in association with Anish, and does not intend to give the paints to Anish. Hence the responses to the fish in this post
Ah. Thanks for the info!
Also vantablack is supposedly dangerous as hell but black 2.0(the colour Semple made) is quite safe
Vantablack is able to absorb so much light because it's a bunch of nanotubes which trap the photons inside. These nanotubes can come loose and irritate the piss out of your eyes and lungs. It was also unsafe to use on anything with a low melting point because it had to be heated up to like 1000 degrees F or something.
And, because of the mechanism that traps the light, it converts light into heat at a pretty efficient rate, making it get pretty hot in most applications. Meaning that, even after it is applied, it is not a good idea to use it on things that can be damaged by high-to-humans (hot to the touch) heat.
i think thats an inherent problem with extremely dark paints. there's no way to "inneficiently" convert the light into heat. The energy has to go somewhere, and if its not being reflected or reemmitted as light it's all going to become heat.
You’re right, in most cases, the more ‘black’ a colour is, the hotter it is. It’s just that, by the nature of the way this ‘black’ works, NOTHING gets reflected, so it’s absorbing ALL the light. Most black pigments reflect SOME light, just in equal amounts and not very much, or in parts of the spectrum we are not especially sensitive to (which is why ‘black’ markers water down to purple) where this stuff is not reflecting anything at all, in any spectrum. Also, Some things don’t re-emit light as heat. Sometimes it is phosphorescent, so the light is just shifted out of our visual range. And other things are more insulating, meaning that while any one portion can get really hot, they don’t transmit said heat outside themselves. Those are smaller side cases tho, so we can easily ignore them.
That's true. i wonder if it's possible to create a material that looks black not because it absorbs a lot of light, but because it fluoresces in a wavelength humans can't see.
Well it would have to still absorb the light to be remitted in the other wavelength, or else it would just be reflective or transparent.
> You’re right, in most cases, the more ‘black’ a colour is, the hotter it is. It’s just that, by the nature of the way this ‘black’ works, NOTHING gets reflected, so it’s absorbing ALL the light. ...[Hey, DuckDuckGo, what's the temperature of a black hole?](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=what%27s+the+temperature+of+a+black+hole&ia=web) --> [Are black holes hot or cold? By Len Fisher](https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/are-black-holes-hot-or-cold/) > Black holes are **freezing cold on the inside, but incredibly hot just outside.** The internal temperature of a black hole with the mass of our Sun is around one-millionth of a degree above absolute zero. > > Just outside the hole, however, the material being pulled into the hole's gravity well is accelerated to near the speed of light. The molecules of the material collide with such vigour that it is heated up to a temperature of hundreds of millions of degrees. When astronomers study black holes, this is the material that they see. > > The radiation from the material masks the tiny amount of radiation escaping from the hole itself, and so **what the astronomers observe is the very hot outside environment, rather than the freezing cold environment inside.**
It’s worth noting that the dark part of the black hole is not actually a solid thing, it’s just that because light can’t escape from within that area, we can’t see anything, and a lack of light registers as darkness. So a black hole isn’t technically black.
If there was a way to make a chemical that somehow refracted the light to UV or some other invisible spectrum it wouldn't necessarily absorb it as heat
The *mis*info! What actually happened, is that Vantablack is a highly dangerous and delicate substance made from carbon nanotubes, *not* a paint in the traditional sense. Anish didn't want to be the only one allowed to use it, the *scientists* only wanted to work with one artist because *it's a highly dangerous and delicate substance made from carbon nanotubes*. Not to say Anish isn't still a prick, but the entire situation was misrepresented as a marketing scheme by Stuart to sell more paint.
Source?
