Examples include Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion here in the UK.
Personally, I think some charities are groups are genuine in their outburst wanting large firms to stop strangling the natural beauty for profit, however for me there is a red line that can be crossed.
Blocking roads preventing medical care, people going to work, interview and possibly a nice vacation away. This doesn’t really help but make the public look at your group in a bad light.
The same can also be said when attempting to destroy priceless art for a cheap publicity stunt knowing it’ll get clicks on social media.
TLDR - I think some groups are genuinely good whilst others are just shouting in a speakerphone, pissing everyone else off.
What do YOU think?
People have literally been convicted for it. You should try moving your goal posts back to reality.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c51y99yrj49o
Apparently the painting was protected by glass. I don’t know the cultural significance of the frame.
Either way, I don’t approve of vandalism against random objects as a form of protest. How much damage was caused is is relevant for sentencing, not the principle.
The protestors stuck around to be arrested and sentenced, that makes it way easier for me to excuse.
IMO minor damage is acceptable, given the cause.
And that is a good thing?
See my initial comment.
But you just learned no art was vandalized. That might change your opinion.
No art was damaged because the protective meassure in place to protect against vandalism, worked. It’s still vandalism.
You basically just went from “This didn’t happen” to “It’s not vandalism” to “It shouldn’t be considered vandalism”. I don’t think I’m the one that should consider changing their opinion here.
Your original statement was
From the links you supplied, in two of the three cases (Stonehenge and Flowers) no damage was done. In the case of Stonehenge, the protestors chose a marker that wouldn’t damage the monument. For Flowers, I’d assume they knew about the glass. But that’s me giving them credit.
For the third (Warhol’s soup), damage was done but remediated.
The protestors are being unfairly accused of fucking up art without justification. Others have used that to dismiss the protests and the cause, which is bullshit.
The protestors have a good cause, they’re getting people to (at least) talk about climate change, and they’re taking the punishment for their actions.
It has been clear for decades that governments should act quickly, wisely and decisively, but they simply do not, preferring to look for other issues. The kids from Just Stop Oil poured soup on glass and sprayed chalk on stones to draw attention to the huge emergency that we collectively ignore. They wanted to attract attention, and they succeeded. But their fellow human beings don’t want to think about the impending climate collapse, let alone take action and join an active protest. That would require leaving the comfort zone. So they get upset anonymously on the internet about the form of protest and act as if art vandalism was being practiced here.
Cognitive dissonance is when your convictions do not match your actions. You solve it by changing either your actions or your beliefs.