Environment activists smear red paint on Monet artwork at Stockholm museum (the protective glass)

[BlueWaveNeverEnd]

Two activists on Wednesday smeared red paint and then glued their hands to the protective glass on “The Artist’s Garden at Giverny,” a painting by the French Impressionist Claude Monet on display in an exhibition at Stockholm’s National Museum, a video released by the organization Aterstall Vatmarker (Restore Wetlands) shows.

The museum’s press office confirmed the incident to CNN.

“In the afternoon of June 14 around 2:30 p.m. (8:30aET) an action was carried out at the National Museum in Stockholm. Two people made handprints with some kind of paint on an artwork by the artist Monet in the exhibition ‘The Garden – Six Centuries of Art and Nature’ and then glued themselves to the glass,” the museum’s press office said.

“The painting, which is encased in glass, is now being inspected by museum conservators to determine whether there is any damage,” the press office continued.

Environment activists on June 14 smeared red paint and glued their hands to the protective glass on a Monet painting at Stockholm's National Museum, police and the museum said. The organisation Aterstall Vatmarker (Restore Wetlands) claimed responsibility for the action in an interview with AFP. - Aterstall Vatmarker/Handout/AFP/Getty Images
Police were called to the scene and arrested two women, the Stockholm Region police said in a press release.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/environment-activists-smear-red-paint-on-monet-artwork-at-stockholm-museum/ar-AA1cyra4

[CTyankee]

1. I cannot understand this. Monet was such a gentle man with nature. He built Giverney so he could

paint it. I am visiting this garden on a trip to Paris later this year.

[Think. Again.]

6. Probably why they chose this piece....

Like Giverney, they are exptessing to the public their love of the natural world.

[CTyankee]

18. Odd to me, but perhaps that was their message. I wonder what he would have thought...

[Think. Again.]

21. What he would of thought...

About the environmental destruction they are trying to stop, or about the glass over his painting?

[Dorian Gray]

24. They've done this same thing to multiple pieces

none of which were gardens until now.

It's their schtick.

It garners a little attention, but makes most people annoyed with them before they move on and forget.

[Think. Again.]

27. Yes....

Most do not care, about glass OR about the environmental harm the protesters are trying to draw attention to.

But then, sometimes, the protests DO spark discussions, in person or on discussions boards, that result in greater public awareness and information sharing.

Picture this:

Friend 1- "oh it's just horrible! Did you see what those evil people did to that poor innocent piece of glass???? THEY GOT PAINT ON IT! It will take MINUTES to clean that off! Shocking I say! Our society is DOOMED!"

Friend 2- "What are going on about? What evil people?"

Friend 1- they hide behind a strange cryptic organization named 'Restore Wetlands'. Scary stuff!

Friend 2 - googles 'Restore Wetlands' and reads about the serious damage we are doing that actually COULD doom our society.

[brooklynite]

57. Willing to bet most people never get to googling "restore wetlands"...

Or any of their other slogans.

[Dorian Gray]

96. Bingo

Despite seeing them do this for the past year in multiple museums, I've never heard the "Restore wetlands" name as something to google. Ever.

Ineffective. They're rage baiting. It's like being on twitter with the rage Baitey people like Matt Walsh and The Transformed Wife. (Don't ask.) They want attention.

[Hekate]

2. As effing useless as PETA "activists" -- only 1,000 times worse

[Think. Again.]

7. "Worse"...

Do you mean "worse" as in they haven't yet drawn as much public attention to the issue they are passionate about?

[Hekate]

45. Do you remember when a man took a hammer to The Pieta? One of the most glorious marble

…sculptures ever created, an object of veneration for both Roman Catholics and every art-lover everywhere. Now people can’t get near it.

IIRC, at least the man with the hammer was insane.

Do you remember when the Taliban, in their fanaticism, destroyed the Bamiyan Buddhas carved into Afghan cliffs almost 2000 years ago? When ISIS destroyed even older artifacts of the Cradle of Civilization in Iraq?

