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.
My tin hat tingles with these guys they’re either too upper middle-class to actually understand the real world or they’re making sure climate activists are a running joke.
I see your point, I do. But I also see theirs. There will be no one around in the future to enjoy or make art if we continue fucking up the world with fossil fuels the way we are.
Maybe it’d be better to walk around posting little signs on the paintings descriptions with a catch phrase like “like art? Stop fossil fuels” then a little blurb about how there’ll be no art in the future if there is no future.
That’s probably how I’d handle it, maybe even try to work with the museum so the signs wouldnt get taken down. But, that doesn’t get media attention. It’d never end up in the news. Maybe after contacting 50 museums it’d get a small mention, but ultimately no one would care.
Our current news cycles don’t encourage people to act civilly when trying to be heard. So that’s why this sort of extreme behavior keeps happening. It’s a vicious feedback loop and just like climate change we don’t seem to be making any moves to stop it.
No bad publicity.
Here are a few reasons why thats not true
-
People talking about these guys being dumbasses does not equate to people taking climate change seriously.
-
There is limited bandwidth for publicity, these morons are taking publicity away from people actively doing the research, enacting changes, building things the help mitigate climate change.
-
They give the opportunity for climate change deniers to lump all climate change activists together with these idiots, allowing them to replace the message of “Act against climate change” to look at all these dumbass climate change activists.
I’m taking it seriously. Are you not taking it seriously?
are taking publicity away
And this is being published where?
Here’s my challenge to you: every time you see Just Stop Oil pop up, post these articles. Get people excited about actually doing something.They give the opportunity for climate change deniers to lump all climate change activists together with these idiots
Deniers are too far gone. You spray paint stone henge, they complain about the lichen. You splash color on a ferrari dealership, they complain about the small business owners. You bomb an oil rig, they say that violence never solves anything. They’re already not on our side.
No, but actions like this will bring more people onto their side.
-
Just like the Civil Rights Protestors!!
/s
Actually, it’s almost exactly like the Civil Rights protesters. MLK even outright said that they didn’t do anything more than marches and sit-ins because those were already illegal and doing anything more could get them killed or prison sentences.
That said, I think this was a stupid way to risk jail time.
Well I just started peeing on people while yelling “Stop Big Oil!” and although I’m embarrassed to admit it, that does make me exactly like Dr. King. Oh, sure it may get me some jail time but that’s what fighting for freedom takes. Er, fighting big oil. Freedom from big oil.
And hey if my POV videos get me a few million clicks on the site in the meantime, I can’t blame the people. They’re hungry for justice!
You are either extremely deluded or a little deluded and almost intentionally misunderstanding their aims.
Climate activists have been chaining themselves to oil infrastructure for decades. How many times can you honestly say you’ve heard of it? I’ve heard of maybe one instance, and it got very little news coverage.
JSO has recently pivoted to this strategy of (temporarily) vandalizing monuments and works of art. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME it happens, it’s all over the news and spawns endless discussion. Almost like IT’S FUCKING WORKING.
I award to you the Useful Idiot Ribbon.
Yeah people do talk about what clueless freaking idiots they are. It sure is working! It’s jenius! Wait til Madison Avenue figures it out!
Climate activists have chained themselves to trees, to construction equipment, to the property of the companies they protest. THAT is serious action.
Throwing soup in a museum is completely tone deaf, utterly counterproductive and pathetic.
Climate activists have chained themselves to trees, to construction equipment, to the property of the companies they protest. THAT is serious action.
You know we need more people doing stuff like this, right?
Not “climate activists.”
You.Have you been inspired to chain yourself to oil infrastructure? To accomplish something real?
I have been inspired not to make a mockery of that action by doing something idiotic and posting it to Instagram pretending it’s serious.
And did you make the news?
I’ll have you know I’ve been featured in several NextDoor posts!
This is what the American public thought of MLK in the 60s:
You mean the American Public that burned the Beatles records because John said they were “bigger than Jesus”? The American Public that treated German POWs better than black Army servicemen? That American Public?
What’s the source of that cartoon? I’m interested to know if it was in fact from Birmingham.
The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Guardian:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
I’m sorry, but these protests are going to far! That was a perfectly fine soup!
