Hi there! I see what you mean. I would say though that for me it isn't a straw man as you used Art as your means of evidence / argumentation. Wouldn't more specific environmental studies or reports be more suitable, or visual content of deforestation, the amount of green house gas the meat industry emits, or some other specific bit of information be more prescient? Using some else's life's work as evidence for something they didn't expressly have in mind, no matter the discipline or environmental problem you are talking about is troubling. If you're going to instrumentalist something, I think knowing the discourse behind it is necessary. Also, having a "larger idea" or "more urgent idea or issue" in mind doesn't invalidate critique. I want to build a 100 story building isn't more important than the steel you source to support it, right? If A then B doesn't allow for A not being A. Thanks for the response, I'm an arts professional so it is important to me how art is used, talked about, written about, shown, seen. Looking forward to more!