Art is called priceless for a reason. It is part of our global human heritage. Every time some asshole with a political agenda harms such objects they harm us all. Art is designed to be seen across a distance, and close up as well. The assholes ensure that no one will ever get close again.

Be passionate all you want. But consider — sometimes the means to your end harm us all and are not justified at all.

[Think. Again.]

46. Are we discussing...

Insane people and terrorists? Or socially concerned activists?

[sarisataka]

50. Perhaps some thought should be put

Towards the question:

'Why are socially concerned activists doing the same things as insane people and terrorists?'

[Think. Again.]

54. They are obviously...

...NOT doing the same things. Damaging and not damaging are two very DIFFERENT things.

[sarisataka]

60. There have been works damaged

And not always able to be repaired. Some paintings have been protected by glass but not the frames, which are often considered integral to the work, which have been damaged.

I recall at least one incident where a hammer was used in an attempt to break the glass.

So far the damage has mostly been minor but will you still defend them when they step up to destruction efforts?

Environmental Activists Threaten to Start Slashing Paintings If Action Is Not Taken to Stop Climate Change

December 2, 2022 11:50am

This year, some two dozen world-famous artworks, including pieces by Vermeer, Klimt, and and Munch, have been targeted by various climate activists groups. In a bid to bring attention to their cause, the demonstrators have hurled food at the paintings and glued themselves to frames, causing an uproar in the art community, despite the fact that they enacted no permanent damage to the art.

However, that may soon change.

In an interview with Sky News, Just Stop Oil spokesperson Alex De Koning said that his group has considered following the example of suffragettes who “violently slashed paintings in order to get their messages across.”

“If things need to escalate then we’re going to take inspiration from past successful movements and we’re going to do everything we can,” De Koning continued. “If that’s unfortunately what it needs to come to, then that’s unfortunately what it needs to come to.”

https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/climate-activists-threaten-slashing-paintings-1234648889/

[Hekate]

59. I've been active for causes I care about most of my life, & have never associated with violence

What you are defending so persistently is violence. Get off your high horse. Art destroyers are vandals, no matter what their reason is, which is why I cited two 21st century cases based on religious fanaticism. They also thought their cause was utterly pure and urgent and called for destruction. Why aren’t you defending their actions with the same vehemence?

[Think. Again.]

67. I'm absolutely anti-violence...

But be realistic, smearing paint on glass just doesn't count as violence. I personally don't think even doing major damage to any inanimate objects counts as violence.

[Amishman]

48. As in their misguided ham fisted idiotic approach does massive damage to their own cause

Extreme / shock based approaches to activism just end up turning the public against them.

PETA walks right on the edge of that line, sometimes putting a foot across.

These morons attacking art are putting their underwear on their head and running right across that line at a sprint.

[Think. Again.]

55. A question...

Has animal cruelty gained more attention and public response since PETA began their actions so many years ago?

[Hekate]

61. Other means have worked better, before and since. Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, Ralph Nader's...

…Unsafe at Any Speed, Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin, and Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species all come immediately to mind. And on the dark and evil side, so does Mein Kampf.

These are all books, of course. But each in their time brought about a huge change in social and political consciousness and changes in laws.

Societies backslide. That is a given. The work needs to be done in every generation, or the work is lost. Do the work. — Laws are made by politicians. Become one yourself or vigorously support those who do the work of creating a better world. — Write and publish. If that does not appeal, use this generation’s preferred media to articulate your vision. — Come up with other ideas.

But if you continue to advocate violence and destruction while proclaiming the purity of your cause — as you have done throughout this thread — you will find few friends here.

[Think. Again.]

68. I emphatically do not advocate violence...

It's a piece of glass.

[Hekate]

78. Yes, you do, and you have throughout all your contributions to this thread. Don't be coy.

[Think. Again.]

84. I HAVE NEVER ENDORSED VIOLENCE IN THIS THREAD OR ANY OTHER.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

95. But yet, here you are defending these 2 dumbasses violent actions.

[Think. Again.]

