[houstonn]

"This was funded by a group started by three rich Americans who became concerned about climate change after their houses in Malibu were threatened by wildfires in 2018. I'm not making this up.

Two are heirs (a Getty and a Kennedy) and the third has made a career of advising celebrity philanthropists."

https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1580966385932414977

[site-packages1]

I don’t see this form of protest as effective nor do I agree with the methods at all. However, we as human beings can only focus on so many things at a time. Sometimes something bad happens that causes us to suddenly become attuned to or care about an issue. This seems to happen a lot when people undergo a horrible tragedy like being a victim of a mass shooting or contracting ALS or getting breast cancer.

I don’t think it’s ridiculous at all that someone had something nearly bad happen to them (wildfires encroaching on their houses) and that caused them to become attuned to an issue and start taking a form of action to curb it (funding protestors).

Again, not the actions I would take and in my opinion they’re ineffective actions, but we shouldn’t guffaw at people for becoming attuned to something through tragedy or near tragedy.

[colpabar]

I agree with you, but I think that when we are talking about extremely wealthy people, it changes things. An oil heiress knows people in the oil industry. A kennedy knows people in politics. These people paying randos to throw soup and glue themselves to paintings is already ridiculous, but to hear that they're doing it because their mansions (which contribute much more carbon than wherever the randos live btw) almost burned down is just stupid and will not help anything. They could try to pressure the oil people they know. They could try to pressure the politicians they know. But they don't! Instead they are paying to destroy art that millions (billions?) of people from all over the world enjoy.

Someone who smokes cigarettes whose partner dies of lung cancer from a lifetime of smoking who then decides to quit smoking and become an anti-tobacco activist should not be written off just because they're "only doing it" because it directly affected them via someone they love. Someone who is extremely rich because their ancestors made a killing selling oil who decides to become an "activist" after their mansion almost burned down due to wildfires should be mocked. Anyone can throw soup at a painting. Only the super rich can influence politicians (in america at least).

[hulitu]

> but to hear that they're doing it because their mansions (which contribute much more carbon than wherever the randos live btw) almost burned down is just stupid and will not help anything.

They are not doing it "because their mansions ... almost burned down". They are doing it because they know that this will distract people from their real actions. And they look like philantropists now which is far from reality.

[kevinventullo]

On the other hand, maybe destroying priceless art is a more effective way of sending their powerful relatives a message than, I dunno, reaming them out over Thanksgiving dinner.

[weaksauce]

They aren't destroying priceless art... unless you consider the glass that protects the actual paintings priceless art.

[Gud]

So far. These items are extremely sensitive and no one but a trained specialist should go near them.

If the human race goes extinct due to global warming or whatever reason, at least we left these artifacts behind.

[AlmostAnyone]

What about the damaged original wooden frame in the previous attack?

[weaksauce]

that's unfortunate of course. it's almost certainly going to be able to be restored though. I wouldn't put the frame of a piece of artwork into the "priceless" category though.

[ben_w]

I think you may be right. Most people don't get to experience fine art except in reproductions, so for most people the physical destruction of all the originals takes nothing from their experiences.

People who do love and adore fine art are not limited to the super-rich (this was after all on public display), but I bet it cuts the super rich who can afford to hang originals on their bedroom walls a little deeper than most.

That said, I do know I'm not normal in many ways, perhaps more people than I assume care about originals.

[rowanG077]

> They could try to pressure the politicians they know. But they don't!

How do you know this? It's not exactly and either situation here.

[datavirtue]

No one destroyed any art.

[hulitu]

> However, we as human beings can only focus on so many things at a time

Those kind of protests do one thing : discredit those organizations who made them. Just notice that there are mainly very young people who carry those "protests", who are easily fooled to do such things. Unfortunately for some of them can be a harsh lesson (jail time).

[colechristensen]

Rich people funding the dandy version of terrorism deserves scorn. These are people with money and many powerful connections. Go fund a nonprofit solar development project or plant a forest and actually do something. Don’t cultivate “awareness” by paying poor people to glue their head to shit in a museum. Or if you’re going to, at least do it yourself.

