- cross-posted to:
- news
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- news
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
Three individuals targeted National Gallery paintings an hour after Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland were jailed for similar attack in 2022
Climate activists have thrown tomato soup over two Sunflowers paintings by Vincent van Gogh, just an hour after two others were jailed for a similar protest action in 2022.
Three supporters of Just Stop Oil walked into the National Gallery in London, where an exhibition of Van Gogh’s collected works is on display, at 2.30pm on Friday afternoon, and threw Heinz soup over Sunflowers 1889 and Sunflowers 1888.
The latter was the same work targeted by Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland in 2022. That pair are now among 25 supporters of Just Stop Oil in jail for climate protests.
Will art matter when we’re all dead from climate change tho?? I guess everyone has their priorities
Jesus Christ.
Yes. You got it. Climate crisis averted because some twits threw soup on a priceless painting and damaged the frame. Now we are all aware, whereas we weren’t before.
respectfully disagree. its way too easy to normalize every disaster, every lie, every little “we’re all going to die anyway”.
I may be a sick minded outlier, but I am ok with this action and others. there is no damage done (soup on glass and cornflour on rock don’t count) and these people are putting their bodies and freedom on the line to keep people talking about what is likely the single biggest existential risk humanity has faced.in 50k years.
right now, any time this issue is in front of eyeballs (even if tangentially reported) its a win.
Honest question but do they really keep people talking about climate change?
I feel like this is the tenth stunt that I’ve read about then came into the comments and it’s just the same talk about exposure vs art vandalism.
I generally just leave these posts more exhausted and don’t give a shit about exposure or vandalism in the end. With climate change being something the furthest from my exhausted mind.
good question. it seems to work on me, but I don’t think I count.
I can say that when people in my orbit start talking about the direct action they have heard about (a few do), it is a possible entry point into a personal discussion on climate change. I don’t often pursue these openings, but I have gotten into 2 or 3 good conversations - apply exponential growth and …?
so, I don’t know. but it feels like its a net positive.
if you do this bullshit for years with zero impact how is that a win? And why even paintings? I mean, let’s be real, not a lot of people care about art. If you want to go this route, at least throw soup at things the masses care about. But really, just don’t because no amount of attention will have any significant impact. You either give people incentive to change or you force them, anything else is not effective.
all good.points. my only retort is that its ineffective until its not. this direcyaction has an effect on a small number of people and I think the blowback is likely minimal - net positive? the people involved may geninely not ever engage in any other way on this issue. and if the marketing people are right, engagement is vital.
I guess you feel like climate change is being tackled seriously and with great haste then. You’re right, calling more extreme attention to this issue is a waste of time, we’re gonna meet the 1.5C limit ez pz lemon squeezey. Shiiiet, you really helped me stop giving a fuck about this issue, whew.
Ah, yes, by throwing soup at a Van Gogh painting, extreme attention has been raised that wasn’t already raised.
Next time they can try public masturbation. After all, apparently, the only thing needed for a successful protest is something that catches eyes and attentions.
So people can go randomly punch the homeless? It won’t matter in the end if we are all dead due to climate change.
You think I’m ok with harming humans because I don’t care if art got ruined?? What?? The fuck
You seem to be ok with causing harm unrelated to the action taken. This is just identifying what that line is.
Congratulations, I award to you the Useful Idiot Ribbon. Wear it proudly as your world burns.
I just don’t see how vandalizing artwork helps the cause. Please explain it to me.
Yesterday you were not talking about climate change. Today you are. Because someone threw soup at a painting and sat down, waiting to be arrested. Had they not done so, you likely would not be talking about climate change.
We’ve been talking about climate change either way. We’re also not talking about climate change, but people claiming climate change while vandalizing.
Perhaps you are. I would assume you’re already probably at least somewhat on board with environmental causes.
How do you think a person who lives in the middle of nowhere, doesn’t have much of an education or anything, would react if they saw someone doing this? Probably that they must care a lot to get arrested for doing something intentionally. What makes it worth it? What are they about? Oh, something called Just Stop Oil… oh, an environmental group. Something called climate change? If it’s actually happening, I guess we should be doing something about that.
Noone is talking about climate change. They’re talking about shitty protest tactics and why they hate them.
Mmmm, yes, we are
The painting wasn’t “harmed”,
‘In passing his sentence, Hehir said he took into account not only the damage caused to the frame but the potential for even greater damage to be caused to the painting had the soup seeped behind the glass that covered it.’
The frame is also not a human being, and no where did I imply I was ok with harming any person you jackass, false equivalence much?
I believe these antics hurt the advocacy for taking climate change seriously. Their vandalism protests confirm in the minds of the opposition that “climate change is fake because the ‘soup throwers’ are the ones driving it.”.
Its similar to how vegans are dismissed not for their choices in diet but because of how they advocate others to do the same. People that want to go vegan have to do so in spite of the perception the most vocal vegans have created. Instead of accelerating adoption it creates a new barrier. Note, I’m not a vegan. See, I have to say that so I’m taken seriously in this response. That is how bad public perception of veganism is because of its most vocal advocates.
Everyone dying from climate change is not what climate scientists are predicting. Lying about reality will not help the cause.
The fuck? Yes it is. Unable to grow food? Unable to survive extreme weather and weather events?? Where are you getting your climate change info from, faux news??
Would you mind sharing an article from a climate scientist that claims all humans will die? What I have seen is that life will get harder, certain crops will not grow in certain areas anymore, resource-related wars will increase, and weather events will get stronger and more numerous. What I have not seen is that these things result in the extinction of humans. Which is a vastly different statement.
What you’re missing is the understanding that this will keep getting worse, till we are all dead, it’s not gonna taper off and then some places will be ok. As this continues, we will keep tripping past points of no return till everything we relied on for life is gone.
Apparently the climate scientists are missing that understanding too, as I have yet to see any of them claim such.