World News

There hasn't really been many instance of art getting destroyed. This is legitimate imo, it gets in the news and no real damage is done. Personally, I think it's not far enough.

If oil companies get their way, whole countries are going to be destroyed, not just paintings.

It's also plain to see that any form of protest against oil companies is quickly villainized by the media. There's an agenda at play when you can't march, stand in traffic or just throw soup at glass.

This is not the way to go about that

What is your way to go about that?

If you aren't doing anything, what way(s) would you deem acceptable? If you know acceptable ways, why aren't you following through? Honest if-questions, not meant as assumptions.

Healthy and sustainable food seems to be a decent goal. People should be able to get behind this. So if all the disagreement is about the right approach, where are the people with the right approach, and where are all the people voicing their concern about art supporting them?

Please help me out. It feels as if people are more concerned about pieces of art which they may never see, than about healthy food, the climate, or other major issues which affect everyone.

I get why it puts people off, these points exist. I just wonder what the "right" alternative to these "wrong" approaches is, and wether the critics walk the talk.

The Mona Lisa is behind bullet proof glass and everybody knows it. Relax.

I get in this case the painting is highly protected, but there have been plenty of other instances where this has happened to other art where that wasn't the case.

Which ones? I've heard a lot of complaining about people destroying art that was protected and not damaged. The target of this kind of thing isn't the art, it's the headlines. They don't actually want to damage the art, so they purposefully target famous art that is protected. The media will quickly try to minimize that it was protected and lead people to believe they caused actual damage though, so that often gets lost.

I mostly agree but I mean it's not like they were trying to destroy art or suggesting that all art should be destroyed. There's plenty of unprotected art in the Louvre. In the same room as the Mona Lisa There's a huge painting on the opposite wall that's arguably more interesting than whatever view of the Mona Lisa you can get from 6 ft back and they didn't go after it. They're trying to get attention, like most protests.

It's bulletproof not soupproof.

I suspect the protesters knew about this.

Well, they never said it was soup proof glass.

Almost like the spectacle is the point, and now people are talking about it

They aren't even protesting about (necessarily) environmentalism! It's crazy the number of people outraged that soup was thrown on glass that was in front of a painting and didn't even get to the part where it says this is about food security.

In the Balkans, whenever people rise in peaceful protest against a corrupt goverment, that particular government sends 50 or so crack heads to join the protests and start demolishing stuff, so that an overwhelming police force can then disperse the legitimate protests. I've seen it play out times and times again.

Name a better form of protest to get the people's attention.
Spoiler: They've tried that before.

It's a dumb action, and this is from someone that supports direct action. How people are talking about an action is critical: the context matters.

The first thing people are going to ask is "why did you do this?" and the answer needs to make sense. Throwing soup on an oil exec, painting their office, etc -- something sparks a conversation in a way you can exploit to further the cause.

"Vandalizing" a famous piece of art not even tangentially related to your cause is just going to make people think you're an asshole and shuts down that potential for a productive discussion.

People have target the rich as well as buildings (banks, polluting factories) They get sued and it rarely ever hit the news.

Something like this? Plenty of witnesses jumping to record this and share on social media.

I dont think any art has gotten damaged by these stunts yet. All important pieces are behind bullet proof glass or not unlikely a copy with the orginal in a vault.

or paint, that's been a thing.

really pisses me off, environmentalists attacking art, of all things. random art didn't cause environmental issues, and they're undermining their own message with the sheer absurdity of it.

They knew they couldn't (probably didn't want to) damage the painting itself. The Mona Lisa has been behind bullet proof glass since the mid 90s, so it wasnt a secret. So they chose something that was relevant to their cause and they probably (rightly) guessed that soup would make a headline when paint or dye has been done so many times before that it might not.

Real reason: They’re demanding that France make assurances for access to food.

Fake reason: They’re Warhol fans.