I keep thinking that these guys have to be right wing plants. Can these people really be this stupid? Doing this shit and blocking roads only makes people your enemy. Go throw paint on billionaire’s houses or at your nearest court house you idiots
Point of order, they didn’t block the road. They were up on the sign poles. The police stopped traffic.
Good for them.
They’re getting media attention for their message. That isn’t easy to do.
I 100% agree with their message, I 20% agree with their tactics.
So if throwing paint at a entierly replaceable cover for a dusty old painting is too far gone to be acceptable, what action can we take to stop oil production? Like. It needs to stop. To continue producing fossil fuels is a death cult. It needs to stop, like, a decade ago. I ask genuinely, how is this too far, and what is an acceptable response to an existential threat?
Oh, I dunno, any action that’s actually related to the industry? Throwing crap at classic art as a means to bring attention to a cause completely unrelated to classic art is retarded.
So if throwing paint at a entierly replaceable cover for a dusty old painting is too far gone to be acceptable, what action can we take to stop oil production?
God, I wish someone could actually trace the train of events that would lead to reduced oil production from this other than some bizarre notion that throwing soup at a priceless artifact of human heritage will Energize The Masses™ or suddenly convince people who think climate change is a hoax or overblown that it’s actually a serious problem.
Imagine if these activists spent more time going after companies benefiting from fossil fuel production rather than throwing soup in museums…
They’ve done that too, and have encountered media blackouts.
As nice as it would be if they could simply fix the climate problem with the disruption a handful of protests cause, they can’t, and need to draw public attention to the problem.
These demonstrations open up the conversation in threads like this - you agree there’s a problem, you agree these protests don’t fix the problem, so let’s talk about what will.
Well, clearly not throwing crap at paintings. Now I want to see these guys arrested and thrown in jail.
Seems to me that it would be pretty difficult to encounter a media blackout to do this sort of thing at, for example, global climate summits, oil company shareholder meetings, etc.
But I’m not seeing much soup being thrown there.
By ‘media blackout’ they mean ‘it was a blip on the radar like this is, but this is NOW and thus relevant and important’
The people who talk about ‘media blackouts’ also seem to forget that everyone has an internet-connected video camera in their pockets.
What are you even trying to say here? That any bastard with a camera and something to show will magically be seen, or that everyone with a smartphone is going to be aware of everything that affects them? Because neither of those things is remotely close to the way the world works.
You were aware of the JSO protesters shutting down the oil pipeline? If and that’s a big “if” so, do you think the average schmuck is? No. But chances are that they’re aware of the stunts like the soup.
In Germany, protestors repeatedly shut oil pipelines off and locked themselves to the valves to prevent their reopening, blocking oil flow for several hours every time. I consume a lot of news, both mainstream and in my leftist bubble. That story barely registered anywhere.
The exact same protestors threw mashed potatoes at a Van Gogh. They were the main headline for over a week.
Hell, some guy set himself on fire a few years ago and it was in the news for half a day.
The media blackout is real, but it’s not a huge conspiracy. It’s just that the media reports on what gets them clicks, and nothing generates clicks like outrage. That’s why so much reporting also conveniently forgets to mention that the paintings are protected by plexiglass and nothing ever got damaged. But all the controversy gets people talking, and some people will inevitably question what drives people to do something like that. That is the real objective. If they wanted to be popular, they’d to greenwashed recycling videos on YouTube instead, or whatever else is hip with the neoliberal peddlers of personal responsibility at the moment.
And how will this get corporations to stop drilling for and selling and taking advantage of fossil fuels? How do you get from throwing soup to that?
You stop the problem from being buried under the fact that everyone is struggling to get by, or distracted by whatever the fuck the likes of the Kardashians are up to. You bring it to the forefront and prompt conversations like these - conversations where someone might realise that to stay the course on this one is to roll down the road to the apocalypse, and maybe they’d like to do something about that.
I feel like we’re kind of entering an era where direct action and ecology-motivated terrorism are going to start becoming a thing. And I’m honestly not sure that would be a bad thing.
Peaceful protests have not worked, disruptive protests have been widely villified and the protestors jailed for very long sentences. If you are facing 2-3 years for holding up a banner or throwing some paint seems like criminal damage of a fossil fuel facility isn’t likely to net more years. As many have said in the past governments ignore peaceful protests at their peril, because once its clear that doesn’t work they become not peaceful.