100. I don't consider smearing glass with paint to be violent.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

103. LOL

the law disagrees with you, as do most people, all these 2 assholes did was bring negative attention to the cause of climate change.

[Think. Again.]

106. The law considers painting glass as violence?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

109. Yes, it's called defacing.

Look it up and learn something rather than defending these 2 assholes violent act.

[Think. Again.]

114. Criminal Damage is a crime...

But my quick check didn't show it as a violent crime.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

117. What do you call attempting to deface a historic piece of artwork?

Throwing paint, rather on a glass face or the actual painting is an act of violence whether or not you want to admit it.

[Think. Again.]

120. Violence can be commited against things?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

123. What fucking country do you live in?

Yes, violence can be committed against things.

[Think. Again.]

127. I stand corrected, again....

Legal definition of "violence":

The term “crime of violence” means—
(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or prop­erty of another, or
(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.

From: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/16

[MarineCombatEngineer]

128. Thank you.

I will give you kudos for admitting that you are wrong about violence against objects.

[Think. Again.]

131. And thank you for a lively conversation...

[MarineCombatEngineer]

132. And thank you for keeping it civil.

Going to jump into my sleeper now and watch some TV for awhile, gotta deliver at load a 8 AM at the WalMart in Pahrump, NV.
Have a great evening and a great weekend.

[Dorian Gray]

134. I'm really impressed

with your "mea culpa." It shows an honesty in the debate. Thank you.

[Think. Again.]

138. well thank YOU!

I sincerely do want to engage in honest, respectful discussions on what I believe are crucial issues.

I do have my firm positions and points of view on some things (as I hope everyone does), but I honestly want those positions the be grounded in facts, truth, and logic. If new factual information that effects how I think about an issue comes to me, I WANT to change my position to fit the actual reality as I now understand it.

I'm new here, and I've already noticed that things can get almost as ugly as they can be beautiful in these pages. That you bothered to take the time to send me this note shows that, for the (very much) most part, people here do want to work through our differences and still offer each other the respect and support we all deserve despite how our points of view might vary.

Thank YOU for that.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

80. But you endorse their attempt to deface the art,

and I don't care that they only defaced the glass, can you for 100% guarantee that they didn't intend to damage/destroy the painting?

[Think. Again.]

85. YES I CAN. THE GLASS WAS THERE. THEY KNEW IT WAS THERE. THEY COULD SEE IT WAS THERE.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

88. So what if they could see it,

you still don't know what these 2 dumbasses intent was, unless of course, you personally know them and what their actual intent was.

Your defense of these 2 dumbasses violence baffles me, you endorse their violent actions yet you say you oppose violence.

[Think. Again.]

90. How could they have intended for the paint to get thru glass?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

93. That's the point I'm making,

YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR ACTUAL INTENT WAS.

[Think. Again.]

98. I know they were not intending to get paint on the art...

Because you can't get paint on art that is behind glass.

This is the strangest bunch of conversations I've ever had.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

101. Again, you don't know that for certain.

And, again, here you are defending these 2 assholes all the while claiming you don't support violence.

[Think. Again.]

104. I don't consider smearing paint on glass as violence.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

107. What you consider is irrelevant to the law. nt

[Think. Again.]

108. of course I do. it is impossible to get paint thru glass.

So how could they have intended to do that?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

112. Whoosh, right over your head.

Unless you were actually there and know these 2 assholes, you don't know what their actual intent was.

[Think. Again.]

115. you seriously think they believed the paint would go thru glass?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

119. Once again, you have no idea what these 2 assholes believed.

You were not there.

[Hekate]

124. Thank you MCE for your contribution to this thread, by the way....

I guess whoever this is just discovered a new hobby and we’re it.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

126. It would seem so.

It floors me that this member says they don't support violence, yet here they are supporting violence.

[muriel_volestrangler]

133. "Hobby"? That's remarkably insulting.

You think you have the intellectual and/or moral high ground here, so now you're going to disparage other DUers. Think again.

I think that other DUer takes this more seriously than you do, from the posts in this thread. You're in no position to pretend you're above them.