[BitwiseFool]

What they are doing also risks destroying cultural heritage. Causing damage to great works of art will do nothing to endear me to your cause. Why did they even go after this painting in particular, if not for sheer attention seeking?

[wewtyflakes]

The article indicates that the activists knew that the paintings would not be damaged, as there is a protective covering for the art. The quote:

"How do you feel when you see something beautiful and priceless being apparently destroyed before your very eyes?"

Being as they said, "apparently", and that a similar stunt was pulled previously, of which also had protective covering, seems to show that nobody intended (or did) destroy anything.

[BitwiseFool]

I'm going to be upfront and say that I'm glad it was protected, but that doesn't make it right. If you are an average person, you probably read this headline and did not envision the art being behind glass. Your first thought was probably intrigue about what the damage looked like, and then hoping the damage can be reversed.

If you are an activist, or you condone this kind of thing, it is important to realize that the average person is not going to delve any farther into this story in order to give the activists the benefit of the doubt. They are going to be upset that an innocent work of art was vandalized - even if it wasn't actually harmed in any way. They will associate the cause with unhinged and irrational people.

[serf]

> The article indicates that the activists knew that the paintings would not be damaged, as there is a protective covering for the art. The quote:

all it takes is a single copy-cat to ruin a less protected piece.

their message is shocking and attention-grabbing, not responsible.

They won't take responsibility but when Joe-Bob runs into the next museum and legitimately destroys something whilst emulating their antics it will have been their fault for instigating this recent spree.

[ben_w]

To be blunt, the public obviously includes people suffering from paranoid schizophrenia delusions that make them believe they are an ambulance[0] and therefore "drive" into a painting where someone is injured in order to rescue them or something.

Or bored kids with crayons will try colouring it in and/or peeling off gold foil[1] if it has any, or well meaning idiots will try to restore it like that Jesus picture, or a hundred other things because the public isn't just the best of us, it's all of us.

If art isn't protected, it will be damaged. Failing to take preemptive defensive measures against predictable threats is not as blame-worthy as the actual proximal causes, of course, but it's still blame-worthy.

[0] I've met someone who had to be sectioned after something similar made them think they were a car and therefore started walking along the middle of a lane.

[1] I've witnessed that.

[adamredwoods]

That's the point: something shocking that gets massive media attention.

I don't support their actions. If straight-forward conversations how the earth is going to become uninhabitable doesn't change people's patterns, then I doubt shock-media will either.

[lo_zamoyski]

"Raising awareness" feels good to lazy people and doesn't require any real commitment or systematic effort. It's more "glamorous" than painstaking work in the paltry manner of a sassy tweet.

Maybe next time, they should try self-immolation instead. It might spare a painting.

[hulitu]

> Rich people funding the dandy version of terrorism deserves scorn.

They are doing it for their own good. From a long time.

As long as profits increase nobody gives a damn. See for example "America's most beloved war criminal".

[datavirtue]

Who else is going to fund it? This is the very beginning, and what comes after this is is going to make these incidents look like a poetry reading.

[busyant]

whoever is funding this, i would say their approach is ineffective at best and almost certainly counterproductive to their cause.

[FredPret]

Unless discrediting the cause is the goal

[warbler73]

Agreed. That's really the only interpretation that makes sense, assuming they are acting rationally.

[1ris]

Genuine question: What would you expect a rational actor to do FOR the cause? Because to me this looks very rational and very much for the cause.

[BitwiseFool]

I'll be up front and admit that I don't know what activism FOR the cause would be effective. But that doesn't stop me from knowing what isn't effective and what is actually wholly counterproductive.

The reason why this doesn't look rational or 'for the cause' is because the target in question really has nothing to do with the petroleum industry. Johannes Vermeer painted this art in 1665 before the industrial revolution. The subject is just a woman with a pearl earring. So neither the painter nor the work of art have any persuasion or symbolism that encourages fossil fuel use. It seems totally illogical to commit an act such as this. I think the public at large sees no connection between what the activists went after and what they are trying to achieve. When that happens, it delegitimizes the movement in peoples eyes.