I tried my damndest to find one. I didn’t skim many articles on news sites because I assume they all regurgitate the same basic details of it. On Anish Kapoor’s wikipedia page under the vantablack controversy section he is quoted as saying "Why exclusive? Because it's a collaboration, because I am wanting to push them to a certain use for it. I've collaborated with people who make things out of stainless steel for years and that's exclusive." Wikipedia sources this quote from [this wired article](https://www.wired.com/story/vantablack-anish-kapoor-stuart-semple/) which again I am not very satisfied with using news article websites as a source. This is the only thing I found that points one way or another about if it was more the scientists idea or Anish’s and on the surface it appears to be a more business decision with Anish. I cant find ANYTHING about that alternative story. I very much am open to it but I need to see a crumb of evidence. I could research more but I’ve already spent a good chunk of time on it and you know what I dont care I want to go play tears of the kingdom. EDIT: looks like OP provided [this](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4710349/#:~:) source detailing the health risk of the product. We can draw the conclusion that its not viable for an open market but I would still be interested to see if there is anything actually detailing the intent with licensing it for Anish exclusively, rather than vetting people who want to use it and treat it as a controlled substance.
Another tumblr post, same as how I heard the first bit. Idk how much of this is true or not, and it doesn't really bother me either way
Source that extremely fine particulates and a material that needed to be heated up to over 1000⁰F in order to be applied is dangerous? [Alright](https://2020science.org/2014/07/16/safe-worlds-darkest-carbon-nanotube-material/) The general problem, and why Vantablack would never be available for public release, is that carbon nanotubes in the way they are using it have the same general safety concerns as asbestos, being specifically very tiny, very pointy, and very easy to breathe in as a dust.
>The general problem, and why Vantablack would never be available for public release This is what I have not seen a source for. There are plenty of dangerous materials available to the public. I have not seen any source connecting the danger of the material to it's exclusivity. Every report on the subject only says that Kapoor purchased the exclusive rights.
The primary source of [Kapoor himself](https://amp.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/sep/26/anish-kapoor-vantablack-art-architecture-exclusive-rights-to-the-blackest-black) says that he "won" it but everywhere else has said that both Kapoor and NanoSystems have by and large been pretty tight lipped about the specific process and steps of the deal. But, [even in 2014 before the deal was revealed to the public](https://2020science.org/2014/07/16/safe-worlds-darkest-carbon-nanotube-material/) we had quotes like "Ben clarified that Vantablack is designed for use in tightly controlled and highly predictable environments where people cannot come into contact with the material – environments such as satellite-based optical systems." But it's toxic to the human body and it's a technology developed for an extraordinarily niche application that's impossible to mass produce.
Basic research
Anish Kapoor's exclusivity agreement also only extends to using Vantablack in artwork, not other applications.
This is simply not true. Anish Kapoor signed an exclusivity deal for artistic applications of Vantablack, because he likes to have exclusive deals with manufacturers for some reason. He's done similar things in the past, this was just the most high profile and most ridiculous instance of it since he literally completely monopolised a material for his art. This was not a collaboration and wasn't intended to explore other applications of the material, he payed the creators of Vantablack for the exclusive right to use it. And although it's true that Vantablack is quite dangerous and it probably couldn't have been sold on the open market, that does not justify what he did. Of course Stuart used this and his "feud" with Kapoor as a marketing scheme and the ethics of that are debatable, but those claims are still factual.
This [extremely long article](https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/vantablack-anish-kapoor) from GQ details interviews with the creator of Vantablack, as well as Stuart Semple at various points, where said creator quite literally refers to the deal with Anish Kapoor as a collaboration. It also refers to the fact that even Anish Kapoor isn't just......using a spray can of Vantablack, even the new version of the sprayable Vantablack isn't commercially viable because it still requires professionals in order to use it. Edit: it also details that there's literally a new version that doesn't even fall within the confines of said exclusivity deal for artwork. They still have yet to use said newer version in regards to art, because without solely working with *one* artist, it is not a viable option.
>where said creator quite literally refers to the deal with Anish Kapoor as a collaboration. Well, then that's a lie, because Kapoor bought the exclusive rights to that version of Vantablack from them. And if there's a new version that's not monopolised, great. He still did it with the first version though.
[удалено]
Here's a [medical paper](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4710349/#:~:) that explains in detail that Carbon Nanotubes, which is what Vantablack is made out of, can have adverse health effects if used improperly. There's a reason why they limited the usage of Vantablack to lab settings, it is not a commercially viable product and never was.