[Hekate]

139. Okay

[Hekate]

110. How? Personal communications? Also, if this "bunch of conversations" seems strange to you...

Is that because you have never found a group of people who vigorously disagree with your point and premise?

Enjoy DU. We do think. Often there will be disagreement. But I assure you — we think, and a great many of us have 25 to 50+ years of thought and action to back up what we say.

[Think. Again.]

116. But you think that paint goes thru glass...

[Hekate]

121. The frames are part of the art. But as long as you change the subject, I notice you certainly are ...

…racking up your post count in this thread. Interesting. You must be having a good time.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

125. Very interesting indeed. nt

[Amishman]

62. As I said, PETA walks a tightrope

Overall they are a successful organization, but I am certain they do essentially sabotage themselves at times.

PETA has alienated some other animal right groups, especially dog specific ones, with their advocating for breed specific legislation. Their attitude towards pit bulls is frankly wacky - advocating for the ban on their breeding, adoption, and advocating (reluctantly) for killing of pit bulls that end up as shelters.

As I said, PETA walks that line between effective and counter-productive.

These are defacing idiots in Europe are far across that line, and their own worst enemy.

[Think. Again.]

69. Nothing has been defaced.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

76. Can you prove that this wasn't the intent?

Do you personally know these dumbasses?
Can you say with absolute certainty that they didn't have the intent to harm or destroy this historic work of art?

[Think. Again.]

83. YES. THERE IS GLASS IN FRONT OF IT.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

86. So, IOW, you can't with 100% certainty guarantee that these 2 dumbasses

intent wasn't to damage/destroy this art?

Yeah, I thought so.

[Think. Again.]

94. Yes. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR PAINT TO GET THRU GLASS

Wh is this so difficult for everyone to understand?

It was a silly attention getting stunt.

Probably every piece of art in that museum has glass protecting it.

They could see the glass when they walked up to it.

They could feel it was glass when they smeared paint on it.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

97. And, here you are again defending these 2 dumbasses violence against this art

all the while claiming you don't support violence.

[Think. Again.]

102. I don't consider smearing paint on glass to be violence.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

105. I don't give a damn what YOU consider,

the law says different.

[Think. Again.]

111. I highly doubt they will be charged with a crime of violence.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

113. Again, you don't know that.

Even if these 2 assholes aren't charged with a crime of violence, they should be, they didn't garner any positive attention, except from those like you who think that these dumbass stunts are helpful.

[Think. Again.]

118. Correct, but since no violence was committed I am assuming that.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

122. Wow!!!!

So you think that throwing paint on something that doesn't belong to you isn't an act of violence?

Hate to break it to you sparky, but the law says different.

[Johonny]

38. Pretty much

It gets you in the news, but turns off everyone to your message.

Not a fan of these type of stunts.

[sakabatou]

3. Not this kind of shit again...

[Think. Again.]

8. ?

This is what bothers you about the issue of environmental destruction???

[sakabatou]

10. It doesn't bother me, I just find it stupid.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

4. And this helps the cause of climate change how????????

Couple of dumbasses.

[Think. Again.]

11. There is...

...a large portion of the public that is unaware of the serious implications to humanity (and our artistic works and abilities). That awareness can be raised through mainstream media, such as "MSN", which is the media outlet that is linked in the post.

The media story of people putting paint on glass also named the organization that has claimed "responsibilty" for putting paint on glass, and that will lead to more public exposure of the organization, their concerns, and their environmental protection goals.

The organization responsible is named "Restore Wetlands", when you google that, the first link you see is this...

https://www.epa.gov/wetlands

This tactic is especially effective due to the unreasonably energetic public response to things like paint being put on glass, water being organically dyed a color, small groups of people attaching themselves with chain to certain structures, etc.

[Dorian Gray]

25. We've had this argument

on this forum every time they do this.

