Yes, pointless art-- that's the problem with it. Had it been good art it would have met one of the qualifiers GP mentioned. Nobody attacked art, they only attacked this one idea that was poorly executed.
Now I'm sure we can have long discussion arguing about what qualifies as good art, but wherever the line is, clearly this is below it and Stravinsky is above it. Anyone who wants to argue against that is just being difficult or trying to prove to others (or themselves) that they are an idealist.
they are very, very far from truly 3D-printing an entire building
has anyone actually stated that as a goal, or are you getting hung up on semantics?
They did all the right moves without understanding what it really takes to do it.
I think you misunderstand more things than they do. Beside missing the intentions and goals, like above, you don't seem to understand that no matter how clean you can the printed structural wall, nobody will be satisfied with it and throw up sheetrock or paneling. The difference between doing that on a perfectly smooth wall and one with a finish like this is trivial if you have a package of shims. This tech enables a smaller factory to create a greater variety of precast structures and brings the setup cost to custom or low volume structural pieces down to the cost of design and eliminate much of the cost of equipment and setup of manufacturing such pieces.
It also lowers the entry level to producing premaufactured modular structures. Give me the print head and printing material and I, as well a quite a large number of hobbyists, can build the 3-axis CNC and get Open Source software to run it. Give me an architectural engineer, some laborers and a forklift or two and the plant is ready to roll with production.
3D printing in general has gone down a lot of wrong paths (like one of the main goals being able to print more printers) but when you treat it as part of the manufacturing process (rather than having the fantasy or ordering "Tea Earl Grey Hot") it's a step forward in our ability to produce as a society.
Sure, it need further development, but not only is it a step in the right direction, it is a step with the forethought and understanding of how this technology could effectively be used in the real world in the foreseeable future.
Now, where is the crater that formed the Siberian traps. And, did it end the Permian period?
Well, looking at a couple maps on Google of the continent positions during the Permian Period, It would seem someplace in or around Antarctica was Siberia's anitpode. So, the crater would be under a lot of cold water or a lot of ice.
A solar array and grid tie inverter are expensive enough at the moment that a good portion of the developed world only has enough sunlight to get a ROI in 7-10yrs. That's a lot of electric bills to pay up front. Even with a dramatically reduced rate on batteries it will still at another good chunk to the investment and you need to upgrade to a more expensive inverter or as TFS suggests (by referencing an unregulated product) you could go without connecting to the grid, in which case you only get a return on the electricity you use. The rest of the potential energy production is wasted.
The economics make going fully solar a reasonable sacrifice for those who want to lower their environmental impact but it's not going to attract anyone who isn't willing to put their money where their mouth is. I hope that changes, and cheaper batteries will help, but I think we're several years out before solar is a good investment and several years past that before it's an investment most will be willing to afford.
When the economics of solar do swing that direction, the smart utility companies will be the first to jump on board and their advantage of scale will still give them an advantage. They are not shaking in their boots.