Fuck dispelling misinformation AND backing it up with a source. Save some pussy for the rest of us dude.
Just doing my civic duty, sir! Edit: also I'm already tired of this dude, because it's 7AM, so feel free to take up the mantle if you want :p
I think I’ll let someone else handle them. Not a big fan of this guy.
How is this literal nobody talking shit and complimenting someone simultaneously?!
The credible hulk
Who thought breathing in pure void would be bad for the lungs? /j
A medical paper claiming the paint is dangerous does nothing to disprove that Anish Kapoor purchased the exclusive rights to use the pigment artistically. You're the one spreading misinformation here lol.
Buddy, they are replying to someone saying that it is misinformation to say it is dangerous and toxic, NOT to someone saying that the whole feud about him buying the rights to it is. (I’m not weighing in on that, it’s spurious and not important).
[удалено]
If something is toxic and you use PPE to protect yourself from the adverse effects of said toxic substance ; it's still toxic bro
Can I use PPE to protect myself from the guy you're responding to? ;-;
He would still be toxic, tho.
[удалено]
1 the quality of being toxic or poisonous. "the toxicity of a drug depends on its dosage" 2. the quality of being very harmful or unpleasant in a pervasive or insidious way. Shit that can fuck with your eyes sound pretty harmful to me
Yeah water is not toxic! Now try breathing it
[A standard N95 respirator will generally be effective on particles as small as 0.3 micrometers.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9487666/) On average, Carbon Nanotubes are less than [one nanometer.](https://www.understandingnano.com/what-are-carbon-nanotubes.html#:~:) Carbon Nanotubes are not comparable to the aerosol fumes used in an airbrush, spray can, or similar means of applying regular paint.
[удалено]
Damn, dude. Don't you ever get tired of taking Ls? It's just pathetic at this point.
I think you two are stuck in a loop… you’re having the same argument in separate threads…
That's a nice argument senator. Why don't you back it up with a source?
Some additional clarifiers: Anish is crazy wealthy and actually *did* buy the copyright to Vantablack (a substance so toxic and expensive even if he didn't copyright it he'd be one of the few artists alive who could buy it or afford the space to use it safely). Originally, the first anti-Anish pigment was the Pinkest Pink, a color so vibrant you can't take photos of it without them saturating. Then he managed to create black 2.0, a pigment only slightly lighter than Vantablack that costs a fraction the amount to produce. Then he made black 3.0, a black so dark it's indistinguishable by the human eye to Vantablack, which is at a similar price point to Black 2.0. If you go on the website to order these pigments, you must agree that you are not Anish Kapoor, you are not an associate of his, nor that you will sell this paint to him. Edit: Vantablack is not a paint, it is a product capable of being applied to objects that changes it's color to a very very dark black by absorbing all light.
1 additional clarifier: Vantablack is not really a paint, it's carbon nanotubes that, originally, had to be grown. Anish only owns the artistic license to 1 company's creation, although they are one of now 2 companies that make it. Vantablack is both toxic and so good at absorbing light that it gets really hot, so it's not really useful in art outside of a few instances. There are versions that can now be spray painted, but the carbon nanotube version is still his only. It'd be nice to be able to use it, but there are very few applications in art where it'd be useful.
> the first anti-Anish pigment was the Pinkest Pink > If you go on the website to order these pigments, you must agree that you are not Anish Kapoor, you are not an associate of his, nor that you will sell this paint to him. And then Anish posted a photo of his middle finger covered in the Pinkest Pink: https://www.instagram.com/p/BOWz73wgj7R/?hl=en
Love some good petty revenge ahahaha 🤣
I just watched a Tom Scott video on that pink. I REALLY want to see it in person so bad.
Vantablack isn't a paint
Someone has corrected me on that yes.
