Just Stop Oil activists throw soup at Van Gogh’s Sunflowers after fellow protesters jailed
www.theguardian.com
Three individuals targeted National Gallery paintings an hour after Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland were jailed for similar attack in 2022

This was the one soup-throwing which did any damage at all; in this case to the frame.

The penalty is appreciably worse than for minor violent attacks.

  • stormesp@lemm.eeEnglish
    2910·
    3 months ago

    The worse part is that they started with a plain wrong argument, this is not to attract the attention of billionaires, altough it can too. This is to catch the attention of everyone, to create a higher mass that is needed to change something, and tbh they are making more people aware of the issues, even if they get some stupid arguments against them when they are really doing no real harm as far as im aware.

    • Telorand@reddthat.com
      2115·
      3 months ago

      Okay, and who hasn’t heard of climate change by now? Who has been living under a rock that doesn’t know that Big Oil is bad?

      “Create a higher mass,” ffs… You sound like a Christian justifying buying those “He Gets Us” Superbowl ads, as if nobody in the US has heard of Jesus before.

      And no real harm? I guess we can just destroy history and artifacts, because who needs to learn from that shit amirite?

      • november@lemmy.vgEnglish
        166·
        3 months ago

        What’s the point of preserving artifacts if there’s no one to look at them anymore?

          • stormesp@lemm.eeEnglish
            183·
            3 months ago

            Which artifact was damaged? Because even in your link the article says:

            "The New York Times’ ran an article titled “Climate Activists Throw Mashed Potatoes on Monet Painting,” further describing it in the subtitle as “the latest attack on widely admired art.” However, it is not until the fifth paragraph that the article notes that “the food did not cause any damage to the piece.” This raises the question, does the public differentiate between “damaging pieces of art” and “pretending to damage pieces of art” in their views of these non-violent, disruptive protests?

            Also comparing having to make people understand the degree of damage we get from climate change vs christianity, its just an amazing analogy lol, what can i even say after that?. Have a nice day, i think you really need it.

            • Telorand@reddthat.com
              612·
              3 months ago

              However, it is not until the fifth paragraph that the article notes that “the food did not cause any damage to the piece.” This raises the question, does the public differentiate between “damaging pieces of art” and “pretending to damage pieces of art” in their views of these non-violent, disruptive protests?

              That’s the thing. Did they know for a fact that what they did was not going to cause damage. I suspect they didn’t care, and the fact that they didn’t cause damage is likely in spite of their tactics.

              As for my analogy, like all analogies, it is imperfect. The point is that the effort to “inform people” isn’t enough anymore. Virtually everyone has heard the message that Big Oil is bad and climate change is happening; whether they choose to accept it is a different matter, and on that front JSO is making no headway, as evidenced by that study.

              People need a goal and a path to get there, and defacing public art isn’t something average people will follow.

              Also, thank you for the well-wishes. I hope you have a lovely day, too.

        • Optional@lemmy.world
          76·
          3 months ago

          There’s people (and children, who don’t need this bullshit) standing right there.