My argument is that... as someone who cares about the environment and supports causes that a) raise awareness to environmental causes and b) take action against climate change, these are people I would never support (financially or verbally). They make me angry. They go to museums. Put paint on the glass cases protecting the paintings, but it seems like a threat to destroy art. WHY? It's just a publicity stunt, and it's ineffective. It makes people angry at them, and it will make some people pay LESS attention to the causes they purport to support.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

28. No, you're wrong,

these asinine stunts piss off the very people you purport they're trying to educate, it pisses me off, and I'm very well aware of climate change and support efforts to combat it but I would never support such actions.

These 2 dumbasses didn't do a damn thing to get the message out, all they did was piss people off.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

29. Do you support this also to raise public awareness?

https://apnews.com/article/biden-transgender-topless-white-house-rose-montoya-811dc7f4473ad6b3dd43dbec7f8b5d37

Transgender activist no longer welcome at White House after going topless at Biden event

WASHINGTON (AP) — Transgender advocate Rose Montoya is no longer welcome at White House events after posting on social media a video of herself and two others going topless for a time at Saturday’s Pride Month celebration on the South Lawn.

“The behavior was simply unacceptable,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Tuesday. “It was unfair to the hundreds of attendees who were there to celebrate their families.”

Speaking at the White House press briefing, Jean-Pierre said, “Individuals in the video certainly will not be invited to future events.” The White House spokeswoman said the bare-chested display “was not a normal thing that has happened under this administration.”

President Joe Biden hosted the event to show the administration’s support of the LGBTQ+ community. There has recently been a push by some Republican leaders at the state level to restrict drag shows and limit the options for youth who are seeking to transition their genders.

You honestly think this helps the LGBTQ+ community?

This is, after all, in the same vein.

[Think. Again.]

47. We are discussing...

...all of these protest events here and now, that's called "raised public awareness".

A person who can't separate a harmless publicity stunt from the very serious issue it was meant to draw attention to is probably not someone who these actions are targeted for.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

65. It is not a harmless publicity stunt,

you may think so, but it does draw negative publicity for a cause.

Look, I'm 100% for equal rights for all, but stupid stunts like these do more harm than good.

[Dorian Gray]

135. Negative publicity is

NOT a good thing.

It makes people react against the cause.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

5. A few more irreplaceable art treasures to go...

... and the climate problem will be solved!

[Think. Again.]

12. You just proved their point....

Our art, the society and the people who create it, and the environment that inspires it is threatened by a public who thinks it is only things like paint on pieces of glass that we should be upset about.

By the way, no art treasures have been harmed by environmental activists.

[sarisataka]

37. Incorrect

The Laocoon statue was permanently damaged by a similar protest
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217998739

[Hugin]

41. Thanks for saving me the trouble of debunking that...

Absolutist statement.

Granted, FEW artworks have been permanently damaged or destroyed by environmental activists.

Ironically an artwork was destroyed by a protester in Tokyo who was protesting the "inaccessibility of art" caused by these sorts of show protests.

[Think. Again.]

49. I stand corrected...

Yes, "FEW (one?) artworks have been permanently damaged or destroyed by environmental activists."

[Raine]

9. Stupid fools achieving the opposite of what they claim their goal is.

They're totally turning people against the cause Their tactics are just sickening.

[Think. Again.]

13. If paint on glass sickens you...

Wait until you hear about what is being done to environmental locations such as the one depicted in the painting that is protected by glass.

[Raine]

17. The TACTIC they're using is sickening, nothing of substance has come from it but turning people off

so they don't even want to hear about the issue. It's a worthy cause the most important issue of our time but wrong way to go about it.

[Think. Again.]

22. There's no doubt...

Many people are discussing their action because of the press coverage that wouldn't have given a thought to the level of environmental destruction we're causing, or were even aware of it.

It's hard to imagine someone being upset about a piece of glass being paint splattered but not about the environmental destruction that caused the splattering.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

32. Who says that we can't be upset about both?

Last edited Thu Jun 15, 2023, 09:58 AM - Edit history (1)

All these 2 dumbasses did was cast a negative light on their movement to the very people they're trying to educate.

[brooklynite]

58. "Many people are discussing their action"

Any proof?

[Think. Again.]