If everything is illegal, nothing is illegal.
If you’re gonna get thrown in jail if you’re caught regardless, why not go for broke?
Assuming there’s no collateral damage to speak of, I’d argue it would be an act of self-defence for the benefit of all of us. In principle, I’d struggle to find reason to be upset by it.
There will be collateral damage. There always is. The idea there wouldn’t be collateral damage is already setting the bar higher than is feasible.
I don’t think that’s true at all, but if it is, it becomes a question of whether that damage is outweighed by the benefit of the action.
Right? Go throw soup at Darren Woods or one of the oil execs, not at a painting
Remember when famous assholes used to get pies in the face? What happened to that?
I remember when people would throw animal blood on rich fucks going to gala events who were wearing fur.
Right? I admit I don’t have the bravery it takes to do stuff like that, but it seems like neither does anyone else anymore.
So… that’s straight up assaut. There’s a good reason why they changed tactics, and it’s mostly because throwing soup at a Plexiglas barrier is 100x less destructive to property than covering valuable furs with blood.
I find it absolutely mind-boggling that you all are acknowledging that protests that make people uncomfortable are what works, then coming to the conclusion “but not like this, you can’t protest like this, that’s ridiculous!”
Then they wouldn’t get their five minutes of fame, though. And even worse, they couldn’t even claim their five minutes of fame was some self-righteous moment that they should be lionized for. A fate worse than death, basically.
I see shit like this and I think about people like Erin Brockovich and Karen Silkwood…
Sounds a lot like boring work that has no grand trumpets or asspats at the end of the rainbow, or that requires specialized skills and education. Can’t we just draw some attention to ourselves, cry out “Climate change!” and call it a day?
Nah - let’s just feel superior by whining about people doing something to defer the apocalypse - both stunts to draw attention, and shutting down oil pipelines directly.
Imagine if all the people I disagree with did the thing I wanted…
I’m sure you’ve never suggested people doing something might be better off spending their time doing something else, but most people have.
Then we wouldn’t be talking about stopping oil production right now.
We’ve literally been talking about it for decades. An Inconvenient Truth won the Oscar in 2006. What has talking about it accomplished?
That’s not my point. Everytime they deface something, we start talking again about stopping oil production. Sure we talk about it without that push too. But this means we start talking about it more.
When has talking about ending reliance on fossil fuels ever stopped? I don’t remember it stopping.
Most people are aware that the Earth is warming and fossil fuels are the cause. There’s nothing you or I can do about that. It’s the corporations that have to be stopped. I can’t stop them. You can’t stop them. Talking about them won’t stop them and neither will throwing cans of soup.
In fact, I have no idea what will stop them, but talking sure as fuck won’t.
So we should just stop trying anything and do nothing?
Bit we’re not talking about stopping oil production. We’re talking about how stupid and pointless defacing art is.
We’reI’m talking about how stupid and pointless defacing art is.FTFY.
Then they would be in cages already.
I brought up Karen Silkwood and Erin Brockovich elsewhere. They were not put in cages. They were just willing to do some very hard work rather than just stunts.
Also the section “jso critics” and “does it work”
“No art on a dead planet” is a braindead justification and does not in any way outline how vandalism of art is supposed to translate into climate activism, while the four criteria outlined for activism are valid but in no way provide a special justification for vandalism of cultural artifacts, which has a significantly greater backlash from the exact kind of educated people most likely to get involved in climate activism, and very little disruptive potential.
“I understand that we’re pissing people off but there’s no other way to get attention” and “Negative attention is good attention, because maybe it will cause people to become positively engaged with the cause” are not particularly compelling rebuttals in the critics section.
“JSO was central in setting the 2024 Labour agenda” is utterly deluded, while all the cited actions by their sister organizations in Europe are much more traditional instances of civil disobedience that have long-proven track records and a clear and logical progression of action-to-influence.
This really reinforces my view that JSO are terribly naive and have no real idea on how their actions will seriously lead to mass change of opinions on climate change.
“No art on a dead planet” is a braindead justification and does not in any way outline how vandalism of art is supposed to translate into climate activism
If damaged art hurts your feelings get mad at the government killing all art on the planet and not the activists partially damaging some art.
“I understand that we’re pissing people off but there’s no other way to get attention” … not particularly compelling rebuttals in the critics section
Why not? How else should they be getting attention?