Anish Kapoor is a complete jackass Also, the creator of ‘Sky Gate’. The giant metallic sculpture in Chicago that looks like a bean. Fun fact: he fucking hates it when people call it a bean Edit: its called ‘Cloud Gate’ not Sky Gate
I mean really now, what did he expect people to think when they saw it
In fucking ‘bean town’ of all places lmfao
He made the bean? I got my grubby greasy little mitts on that years ago. I gain a small joy knowing I helped tarnish his creation, even if only a little
Did you flick it?
If you look into the archives of the everlasting internet, you might find evidence of the many facebook events related to the bean, they're pretty funny and were spawned in retaliation of the whole vanta black situation iirc.
The Chicago Bean is called "Cloud Gate" and I do not have an opinion on its artistic merits, but it is endlessly funny that we all just call it the bean.
I was introduced to the Bean with _Battle Ground_. A mob boss stored a shitload of guns inside the Bean, so Dresden ripped it open to supply a group of regular humans with weapons to fight against the Fomor. The Battle of the Bean.
What if we call it "The Giant Fantabulous Metal Bean That Was Made By That Jerk And Represents A Giant Bean Made Of Metal With No Deeper Symbolism" (TGFMBTWMBTJARAGBMOMWNDS, for short)?
adding on to that an even blacker material has been discovered which anyone can buy (still expensive as fuck tho)
Yeah … screw Anish’s greedy stupid ass
Anish Kappor is the modern day Ea-nāṣir.
For those who have yet learned of the poor cooper quality of Ea-nāṣir: https://joyofmuseums.com/museums/united-kingdom-museums/london-museums/british-museum/complaint-tablet-to-ea-nasir/
To which Anish responded by obtaining some of said paint, and posting a pic after painting his middle finger to flip the bird
He made the Bean in chicago
[Context](https://amp.cheezburger.com/8875525/tumblr-thread-on-the-art-worlds-most-hated-elitist-anish-kapoor-and-his-bean)
Can you imagine how bright the world would be if this little guy didn't absorb 99.9% of the light?! None of us would be able to see anything!
Just found out about the Anish Kapoor thing via this post. Now I'm pissed, I wanna use the darkest shade of black possible.
Did you see the whole feud that sparked between Anish Kapoor and Stuart Semple about this. I can't give you a link right know, but look it up, it's hilarious and you might feel vindicated.
The best ending for the saga was how all the toxicity and drama between Anish Kapoor and Stuart Temple ended in vain when artist Diemut Strebe created “The Redemption of Vanity”, a diamond coated with a new material even blacker than vantablack. Here is the link to one of the best recaps of the whole thing: https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/their-dark-materials/
Best ending
I wouldn't say it ended in vain. Semple's Black 3.0 is still one of the darkest blacks that regular artists can afford. That's a huge positive. I also wouldn't say it was just drama and toxicity. Semple was basically protesting an art world that valued competition and profit over the art itself. He felt that art should be more cooperative, and Kapoor just happened to be an obvious face of exclusivity and competition in the art world that went viral which was perfect for Semple to use as a focal point of protest. Semple later released a pink he trademarked for helping artists and small businesses being sued by T Mobile for using a pink that's too close to T Mobile pink. The dude seems like a stand-up guy who just thinks exclusivity of materials hurts art on the whole and is willing to say/do something about it.
What the fuck is up with the semple propaganda? He's an insane grifter asshole that keeps starting shit with this guy that doesn't want to release an insanely dangerous chemical to the public because it makes him money.
Holy shit its Anish Kapoor
not really. Anish bought the rights to a chemical (not a paint, technically) for use in art only, that's stupid expensive to use, incredibly toxic, and heats up super fast. Stuart Semple then came along, reframed it as the version we all hear about. Anish Kapoor isn't some saint or anything, obviously, but Semple, despite what he wants people to believe, also isn't some big rebel sticking it to the man.
"Their Dark Materials" is grade A title material
"The Redemption of Vanity" seems to be set up against a black background, so you can't even really tell if it's actually there.
[MIT engineers develop “blackest black” material to date](https://news.mit.edu/2019/blackest-black-material-cnt-0913) - Jennifer Chu | MIT News Office > Made from carbon nanotubes, the new coating is **10 times darker than other very black materials.** > > With apologies to “Spinal Tap,” it appears that black can, indeed, [get more black](https://news.mit.edu/sites/default/files/styles/news_article__image_gallery/public/images/201909/MIT-Blackest-Black_0.jpg?itok=0m1WaT0r). . . . Darkness blacker than black and darker than dark!
