I would say, do not underestimate the value of art. The article described an artist that made is own paint from the pigment. He painted a depiction of an ancient bird, its absolutely beautiful. This use was not a waste of resources and will in fact last much much longer than any screen made in 2021.
Its arguable that using precious resources for products that last less than 20 years, in many cases less than 5 years, is a true waste.
I agree that using such a pigment for a small number of art objects would certainly be justified, like also the use of gold in art objects or jewelry, instead of its more valuable technical uses, for which there are no alternatives, e.g. in protecting electrical contacts from corrosion or in semiconductor metallization.
However, if instead of using this pigment in a few valuable paintings, it would be used in a high number of ephemeral sketches done for practice, that would be a waste.
Nevertheless, the high price at which the pigment has been launched is good, because it will probably deter casual use.
>However, if instead of using this pigment in a few valuable paintings, it would be used in a high number of ephemeral sketches done for practice, that would be a waste.
Just like a high number of ephemeral smartphone screens would be a waste?
Its arguable that using precious resources for products that last less than 20 years, in many cases less than 5 years, is a true waste.