[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.