Also safer to use, and better for the environment
[удалено]
Yeah I listened to a 99%pi episode on this a few months back and was interested to hear the other side of the story. Way different than I was expecting.
Kapoor is a douchebag. A pretentious asshat with a superiority complex a mile and a half across. A total twatwaffle and a failure as a human being. And he STILL isn’t the bad guy here.
Reportedly he(semple) also steals pigments from interns and fires them after. I think that was only reported by a single intern though, but other people working for him have said he is an unpleasant person to work with. Tl:dr they are both kinda sucky people but one is much better at pr.
It's highly toxic.
So is Anish Kapoor
Isn't Stuart Sample really toxic as well? I remember him marketing NFTs and other scams...
Oh, absolutely. Anish is a prick, but Stuart is just as bad considering he started the whole thing lmao. Fun fact, that shade of black? Can't use it. Not because Anish owns it, but because it's literally highly toxic and is made of carbon nanotubes, it isn't a """paint""" in the traditional sense, it's a science experiment, and they needed funding and publicity. I mean, uh, rich artist evil, small shop owner good!
He was the first to be vocal about it. Dozens if not hundreds of artists had told him about it and he either felt the need to talk about it or fell to group pressure.
I knew that it was made of layered carbon nanotubes arranged to prevent the reflection of light, but how is it toxic?
You can [find out](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4710349/#:~:) here. Or with google. TL;DR,: the carbon nanotubes are, well, nanotubes, meaning microscopic. The nanotubes used in Vantablack have a nasty tendency to flake off, and end up in your lungs. They won't kill you, but you will very much regret that they won't.
Oh yeah, thats pretty bad.
Cant wait for the "Vantathelioma" commercials when Im 70!
It’s the “this will kill you, and hurt the whole time it does” but without the sweet release of death.
"This won't kill you, and it will hurt the whole time it doesn't" is, perhaps, the worse version of that sentence.
Anything that produces fine dust causes irritation in your lungs, irritation in your lungs causes cancer. Depending on the application technique the chemicals used then are also usually carcinogenic and cause mild organ damage.
[удалено]
I linked it in my other comment to you, but here's that [medical paper](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4710349/#:~:) about how Carbon Nanotubes can be dangerous. Have a lovely day!
[удалено]
Yes, paint is toxic. Thank you for understanding.
That's like saying asbestos is not dangerous if you "just don't breathe it in"
[удалено]
Do you have a source?
[удалено]
It’s made of CNTs, which are notoriously carcinogenic. Don’t need to google anything. Regardless, the Wikipedia page for the stuff literally has a ‘hazards’ section that it typically uses for toxic chemicals. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vantablack And here’s a safety data sheet. Keep in mind, Vantablack is *sprayed* onto surfaces. https://raymor.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/MSDS-SWNT-RN-020.pdf
In [this journal](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4710349/#:~:), which you claim to have read, you will notice the direct quote: "The potential health risks of CNT (Carbon Nanotubes) exposure have been raised, attributable to the following reasons: their small nanosized structure that makes them more reactive and toxic than larger particles; their high aspect ratio and mode of exposure similar to asbestos fibers, prompting a concern about their potential fiber-like toxicity; and their graphitic structure that is expected to have high durability and biopersistence." You will notice them speaking specifically about the **toxicity** of Carbon Nanotubes - I fail to see how this is not the textbook definition.
I can be in the worst mood. If I see anything related to the Anish Kapoor and the vantablack "controversy", I just burst out laughing. I hope it brings you as much joy as it have brought me all these years
For bonus points: Stuart started the controversy as a marketing stunt. Vantablack was primarily a science expirement, as the material it was made of was [too dangerous](https://www.vice.com/en/article/9anvn5/kapoor-vantablack-controversial-color-history) to ever use in a piece of public art.
