this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
335 points (92.4% liked)

World News

39019 readers
2471 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Three individuals targeted National Gallery paintings an hour after Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland were jailed for similar attack in 2022

Climate activists have thrown tomato soup over two Sunflowers paintings by Vincent van Gogh, just an hour after two others were jailed for a similar protest action in 2022.

Three supporters of Just Stop Oil walked into the National Gallery in London, where an exhibition of Van Gogh’s collected works is on display, at 2.30pm on Friday afternoon, and threw Heinz soup over Sunflowers 1889 and Sunflowers 1888.

The latter was the same work targeted by Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland in 2022. That pair are now among 25 supporters of Just Stop Oil in jail for climate protests.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago (9 children)

There is no reason to compare the earth and art given that destroying art does not in any way benefit earth.

[–] webadict@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago (8 children)

Well destroying the Earth does not in anyway benefit art, either, but we're still doing that one.

[–] Barsukis@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (7 children)

You created your own argument here though, right? I can be an advocate for any of one million serious problems that our societies have. Should everyone go destroy art galleries? Housing crisis = art destruction? Unliveable minimal wage = art destruction? Car centric societies = art destruction? Local store increased prices = art destruction? You have to agree that at a certain point this becomes indistinguishable from vandalism.

At what level then is this threshold? Or do you propose a hierarchy of ideas, which are suitable to protest in an art gallery, versus those that aren't?

[–] TheCoralReefsAreDying69@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Should everyone go destroy art galleries? Housing crisis = art destruction?

Do you not agree? Over half a million homeless are without homes. People are dying, and the homeless are largely being dehumanized or ignored. There is a very real human cost far beyond a piece of art or the barrier protecting it.

If you're looking for objective quantifiable criteria on right vs wrong, you'll never find it. Morality often falls into a grey area involving tradeoffs, but bringing attention to a societal issue with huge human costs just for splashing soup on a plastic barrier seems pretty effective to me.

[–] Barsukis@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Well I agree with the problem, but I don't believe attacking art galleries is a solut. Why not spray paint a real estate firm?

[–] TheCoralReefsAreDying69@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Less shock value -> less publicity -> less people thinking about your message

[–] Barsukis@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago

Why do you assume it's less shock value? I would argue the opposite

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)