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.
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.
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.
>"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."
I don't think this is true, for most people. People do not generally stop and think in a deep and reflective way after getting angry about something. What these activists did was not inspiring and it did not look like justice. They aren't Rosa Parks 2.0, they're people throwing liquid at valuable inanimate objects which people find beautiful while gluing themselves to surfaces at a museum. There is no powerful symbolism of defiance here, this is not speaking truth to power. They just look like childish weirdos. Childish weirdos do not make me self-reflect and question if I'm actually the one doing something wrong.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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?
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.