It's telling that some people find damaging a painting more heinous than damaging all of humanity.
(Also no works of art were actually damaged. But I still think it's important to note how much this upsets you, but general ruining of the earth doesn't seem to)
The way I think of it is that if you are already concerned about the future due to climate change etc., then you are not the target audience for this sort of action.
The whole point I take from it is that it is an attempt to raise awareness through "if you're upset about this, there's no excuse for you not to be upset about that"
If you're already in the loop on climate change and what's ahead of us - yeah, all that's left for you in this act is to be upset about the act itself.
I wish it wasn't necessary do stuff like this, but I am not at all certain anymore that it isn't.
If warning government officials does nothing,
and warning the public does nothing,
and scientists urging for action does nothing,
and presenting reports and articles does nothing,
and hanging up banners and buying ads does nothing,
and protesting in front of government buildings does nothing,
and protesting in front of "big oil" HQs does nothing,
and protesting in the streets does nothing,
and children skipping schools to protest does nothing,
and throughout all this, voting does nothing because there are still not enough people that care enough about these issues, and politicians still take steps to make things worse, what's left to do?
What's the next step?
I don't know anymore. I'm sure others feel the same way, which is why I'm not surprised desperate and hard to reason about acts like this end up happening.
Here's a midler analogy (sincerely) "I am mad the perp assaulted a woman, but the woman cried about it very loudly and that was annoying to me. I can be mad about two things at once." Being upset about a painting and putting it on the same scale of societal collapse is a great example of equivocation that cheapens the greater harm.
I think that a world with 2d of warming AND damaged paintings is clearly worse than one with 2d of warming AND NOT damaged paintings.
I see this fundamental flaw in reasoning frequently in "Activist" culture. Desiring that The Action lead to The Greater Good doesn't change the fact that, today 27 October 2022, we have a damaged painting but no policy change.
Earth is going to be destroyed by climate change anyway, nothing we can effectively do other than drastically limit the number of people born in the world, but the only way to do that would be unconsiable.
But we don't have to destroy the art, in addition to the effects of climate change.
The painting is ours; it's concrete, and something beautiful threatened by chaotic, lawless vandalism. That some vague 'humanity', or a potential threat to some distant country in some distant future is more important than that will appear obvious only to the group with the reduced set of moral foundations.
The thing is that while most people agree climate change is real, it's not clear at all what the actual damage to humanity will be. IME said hypothetical damage is hugely overblown by activists, who talk as if the end of humanity was certain.
If you're outraged by the damage of a small part of our artistic heritage, while turning a proportionately blind eye to the wholesale destruction of our natural heritage...
There's something that may be worth a moment of introspection, and a reconsideration of where you want to devote your energies.
These events are a nothingburger, if you care enough to be outraged by them, you should probably be many, many orders of magnitude more outraged by what they are protesting.
(Also no works of art were actually damaged. But I still think it's important to note how much this upsets you, but general ruining of the earth doesn't seem to)