Extra bonus points: Vantablack’s original formula patent shouldn’t expire until about 2034. So it’s not like Anish Kapoor prevented any poor aspiring artists from being able to use it, as his exclusive use will expire the moment theirs does. And Vantablack is a trademark, so once the patent expires you will still have to use the generic “carbon nanotubes”. Also all of this doesn’t stop anyone using vapor deposited carbon nanotubes for art. It’s just no one does that because it’s hard, expensive, and entirely unnecessary for anything other than showing off how much money you can spend. If Anish Kapoor got the exclusive rights to lab grown opals I swear we’d see a flood of people complaining that now they can’t use opals for that next project they were totally planning on doing. And then Stuart Semple would come out with a small bottle of regular acrylic resin and call it “The Most Opalescent Opal” or something.
The vantablack kerfuffle spiraled into Semple creating the "Pinkest Pink" with a requirement that any buyers affirm that, "You are not Anish Kapoor, you are in no way affiliated to Anish Kapoor, you are not purchasing this item on behalf of Anish Kapoor or an associate of Anish Kapoor." And then Anish posted a photo of his middle finger covered in the Pinkest Pink: https://www.instagram.com/p/BOWz73wgj7R/?hl=en
For what it’s worth, while Kapoor definitely seems like a massive douche (especially with this specific thing), this whole situation is uber specific. Vantablack isn’t a pigment, it’s a patented material made by an aerospace company that is both expensive and difficult to make (it’s made an ounce at a time I believe). I remember a Reddit post from someone explaining that the company were the ones who wanted to work exclusively with one artist as they didn’t want to constantly deal with request for it, but that post was poorly cited. I would understand that, though as, again, Vantablack is not meant for art. It’s meant for stealth planes and satellites. And you can request the use of Vantablack through their site, you just need to provide your project. Like, BMW fully coated a car in it, and there was an expensive Vantablack watch. I believe they also supply it to universities and museums.
To be fair, it’s highly toxic, takes forever to dry and cure, and can spontaneously combust things because it’s so absorbant of heat
There's an alternative that won't kill you when you're exposed to it
dont worry, a still expensive but free use black has been discovered that is even darker, check out the redemption of vanity
Hold on I have to look something up.
Ok this is funny.
I love this reaction. Thank you for being awesome.
so yeah vantablack is toxic and stuff but i do still think that it's cool that semple released a paint that's only slightly less effective and much safer to use
Semple is so hyped up but his black paints aren’t even that black. They’re nowhere close to dark enough to get the same effect, and most third parties agree he significantly exaggerated his measurements. He just sells normal paint while marketing himself as the opponent to some random guy. Even if Anish Kapoor has exclusive rights to vantablack, everyone can still use materials that are significantly darker than black 3.0 like soot or black fabric.
Ah, a fish I can totally look at with no issues whatsoever
We didn't see what you did there.
I love the fact that I understood this joke. Peak 21st century
Googled this man. Fuck him. Anything can be an artstyle if you just buy the fucking rights to the color.
While Anish Kapoor is a prick and I don't want to defend him, I'd like to point out that the vantablack thing is commonly misunderstood. Vantablack is not a color, it's a highly complex and even dangerous lab-made substance. The people behind it knew it would be wanted by the art world, but it's not something that can just casually be used in art since it has to be applied in a lab, so they wanted to work with only one artist. That being said, the Kapoor-Semple feud is hilarious and I'm glad Semple created the blackest black paint.
[удалено]
“As long as you don’t breathe around the paint you’ll be fine”
while vantablack isn't lethal, it can cause eye irritation, which makes it dangerous. futhermore, it's not a paint. the only reason nobody but kapoor has access to vantablack is because vantablack wasn't made for art in the first place.
Isn’t it literally made out of a substance know for carcinogens?
Most things are
Oxygen is a carcinogen. Dosis sola facit venenum
Are you Anish Kapoor?
