NOT ACTUAL QUESTIONS ANYONE HAS ASKED
"What are you saying, Bill? That artists need to make work about the climate crisis?" I think any artist should consider whether their work could strive for relevance to these times, whether it helps imagine a positive future, and what that work might look like.
"Isn't political/activist art is boring, depressing, and heavy-handed? Bad art?" That can be very true. Hard to do it well, so we need to raise our game. Personally I think there's a wide range of possibilities. 'Climate art' doesn't have to point out a problem or be didactic, unless you want it to do that. Any ‘message’ can be well-disguised until it’s already received. I think relevance is more the goal.
"I'm just trying to get by at the moment, I really don't have any bandwidth for this." We're all there. But wouldn't being part of something that feels like action, solidarity and maybe even hope be energizing?
"What if I'm already doing what I can, and I'm not a 'joiner'?" Understandable. Though many would agree the best way to magnify your efforts is to be part of some kind of larger like-minded group that shares your values.
"Your pep talk sounds nice but, you know, good luck with that whole unite-the-artists thing." Positive change won't come from apathy or cynicism. Especially, you know, saving the actual world.