How dare they damage the frame of an artwork and make the curators have to wipe off soup from the protective plexiglas, while leaving the artwork entirely intact?
How dare they throw easily-removed biodegradable cornstarch-based paint onto Stonehenge? Don’t these monsters know Stonehenge is made of such fragile stones?
But it potentially could have damaged the lichens which will totally not be affected by climate change!!! Won’t someone think of the lichens?!
If the earth is fucked, the art won’t matter anyway. Fossil fuel companies continue to ruin the planet and expensive art is something that only the wealthiest can afford. So I view this like I do BDS: an attack on the things the wealthy need and want (money) because it’s the only attack vector available to the working class. The art is secondary to the message anyway. You don’t have to support the tactics but it helps to understand how we got here and recognize that extreme responses to extremely dire situations are going to become more commonplace as things inevitably get worse.
Also, the art has protective plexiglass over it and soup wipes off.
Because Oligarchs own the world
Art isn’t going to matter if noone is alive to look at it.
I bought high altitude land in the hopes that it will eventually become beachfront property. C’mon, climate. Change!
I bought beach front property to sell to Aquaman.
At this point destroy the paintings for real. Not to demonstrate against oil or climate stuff but to demonstrate against the sentencing. Not “just stop oil” but “stop unjust jail time”
They got sentenced for vandalizing irreplaceable art, not for ‘throwing soup’.
People who damage culturally significant, irreplaceable things to get attention for their cause deserve this kind of punishment or worse. They have the same mindset as the Taliban blowing up cliff carvings. And they lack the intelligence and creativity to bring attention to their cause without destroying things.
Do we need to fix our societies destruction of our own planet’s habitability? Yes without question. This isn’t the way.
They didn’t damage it. They did throw soup at it.
Their tactic is also working. You’re aware of the event, who they are, what they stand for, and why they did it.
The people who vandalize Ferraris and private jets also get into the news and don’t damage irreplaceable cultural artifacts.
Are you… seriously advocating for vandalizing Ferraris here? What the fuck?
What they’re doing is fundamentally harmless. You do realize that these paintings are behind glass, yeah? It’s not like they’re throwing soup directly onto canvases. They’re damaging museum glass at worst. The dollar amount of the damage is relatively minor, the whole point is civil disobedience and to draw media attention.
Your climate change is really inconvenient for me. Can you reschedule for 10 years? \s
I haven’t heard of these events.
can you provide a news link for that?
They really really don’t though.
Their lack of success is irrelevant. They tried to damage it.
I was already aware we’re destroying the planet. I don’t need stupid kids trying to destroy art in a museum to inform me about that.
They tried to damage it.
You say that like they were somehow shocked to find plexiglass in front of these paintings, and somehow didn’t see it or didn’t have the time (casually perusing a museum) to pivot to a different painting.
You’re assuming that they scouted this and carefully planned it to ensure they wouldn’t cause damage. I doubt that.
This also assumes that the painting’s protection is perfect. What if there is a flaw in the glass or a seam that lets the liquid get through somewhere? What if they accidentally threw the can while throwing the soup and it cracked something? Would you blame shift to the museum for not protecting their artwork from vandals properly? That would be ridiculous. I don’t want to see every painting behind a glass case when I go to an art museum, either.
It’s not worth the risk to such a artistic treasure just for attention seeking or ‘awareness’ of something totally unrelated. Last I checked Van Gogh wasn’t part of the petroleum industry when he was alive. This kind of vandalism is stupid.
The should be doing shit like this to petroleum company offices.
The should be doing shit like this to petroleum company offices.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Stop_Oil#Protests
They do. And those protests get little coverage and large prison sentences.
You’re assuming that they scouted this and carefully planned it to ensure they wouldn’t cause damage. I doubt that.
The canvas of the painting is protected with a glass screen, a factor Just Stop Oil said they had taken into account.
deleted by creator
Your fake outrage is too obvious
People who damage culturally significant, irreplaceable things […] deserve this kind of punishment or worse
Removed unnecessary caveat
Boy you’re going to hate to find out what oil companies are doing
Just because they are immeasurably worse doesn’t mean what these people did is ok.
Then how come they’re not being put in jail?
Because they own significant portions of the government.
That’s terrible! We should organize a protest.