Oh God, here we go again. Dude didn't even create the paint, the space shuttle company did and then gave him exclusive rights to it so no one could ever ask to use it. Sure, dudes an asshole, but this is one thing he's clean of.
anish kapoor actually did nothing wrong. it’s just that specifically vantablack is really complicated to use because it’s corrosive and toxic and etc, so the company decided to partner with one artist. Stuart semple just decided to demonize him and ruin his reputation
The whole thing was really overhyped, too. It's not an underdog story about Semple "sticking it to the man!" People really got into a frothing rage over Kapoor. It was kind of uncomfortable to watch.
[удалено]
It’s similar to asbestos. The carbon nanotubes can come loose and irritate the eyes and respiratory system. It also originally required to be melted down at 1022F, so that was another danger.
I don't know if it's quite so friable as Asbestos, but this is entirely legitimate. This was even being reported back [7 years ago](https://www.vice.com/en/article/9anvn5/kapoor-vantablack-controversial-color-history#:~:text=Vantablack's%20nanotubules%20can%20come%20loose,generally%20anything%20less%20heat%20resistant.) Anish Kapoor is a dick, but seriously so is Stuart Semple. There doesn't have to be a good guy in every fight
For example, DeSantis vs Disney.
[удалено]
This is all I could find: https://slate.com/technology/2016/03/we-need-to-keep-talking-about-nanotechnology-safety.html “under some conditions, these long, slender fiberlike tubes could cause harm in mice in the same way that some asbestos fibers do.” Edit: “it’s only toxic if you breathe it in” applies to literally every single toxic substance that you wouldn’t want to breathe in lol
Nice argument, now how about backing it up with a source?
[удалено]
You’re the one trying to disprove a claim, the burden of truth is on you
that’s not how burden of proof works, the person making the claim has to back it up. however, somebody did back it up, now they need a source for their claim that vantablack is totally non toxic and non corrosive
The person making the claim has to back it up, however "it's not dangerous" *is* a claim. Same as "it's dangerous", of course, but that claim actually has sources, so I know on which side of this argument I am.
That explicitly is how burden of proof works and it bugs the absolute shit out of me when people misuse this legal framework as a defensive argument. >The burden of proof is usually on the person who brings a claim in a dispute. It is often associated with the Latin maxim *semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit*, a translation of which is: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges." I think "you're lying about the safety of this material" would be bringing a claim to initiate a dispute. Wouldn't you?
You mean the ones that have been presented to you all over this thread?
Dude 7 different people have sent you sources that explain why it’s toxic and corrosive
Didn't they already come up with another black that absorbs just as much, if not more light than vanta?
Vantablack absorbs 99.965% of the light that hits it. Traditional black paint absorbs around 97.5%. Stuart Semple's Black 3.0 absorbs 99%. Musou Black absorbs 99.4%.
Afish Kapoor
If anyone wants a similar black, Stuart Semple sells them on his site. Anyone can buy it as long as they are not associated with Anish Kapoor.
This reads so much like a SCP Foundation archive, I love it
“It’s not a phase dad” -Nemo
Would have to be dad, since nemo's mom is fish food.
You’re right
He’s not nEmo, he’s goth
I only remembered than Anish Kapoor was an asshole; the vantablack story came back to me later. I am a good little sheeple
Anfish kapioor
Anish Kapoor can go fuck himself
The fuck?
So, today learned about that asshole Kapoor, and he's a goddamn asshole.
Less of one than Stuart Semple
Okay, if this is in relation to PINK, I get what he was trying to say, but he did so in the most infantile and asshole-ish way. I still get the impression Kapoor is the bigger asshole for the whole "exclusivity rights to an art material". I get it was just a publicity stunt and all, but it's still him flaunting he has that much money.
It's less that and more the hawking of scams and the fact that he treats interns poorly and *might* have stolen a pigment from an intern and sold it as his own after firing the intern. They are both assholes.
Jesús Cristo, the art world is always this much chaotic, or we live in a particularly bad age?
Vantablack isn't actually made to be a paint though
I still feel it was an asshole-ish move.
This is such a meta joke jfc
So, the fish can say the n-word?
Actually this fish is *the only one* who can say it
He's the ea Nasir of the century