[warbler73]

Agreed. The argument seems to be that the targeted pieces are "oil" paintings. But surely they know that the oil in these masterworks is derived from renewable sources and that therefore makes no sense, oil in oil paint is not petroleum based. So it seems the argument is disingenuous and there is a conspiracy. On the other hand I have realized that very few things people do are rational so the assumption common in economics theories that people are making rational choices I am not convinced by. Personally I think these people are all just crazy. However I can not rule out conspiracy to discredit. Like UFOs, this movement is an enigma.

[1ris]

What about this is counterproductive? People get angry, emotional involved. After a few minutes they realize that the glass in front of the painting is not that expensive and all is well. Or is it? That's when they have time to think about destruction and maybe what these people just said about climate change.

What picture exactly is of course not important. Any popular picture with a glass plate in front of it could have done the job. I don't they have any ax to grind about Vermeer, nor will the controversy have any connections to him or his art.

[HWR_14]

> the target in question really has nothing to do with the petroleum industry.

This is correct. The target is an irreplaceable piece of art. It's supposed to stand in for the earth (or some subset like nature). That's the point. The stand-in for the petroleum industry is whatever commodity they are throwing at it

It's also pretty logical because it doesn't actually cause permanent damage, but sensationalist headline writers make it seems like it did. So the stories get more virality then they otherwise would.

[pvaldes]

> What would you expect a rational actor to do FOR the cause?

Di Caprio is rich and support nature conservation. Is not really so much difficult if you are rich. You just buy a chunk of land with a unique ecosystem, keep people from entering on it and you save ten species from going extinct. Is as simple as that.

What I would -not- expect is the children of some millionaires convincing poor or dumb people to perform humiliating, illegal and dangerous stunts in public for a small fee.

Lets imagine the outrage if one influencer would be caught paying homeless people to glue their heads and hands to a wall, and videotaping them while claiming, hey! I do it for the environment!.

This is mocking ecologists, manipulating poor people to perform degrading acts in public and endangering invaluable art. Three in one, all in the same stinking package.

This kind of fun is unacceptable, and should have consequences.

[warbler73]

> Is not really so much difficult if you are rich. You just buy a chunk of land with a unique ecosystem, keep people from entering on it and you save ten species from going extinct. Is as simple as that.

Oh do you mean that land in Hawaii that he blocked native caretakers from accessing and has since been taken over by invasive species?

[badwolf]

If one must throw soup, Perhaps instead of throwing soup at works of art... Throw soup on oil conglomerate executives, to start.

[kelseyfrog]

That's the thing I don't get. A billion dollars could make 1000 oil exec's lives hell. The CIA did far worse with far fewer resources.

[serf]

look at any other 'eco-terrorist' group, you'll find more direct action rather than propagandist actions intended to influence the public.

the Animal Liberation Front didn't ask the public to destroy slaughter-houses. the sea-shepherds didn't ask the public to attack whaling vessels, and to give an example from fiction 'Avalanche' didn't ask the public to attack power stations.

[omginternets]

Relatedly: what might an irrational actor do FOR the cause?

[jonnycomputer]

Oh, people do all kinds of stupid stuff to trend on TikTok...

[colechristensen]

Doubtful. Having little connection to reality and doing ridiculous things is much more likely than malice.

[bts327]

Likely the case

[kevin_thibedeau]

Hopefully they'll all be charged as co-conspirators.

[1ris]

That's what people said about PETA and whatever outrageous stuff they did.

Time has disproven these people. I don't see how this is any different.

[chucksmash]

That's a huge subjective leap to say time has disproved people who consider PETA and their methods ridiculous.

I would consider myself a person in favor of the ethical treatment of animals, and PETA campaigns like (the now quite old, but eminently memorable) "rebranding fish as sea kittens" [1] are so far out in la-la land, so ridiculous, and go so far in letting perfect be the enemy of good ("let's go after those unethical pescatarians!") that the organization loses credibility.