70. well actually...

You are participating in one of those discussions right now.

[Dorian Gray]

136. Hmmm

You: It's hard to imagine someone being upset about a piece of glass being paint splattered but not about the environmental destruction that caused the splattering.

DU Thread: Almost every poster is upset/disgusted/annoyed by the actions above.

In a forum where most people are aligned with the cause, if the reaction is this negative.... it's NOT effective.

[Dorian Gray]

26. Agree

we are a pretty liberal group of people here, prone to supporting action against climate change. And most of us are like: These people suck.

They're not going to change minds.

[Think. Again.]

51. I guess I just don't understand....

...what is so upsetting about not doing any damage to art.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

66. I guess what's upsetting is the fact that you don't get what the intent is...

ergo, the attempted act of trying to damage or destroy historic works of art to try to "educate" the common folk about climate change.

I find you're attempted defense of this attempted act of damage or destruction of historic art quite unbelievable.

[Think. Again.]

71. There was obviously no intent or attempt...

..to try to damage or destroy anything. Did you read the part about 'paint on glass'?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

75. Were you there?

You know what their intent was?

You have no idea what their intent was and as far as I'm concerned, they are dumbasses who fucked up and brought negative attention to a righteous cause, thereby causing harm to their message.

[Think. Again.]

87. I KNOW THEY COULD NOT HAVE INTENDED TO PUT PAINT ON ART THAT HAS GLASS PROTECTING

[MarineCombatEngineer]

91. Unless you were there and personally know them and what there intent was,

you don't know.

[Dorian Gray]

99. What's the point?

Most people think they're jerks. What are they actually accomplishing? They're making security guards and janitor's lives more difficult.

[Think. Again.]

14. My deepest gratitude to the activists.

[canetoad]

15. Lovely painting

No harm done.

Monet was around 60 at the time of this painting. The impressionists struggled. They had no idea their work would become high priced baubles be traded by the elite for a thousand or more the money they made from the works.

The intent of the protesters is clear; as a society we place more monetary value on artworks than on the dirt, leaves, plants and stones that sustain our very beings. Something for which Monet may have beed paid a pittance, over the decades with no actual input from Monet, has reached an almost astronomical and unwarranted price.

Same principle as:
Some caviars
Gold flakes in food
$1,000 burgers
$5 - 10k or more bottles of wine

Food snobbery embarrasses me while there are hungry people on earth; so does art snobbery.

Edit for the Philistines: B.A. Fine Art (Printmaking).

[Snooper9]

16. You would think they would be more bright

instead of fucking with art, grab three more of your friends and block a highway....

It took me 3 minutes to find the perfect protest spot. Centralbron just north over the bay from Hilton Stockholm, Slussen.

But, GenZ

?c=16x9&q=h_720,w_1280,c_fill

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. They do it to get the publicity. No-one cares about the protests that block traffic.

The evidence is here on DU. Protesters who glue themselves to art are talked about, but DU ignores the protests that block roads, company offices or oil terminals. See https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217324760#post59 . A large part of the world is like DU - they'll notice stories about paintings, but aren't interested in road blocks.

[CTyankee]

30. Well, I'm a DU oldtimer and I do!

I am reasonably sure I can be an art historian and a devoted DUer at the same time.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. How much of a mark did the Dartford protests make on DU, or American media?

They shut down one half of the only Thames crossing east of London for days - a major traffic protest. But that doesn't make it on to American news. Gluing themselves to painting frames does. (And, from a practical point of view, the museum protests attract a far lower criminal penalty - the bridge climbers got over 2 years in prison).

[CTyankee]

34. We seem to be having this conversation about the art, not the Dartford protests here.

Because art -- and, in particular, European art -- get our attention. While I understand the frustration about one and not the other, I think it is just that we get news of one over the other. I don't know what the bridge climbers actually did so I can't comment.

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. That's my point. The sub-thread started with a suggestion "why don't they block roads instead ...

... of targetting museums?" And, as we seem to agree, blocking roads doesn't get publicity. And the purpose of protests is to get publicity.

