The Mona Lisa has had her share of cake, paint, and other stuff splashed on the painting over the years.

Looks like theyre out on bail. Werent they out blocking 495 traffic during rush hour earlier this week?

Well, that was laughably theatrical and utterly pointless

Why was poor Van Gogh selected? Is there special significance?
Also, splashed tomato soup could make good art on its own at NGA, if I am tracking my daily Artle artists correctly😀. And maybe a powerful climate statement: “Angry Red Sun Explodes,” tomato soup on canvas, anon., 2022 That type of thing.

True idiots and I hope they spend time in jail and pay for restoration.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Why? Her methods might be dumb (I'd agree that they are), but the idea that climate change is a threat to take seriously is either true or it isn't and whether or not a particular self described climate activist is an idiot or a hypocrite or both doesn't have any impact on the truth of the message.

Because anyone who uses a private jet while preaching about climate change is someone who isn't actually as concerned with climate change as they claim to be, which in turn suggests that they have ulterior motives which invalidate the credibility of their messaging.

You'll find hypocrites and ulterior motives on all sides of every issue. If one climate activist who flies in a private jet means their message isn't credible, what does it mean if you can find one who doesn't? Or who doesn't fly or drive at all? Do we just balance it out and the side with the fewest hypocrites wins? That doesn't even make sense because even if every climate activist in the world killed themselves to eliminate their carbon footprint tomorrow that wouldn't mean they were right, it would mean they believed they were right, which obviously isn't the same thing.

It's dumb to judge a factual issue like this. Look at the evidence, use the brain God gave you, and draw a conclusion based on that.

Anonymous wrote:
Why? Her methods might be dumb (I'd agree that they are), but the idea that climate change is a threat to take seriously is either true or it isn't and whether or not a particular self described climate activist is an idiot or a hypocrite or both doesn't have any impact on the truth of the message.

Because anyone who uses a private jet while preaching about climate change is someone who isn't actually as concerned with climate change as they claim to be, which in turn suggests that they have ulterior motives which invalidate the credibility of their messaging.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

They totally knew it wouldn't really be damaged. That is why they picked that piece.

You're giving them a good deal of credit, there.

Anonymous wrote: The whole thing was filmed - they must have tipped off the journalist in advance and he let the whole thing play out.

Yes, apparently members of the press entered the room with them. Which... troubles me.

I saw footage of one of the "activists" speaking. Her English accent was so posh that it rivaled certain denizens of Buckingham Palace.

I hope someone will look into whether she travels by private jet before deciding whether or not to take her message seriously.

Why? Her methods might be dumb (I'd agree that they are), but the idea that climate change is a threat to take seriously is either true or it isn't and whether or not a particular self described climate activist is an idiot or a hypocrite or both doesn't have any impact on the truth of the message.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly though what will the Van Gogh really be worth once the planet is on fire?

I am a climate activist. I go to museums to take inspiration in how artists throughout history have been inspired by the natural world as one of many reasons we must act to protect it. The making and viewing of art are not activities that cause or accelerate the climate crisis. Why would you want to destroy something that brings people joy and hope, and often depicts natural objects reverently, to "bring attention" to the climate crisis? It makes no sense.

I would support large and small scale protests outside museums to bring attention to the issue. I'd even participate. But defacing art that brings people joy is not the way.

What activist activities do you do?

Anonymous wrote:

They totally knew it wouldn't really be damaged. That is why they picked that piece.

You're giving them a good deal of credit, there.

Anonymous wrote: The whole thing was filmed - they must have tipped off the journalist in advance and he let the whole thing play out.

Yes, apparently members of the press entered the room with them. Which... troubles me.

I saw footage of one of the "activists" speaking. Her English accent was so posh that it rivaled certain denizens of Buckingham Palace.

I hope someone will look into whether she travels by private jet before deciding whether or not to take her message seriously.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am sure they knew it would not damage the painting and wanted to get people thinking about the value of things (or of things vs a livable climate).

They are young and pretty stupid. They probably had no idea it was protected by glass

They totally knew it wouldn't really be damaged. That is why they picked that piece. The whole thing was filmed - they must have tipped off the journalist in advance and he let the whole thing play out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And what about the ones that shut the Beltway down on Monday? Did this help the cause? I’m all for working to slow climate change, but these actions don’t seem to help anything.

Right - and making people idle in their cars is worse for the environment.

But they got the "LOOOK AT MEEEEE" vote.

Can't wait till these kids move to the paradise that is California and have to escape a fast moving fire in their electric vehicle.

Anonymous wrote:I am sure they knew it would not damage the painting and wanted to get people thinking about the value of things (or of things vs a livable climate).

They are young and pretty stupid. They probably had no idea it was protected by glass

Anonymous wrote:I am sure they knew it would not damage the painting and wanted to get people thinking about the value of things (or of things vs a livable climate).

But it's a convoluted argument. Yes, money is spent to preserve great works of art. But most of it is raised independently by museums, arts organizations, and wealthy art lovers. It's not like the government is funneling money that could go to addressing climate change into art preservation. The way these protests are staged makes it seem like they are attacking the art itself OR people who are looking at the art. Neither of which are appropriate targets of anger or criticism from the perspective of climate activism.

If you wanted to make the same argument in an actually effective way, you'd stage a protest outside a popular art museum on a busy day that featured some kind of installation or projection of environmental devastation due to climate change -- before and afters of glaciers, eroded shoreline, depictions of climate change caused flooding, etc. And then a big statement that says something like "We Need to Act NOW to Protect the Ultimate Work of Art." You could enlist actual artists in the project.

Instead they likely turned people off the cause by seeming disrespectful of something a lot of people rightfully care a lot about. Art makes a lot of people's lives worth living. It's a reason to combat climate change, to make art possible, not something to be placed in opposition to climate change. They aren't in competition for resources.