Maybe we should stage a harmless but seemingly extreme act, to point out this hypocrisy and to bring attention to the cause 🤔
Well it seems like society and the justice system think it is okay then. So if the justice system says what they do is okay then how can you still have the opinion that it’s just to punish people who poured soup on glass?
- What defines “irreplaceable art” and why do we have a legal or moral obligation to protect it? Why does this allow for the private ownership of art?
- How much of the earth’s resources are we willing to dedicate to “culturally significant, irreplaceable things” such as buildings, artwork, graveyards, and civilizations? Who gets to decide what from modern times needs to be available in ten thousand years?
I come from a hoarding home where everything was important. My approach to preservation is colored through this lens. At some point we either exist solely to preserve artifacts created before us or we learn to let go. Not every Van Gogh or Picasso in a museum’s collection will be put on display and many museums struggle to maintain their hidden collections full of what curators would honestly call junk art of interest to only the most specialized of scholar. Assuming we only keep the “best” samples (that’s another debatable topic) there will be a point when we simply cannot collect any more art or culturally relevant things any more, similar to the eventual trade off between graves and arable land.
Hoarding aside, why are you not arguing to prosecute oil as hard as these folks? The number of indigenous cultural sites across the world destroyed by drilling astronomically outweighs the number of paintings with soup on them. Sure, we can prosecute both, but I don’t see you saying that either.
What defines “irreplaceable art”
A good place to start would be art made by a great artist that can’t make it anymore, usually because they are dead.
How much of the earth’s resources are we willing to dedicate to “culturally significant, irreplaceable things”
I don’t think the footprint of the world’s art museums would even show up on a chart when you consider waste or climate impact.
I’m not arguing to “prosecute oil as hard as these folks” because that’s not the discussion we’re having. That’s just what-about-ism. But since you asked, I think just about every C level in the oil industry should be in prison for the harm they have caused and the coverups they conspired to perpetrate while doing it. That’s not relevant to the discussion of ‘activists’ trying to destroy art to get headlines.
I agree with their message, I completely disagree with the method of delivery.
So only art in museums is culturally significant? Made by artists who are dead? What about buildings? Religious places? Graveyards? Note that these are things I called out in my first comment so I’m not trying to move the goalposts here. You highlighted the Taliban destroying cultural places so, by your definition, we must include those and since we can’t displace any new ones must be added.
I completely disagree that the footprint of the world’s art museums is minuscule. Museums today already have problems with storage. In order to meet your definition for art, museums must continue to expand their collections. As the number of people grows, the number of artists grows, increasing the supply of art. How do you define “great artist” without proportionally increasing the number? As fields specialize, so too do the “great artists” that define mediums.
What about books? Records? Movies? How do we decide what to keep here?
You’re putting words in my mouth so I can’t really respond to the first part.
Some people value art, some don’t. It’s ok if you don’t, it’s not okay to destroy what other people value.
it’s not okay to destroy what other people value
So you’re okay with oil companies destroying the planet which every person on this earth values? You’re okay with oil companies being given the pen to write the laws for climate protests? You’re okay with Judges taking bribes and providing harsh sentences to climate protesters?
You’re okay to with some corrupt asshole stealing our future from us (you’re probably part of the awful operations, who knows?)
Nope. I can be against all that and against vandalizing art.
You have answered nothing and read way more into the word “so” than was actually there. It’s pretty clear you’re just here to be mad so have fun with that!
I like how confidently wrong you are.
I’m sorry I didn’t realize we were all in the art museum to see the frame.
I don’t really support defacing art either, but at the same time, it’s not like the art is gonna matter if the planet burns, is it? The only people who’ll still be around to enjoy it are rich people, and they’ll probably just ditch it the moment they realize it doesn’t have a monetary value anymore due to societal collapse.
So what’s the point? Throw soup at art (in Minecraft). Throw grenades at yachts (in Minecraft). None of this will matter soon (in the real world).
it’s not like the art is gonna matter if the planet burns, is it?
I mean… You could use this same argument to justify literally anything. After all, it’s not gonna matter once the planet burns.
Of course it won’t matter if the planet burns. But as a great philospher once said, “until such time as the world ends, we will act as though it intends to spin on.” Destroying art can’t be undone. Throwing hand grenades at yachts would be way better, assuming nobody gets hurt. I still don’t condone it (because somebody will get hurt), but nobody is going to give a shit if some asshole’s yacht goes to the bottom of the marina.
