The painting was covered in glass. They got two years for damaging the frame.
The oil industry really doesn’t like protests and is cracking down on them through bribes, puppeteering and media manipulation.
I just don’t get why they would target a van gogh painting. Because it was made with oil based paints?
Why not target something that’s actually relevant to the oil industry? Like a Exxon mobil office or plane or something?
Because if they did you wouldn’t be pissed off by it making a comment.
Scientists and activists have been drawing our attention to climate change since the 80’s, it doesn’t seem to be working so might as well try something else.
Except this “something else” is just making them look like destructive idiots and not drawing any sort of positive attention to that cause (unless you consider having more destructive idiots join up positive).
Blocking a pipeline development or shipment of dirty coal is at least reasonably related to what they’re protesting. This is just “look at me” tactics
To witness the irony of you calling them „destructive” for ruining a painting frame in protest to literally destroying a climate and an ecosystem of an entire planet makes it worth it to me.
They aren’t protesting against inflation, discrimination or even a war. They are protesting against our entire way of life, which needs to change drastically and as soon as possible if we want to have any sort of a predictable future at all.
And… how is throwing soup at paintings helping this? I didn’t say anything about the people/lifestyle they’re protesting against, because - guess what - the vast majority of the population are just going to see some idiots throwing soup at a painting and the rest of their message or cause it’s then lost.
Soup on a painting, a brick through a window, whatever message you intend is going to get lost in the action of seeking attention
To draw attention to the climate crisis because direct action against those responsible tends to be met with a media blackout, and they need to prompt conversation to get the public on-side.
You think a painting will be relevant when we wipe out the majority of life on earth?
Yeah?
Look at all the art we dig up from ancient Rome and even cave paintings that tell us so much about humanity and our history.
In 1000-2000 years after society collapses from climate change and archeology gets back in business finding these paintings and other artworks will be incredibly important.
The fall of an empire is not the same as the literal apocalypse - it’s important that you understand that.
I don’t value billions of people’s lives and the existence of tens of thousands of species over wiping some soup off a pane of glass (not even the fucking painting), and find it disturbing that you appear to.
I don’t support this kind of destructive protests. Yes you have managed to go into headlines for 5 min to highlight an issue for a price of destruction of irreplaceable cultural heritage.
In this case the painting is luckily fine behind glass cover.
…but they didn’t destroy an irreplaceable piece of cultural heritage at all, did they? None of their protests have. They got some soup on some glass.
It’s interesting you’d fixate on blowing this non-issue out of proportion rather than the actual irreplaceable damage we do by creating mass-extinction events.
Hey, I wasn’t trying to blow this out of proportion. I was just commenting on what the article said. If you want to talk about how humans destroy ecosystems because of our greedy systems, I’m down for that. Just let me know, no need to be passive-aggressive about it.
Hey, I wasn’t trying to blow this out of proportion.
…buuut
highlight an issue for a price of destruction of irreplaceable cultural heritage.
…when someone splashed some soup on some glass.
That’s what you’re talking about, and I think it goes without saying, that’s both untrue and beside the point. I’m not sure there’s anything passive about what I’m saying.
Just to be clear, I’m talking about these kinds of protests in general. I also said that in this case, things worked out. But I can see now that you’re not interested in having a real discussion and just want to argue.
Good.
What was good?
Their imprisonment
Because protecting picture frames is more important than protecting the environment?
Protecting the environment? How exactly is damaging art helping the course in ANY way? Its literally driving people away from the course because no sane person wants to be associated with them.
It’s a great way to stop the media from just ignoring the problem like they are paid to. The politicians are being bribed to bin our strongly worded letters and protest signs, this is just the next step.
Stop being a mouthpiece.
Its not, everyone just hates on them and that’s the only reaction they get.
No art was damaged, they got two years of prison and you said “good”.
Sounds like the actual issue is the people hating on them. It’s also quite clear that a big part of the population hates whatever the media tells them to and most media is in the oil barons pockets.
Fucking children, just as I figured. Only a child would think this crap could do anything except drive people away from the very cause they support.
They then glued their hands to the wall beneath it.
I would grab them by the wrist and tear their hands loose. Oh, lost a bit of skin? So sorry, off to jail with your dumbasses.
Ooh! Look out! It’s an internet tough guy! Fuck these kids for trying to do something in response to the mass extinction event we’re causing!
Here’s how easy it is to be tough on the internet - if I were to see you try that, I’d feed you your fucking teeth. Disfigured face, wired up jaw, and a skull full of dental implants make it hard to eat? So sorry - off to rehab with your overconfident arse.
Fucking boomers. Only a decrepit person would think their goal of spurring discussion failed.
