World News

I really hate the destruction or attempted destruction of art in order to bring awareness to a social cause. 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~~.

Not only are you a self-entitled piece of shit for tying to destroy something that is on display for public enjoyment, but you are virtually guaranteeing that anybody who didn't already agree with you won't take you seriously because you are acting like such a piece of shit.

Seriously, there are a lot of legitimate reasons for civil disobedience and public protest. This is not the way to go about that, and if you think it is then fuck you in particular.

Edit: I didn't think this was going to be such a divisive issue. After some further research I am retracting my earlier statement about other art being damaged in these protests because I don't see much evidence for that after all. It seems like these protestors are often targeting art they know will get maximum media exposure without causing lasting damage.

HOWEVER, I still think this type of action is counterproductive when you are trying to, hopefully, win over people that either do not support or are not aware of your message. Collective action is an effective means to make change in society. I am, again, not disputing that. I just think that if the goal is to gain broad support for your cause you need to choose targets that are more representative of that cause; rather than art, which does get media exposure, but which ultimately serves to obfuscate or overshadow the true purpose behind your protest. Being savvy about your target audience goes further and deeper into the social zeitgeist than simply getting headlines for being angsty.

The painting, which was behind bulletproof glass, appeared to be undamaged.

Wow, who would've guessed.

I love a good protest ... But this isn't a good protest.

What’s the most important thing?” they shouted. “Art, or right to a healthy and sustainable food?”

Yeah, no. I think in a civilised world we should be able to have both and that sort of argument is weak as fuck.

Destroy all art because it is more important that we conduct research into cot death. Oxygen is more important than art and yet look at you, with your galleries.

It's infantile posturing of probably well off middle class kids who want their Rosa Parks moment for Instagram clout.

Further to that, attempting to destroy something that essentially belongs to everyone is just going to bring negative press. How about going after something owned by the head of Nestle? No? Is that too difficult and requires too much work?

I'm not usually inclined to conspiracy but I honestly think this group is planted by somebody to make environmental activists look bad.

lowhanging psyop spotted

my personal conspiracy theory is that these people are funded, if indirectly, by big oil. in the same way PETA smears the name of vegans, these mfs are designed to make you, the viewer, hate environmentalists.

the worst part? it works

That sure will encourage work on environmental issues. /s

It worked. Good for them, no damage was done and the news is talking about the issue

THROW PIES AT THE RICH! Not art. The rich.

They are covered in glass. They do this to make a scene to bring light to their cause. The painting wasnt harmed. Meh. Either way I've kinda accepted that humanity is doomed. I've gone through the 5 stages. Too many are suck on denial.

...why the need of throwing food at a piece of art...?

Anyone else think of the Mona Lisa case from Glass Onion?

This one weird trick makes everyone in the immediate vicinity instantly despise you! Click for more info!