I agree, people who damage irreplaceable things (for example, our planet) deserve worse.
Pourque no los dos ?
Hey look it’s the corporate shill trying to get our attention away from Real issues!
Fuck those shitheads for vandalizing art.
If you really need attention there are plenty of expensive things without cultural value to future generations.
the art in question was not damaged
is the environment of the earth not of cultural significance to you?
It is and I don’t agree with the sentence - way too harsh, especially considering that the art was undamaged.
That said I feel, while there should be some punishment for almost running a work of art for future generations and the ends do not justify the means - it basically feels like the cause (saving the Earth) wasn’t taken into account here. Also, the “almost” part wasn’t either - they’re treating it like these were vandals who successfully destroyed a valuable work of art forever because they were bored.
That’s … ridiculous. Especially compared two the guys who got off with a suspended sentence because they beat up a cop or two for fun.
i expect future generations would see any damage to the art as part of its extended story and its place in stopping climate change
Agreed, in the event there had been some damage (but also worth noting that it seems obvious that they knew there would have been no damage since it’s pretty obvious it was behind plexiglass).
They didn’t almost ruin it though. It’s not like they tried to destroy it and we’re lucky the defenses held. They explicitly chose a painting and an act that would not result in damage.
That’s exactly what I said!
You said “there should be some punishment for almost running a work of art”. There was no “almost ruin” involved. You don’t say your couch was almost ruined when some bird poop hit the window next to it. The couch was never in danger.
You don’t say your couch was almost ruined when some bird poop hit the window next to it. The couch was never in danger.
I stand by my words. We just disagree on the definition of ‘almost ruin’ - you seemed to define it as ‘attempting to destroy and failing because the defenses held’ (but we both agree that t"hey explicitly chose a painting and an act that would not result in damage.") while I have a more open interpretation (they were just one mere plexiglass-breaking accident away from actually ruining it).
Your counter-example is quite different, but even there, someone has to clean the window afterwards.
In the actual incident, I think there is justification for some kind of punishment. Minor fines for causing a public scene or disturbance, reasonable cleanup fees in return for deliberately obligating the staff to mop the place afterwards (as opposed to the bird poop example which is presumably just an accident), etc.
That being said - I’d also be okay with a mere slap on the wrist for this incident - like being let off with a written or verbal warning. They were taking these risks to save the environment and the planet after all.
What part of their actions could possibly have broken the plexiglass? It’s soup. A lack of intent isn’t what made this not an “almost ruin”, it’s that there is no likely outcome where the painting is damaged. You’re acting like they took a risk and luckily nothing bad happened, but it was just never in the cards to begin with.
We had to destroy culture to save it!
How about no.
That doesn’t answer my question.
Do you value the environment?
Fuck your false dichotomy.
Relax. Maybe get off the internet for a minute. If not, actually read the news. They didn’t destroy any art. These paintings are well secured in tamper proof little boxes. They can wipe this shit off or put the art in new ones.
You are the one succumbing to a false dichotomy here.
You’re the one saying we need to vandalize art to save the environment.
Point to where I’ve *ever said that.
The kind of culture you want preserved is deplorable.
If the culture is sucking up to rich people and destroying the planet, might as well destroy the culture to save humanity.
fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you
Why do you care more about a painting frame and disrupting a day at the gallery than the likely prospect of entire fucking inhabited islands being submerged? Will you hide in an art gallery when millions of refugees are pounding at your door demanding the entirely reasonable right to resettle in the less ravaged land of the climate ravagers?
What have you done to try target oil execs? How much money have you put on the line paying the legal fees of people that target them? Have you risked your safety and freedom in radical protests?
From what position do you criticise them? What do you see as the likely outcome of the future? Do you see people living like you changing that?
Didn’t know plexiglass had so much cultural value.
You’re right. They got off lightly
Hi Richard, you’re a moron. Have a bad day!
No, you’re the moron. Acts like this give the oil companies the moral high ground. And let’s be honest, none of us want that. Or maybe you do.
Sorry moron, your writing & reading comprehension are both poor. Try to work on being intelligible! From all of us here on Lemmy, get fucked!
Ooh, you don’t have enough brain to make an actual argument. No real surprise there.
The truth hurts doesn’t it!
🥾👅