It doesn't help that in the intervening years, my main interaction with the organization (as well as Oxfam, ASPCA, etc) has been shady third party donation subscription hawkers trying to earn commissions off of tricking me into acknowledging them on lunch hour.

If there have been improvements in the treatment of animals over time, I'd make my own subjective leap to say they happened in spite of PETA, not because of it.

[1]: https://spotlight.peta.org/petaseakittens/

[1ris]

Yes, peta are profoundly unlikeable people, back then and now. I don't like them, I think their holocaust comparisons are unforgivable and neither am i vegan. My point is that they are living rent free in peoples heads and do actually change attitudes. Because there was a huge change and i just don't see who else could have caused that.

My point was: Effective activism does not have to be likeable. Going for the opposite seems a viable strategy.

[bawolff]

I mean, at least "fish are sea kittens" has some connection to their cause. The girl with the pearl earing isn't exactly mining coal.

[chadash]

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you implying that the world has come to accept PETA's cause. Because while some issues are dramatically different than 20-30 years ago (e.g. marijuana legalization, gay marriage), I don't think the bar has shifted very much on animal welfare.

[1ris]

Of course everybody thinks PETA as lunatics, maybe rightfully. But it was them made veganism a thing. It's mainstream now. I guess about between 2% and 5% of the population and growing. Burger king and McDonalds sell vegan options. That's absurdly successful. When they started it was literally about 5 people.

I don't think most vegans will quote them for their change, but their activism that gave animal welfare attention in a attention economy, when it would otherwise simply not have gotten any.

[GekkePrutser]

I think globalisation plays a part in this too. Some Asian cultures are vegetarian or vegan and increased ties with the rest of the world has spread their culture too.

I often eat at a Nepalese vegan restaurant and the food sure beats McDonald's or burger king. Not to mention they actually believe in veganism, they don't just have a token veggie burger on the menu because the market wants it.

They even prohibit consumption of baby food with meat on the premises :)

[Fnoord]

Prohibition is the very issue. Instead, market whatever vegan you got as better for environment (if that is your goal).

As for prohibiting baby food, I would kindly tell them to go fuck themselves. Nobody is going to prohibit a parent from feeding their baby with food already prepared and bought. Its exactly this type of rhetoric which makes moderates skip on vegan community (and I eat vegan dishes on a daily basis!)

I don't want whoever to believe, I want a neat combination of healthy, tasty, and good for environment/animal, but in a spectrum. Not extremes, not any toxic belief systems.

(As for McDs and BK there are better veggie and vegan options available but I prefer BK vegan way over McDs vegan, hands down. That we have these options is a sign of time. When I was full-time vegan it was a nightmare to go out eating. Now we have New York Pizza delivering delicious vegan shoarma pizzas.)

[2muchcoffeeman]

I think the implication is that PETA legitimately believes in their cause and methods.

[pvaldes]

And they fail again and again. Peta (and similar groups), are responsible of a lot of acts that can only described as environmental terrorism. And they did it for the money, not for the cause.

[ElevenLathe]

When was the last time you saw someone wearing fur?

[pvaldes]

> When was the last time you saw someone wearing fur?

Winter of 2022, half of Europe. PETA can frolic naked in the snow if they want.

[ElevenLathe]

What? Anyway the point is that fur was at one point, not that long ago, quite common and fashionable, and now most people have never even seen a fur coat. This could be simply fashion (we dress a lot less formally now in general) but IMO you can also trace it pretty directly to PETA throwing paint on people wearing them. Why buy an expensive fur if somebody is just going to ruin it with paint or, worse, you just look like an asshole wearing it?

[paulcole]

I don’t know why you think that’s odd. Imagine an incredibly rare disease you’ve barely heard of. How much do you honestly care about it being cured? Now imagine you have that disease. Are you still as ambivalent?

Most people don’t care that deeply about the things that don’t affect them (or their friends/family).

[_hypx]

I've come to realize that most environmentalists don't really understand climate change. I guess it is similar to how PETA protests animal abuse but in a very dumb manner. Sure, there is a problem at the bottom of it, but these groups are very detached from reality.