[CTyankee]

36. Well, it IS a very famous artist whose art is being attacked. Monet is loved and known by a lot more

people than other deserving artists. Caravaggio is another artist people generally like a lot.

[Think. Again.]

52. Monet...

...made mass-produced glass panels?

[CTyankee]

64. Um...whut?

[Think. Again.]

72. You said...

...Monet's art was attacked, in this event a piece of mass produced glass was attacked, and not damaged. Are you saying Monet's art is random pieces of mass produced glass?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

77. Are you saying this wasn't the intent of these dumbasses?

If so, can you prove otherwise?

[Think. Again.]

89. YES. THE PROOF IS THAT THERE WAS GLASS PROTECTING IT.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

92. Wrong, again, you don't know for certain what their actual intent was. nt

[CTyankee]

79. Of course not.

[sarisataka]

40. They do get publicity-

For themselves.

Both on DU and the real world their actions are reported and discussed. Their actions, not their reason for their actions.

The cause is a footnote that only gets an iota of notice, that being it is supported by unhinged people who want to destroy art.

I have not met a single person positively influenced towards pollution and climate change by these attacks on art.

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. Just Stop Oil publicised that the British government plans to grant new drilling permits

which had not been widely talked about.

They are, of course, not "unhinged people who want to destroy art", as all actual discussion shows, but it is sad that DUers can form such an incorrect kneejerk opinion so easily.

I prefer these protesters to most of the the DUers who post on these threads.

[sarisataka]

43. Much like PETA

It is possible to support a group’s cause while disagreeing with their methods.

My experience when discussing climate change and these protests has been universally negative. No one has expressed a greater concern for the climate because of their actions. I have heard people react to these by questioning is the subject is overblown.

In other words- they are moving opinion in the wrong direction. YMMV.

[Think. Again.]

73. perhaps...

...someone who would equate a harmless protest action to the serious of the environmental crisis is not someone who would take the climate crisis seriously in any situation.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

81. ....

Think. Again.

73. perhaps...
View profile
...someone who would equate a harmless protest action to the serious of the environmental crisis is not someone who would take the climate crisis seriously in any situation.

This was not a harmless protest action, it's harmful to the cause of climate change, it turns people off to the cause and that you can't see that is astounding to say the least.

How do you know that these 2 dumbasses intent wasn't to damage/destroy this art?

[Think. Again.]

23. I guess...

blocking highways didn't cross their minds either. If they didn't think of actually fucking with the art and could only plan out how to splatter paint on to the glass, you can't expect them to figure out how to cross a road, can you?

[betsuni]

20. Finger painting and glue.

[LiberalFighter]

33. Their actions don't help

[AntivaxHunters]

39. Good

And it seems some on here are more concerned with protective glass than raising awareness about climate change.

Those garden's Monet painted won't exist anymore unless we do something fast & that doesn't mean a bunch of non-sensical "ra ra" crap either. We either drastically change fast or we're screwing the younger generations & their children forever.

This post is a few down on the forum from this one. The evidence is stating at us right in the face.

[Dorian Gray]

137. We need to act fast

let's throw paint at art! That'll solve the problem and not make people mad at us!

[ripcord]

44. I can't believe people still think even bad attention serves their purpose.

No one is talking about climate change after this, they are talking about two idiots who did something stupid and pissed off the people they wanted to support them.

[NNadir]

53. Assholes.

[MustLoveBeagles]

56. What morons

Attempting to destroy art helps the environment how?

P

[Think. Again.]

74. No attempt was made to destroy the art...

A piece of glass was smeared with removable paint.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

82. You do not know that,

you have no idea what these 2 dumbasses intent was, you weren't there, therefore, you don't know what their actual intent was.

[Think. Again.]

129. if they intended to damage the art...

..by putting paint on the protective glass, then I agree they are dumbasses.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

130. +100. nt

[Buns_of_Fire]

63. They "got people talking," alright.

Unfortunately, though, not about the environment. Rule #1: Don't become a bigger story than your cause.