“JSO was central in setting the 2024 Labour agenda” is utterly deluded,
I won’t disagree
This really reinforces my view that JSO are terribly naive and have no real idea on how their actions will seriously lead to mass change of opinions on climate change.
Yeah I don’t get the vibe from you that you’d change your view
Partially related but do you have any evidence that jso tactics has a “greater backlash from the exact kind of educated people most likely to get involved in climate activism” or is that kinda vibes based
Can I request an article or at least a transcription?
YouTube provides transcripts. It’s in the discription on the website
YouTube provides transcripts.
Wow. I am behind the times. I’ll look through it then.
Go fuck with the billionaires and lawmakers at their homes, offices, doctor’s appointments, at the store, while they’re out for coffee, etc. Fuck with the people actually causing the problem
What’s your plan to keep society functioning with the immediate end of fossil fuels?
That wasn’t my question. But if you must know, if the choice is between “maintaining the current standard of living” and “stop risking the habitability of the one place known that can support life”, I choose the latter. Everytime. And it’s crazy to choose the former.
It’s crazy to think those are the only choices.
But what about The Economy®™?!? We can’t possibly have Apple only make 10s of billions of dollars in profit instead of 100s of billions of dollars because we made the price of goods destroying our planet more expensive!
If we start to make the cost of goods proportional to the associated environmental destruction, I won’t be able to buy the 12th pair of Nikes for my shoe collection. I might have to wear my clothes more than once, and GASP, take public transit places.
Like sure, our grandkids may get to grow up in a world looking like something out of Mad Max, but at least I wouldn’t have to suffer any inconveniences to my lifestyle.
Society functioning in the way it’s currently functioning is the cause of the problem. It’s gonna stop because we change how we do things, or it’ll get stopped in a way we have no control over, which is worse across every possible metric.
Why does it have to be an immediate end and not a phase out? Right now, we’re not even phasing out.
Pretty uncharitable interpretation of something posted by someone who I would guess you have a common goal with.
People that give a fuck about “priceless art” or whatever are so silly. Lmao.
I’m not saying to not continue posting articles like this, but I do think that maybe your time would be better spent arguing with people who don’t believe in climate change instead of arguing with people who do believe in climate change.
People that give a fuck about “priceless art” or whatever are so silly. Lmao.
Yeah, who gives a shit about the cultural history of humanity, am I right? After destroying paintings, maybe the can go after other things of cultural significance! Bulldoze the Great Serpent Mound! Blow up Angkor Wat! Carve rude words into the Elgin Marbles!
There is no art on a dead planet.
Got it. Cut up the Martin Luther King, Jr. memorial into usable stone for building material.
While we’re at it, let’s also do it to the Holocaust memorial in Berlin. That’s a lot of useful stone blocks.
No art on a dead planet, am I right?
If we’re all dead, the memorials are for all of us anyway.
When someone calls for ending something last decade it required immediate action now.
Okay, well that’s not going to happen. But maybe, if we’re lucky, it can be phased out.
Kinda dumb of you to assume the only option to stop oil is an immediate cessation of all usage
Kinda dumb to call for the end of fossil fuels a decade ago.
Why?
We don’t have a means to replace energy needs today and we were even further away a decade ago.
You don’t think maybe we would be closer to having that means of energy production now if we started 50 years ago when we noticed the impacts of climate change?
Youre assuming climate activists have the MORONIC idea of just transitioning to shit tech, instead of the idea of investing in making tech that can replace oil usage
Investing in nuclear would help.
“I chose to peacefully disrupt a business-as-usual system that is unjust, dishonest and murderous.”
Ah, yes, the murderous system of [checks notes] art made generations before you were born.
Was it actually damaged? Seems like the only damage done was to the frame.
Damage was only done to the frame on this occasion, yes. Their claim of disrupting an unjust etc etc etc system though hinges on them disrupting the system of… viewing priceless art in a public gallery.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Stop_Oil
In April 2022, it was reported that Just Stop Oil’s primary source of funding was donations from the US-based Climate Emergency Fund.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileen_Getty
Aileen Getty is an American heiress and activist. She is a member of the Getty family, the granddaughter of J. Paul Getty. She co-founded the Climate Emergency Fund in 2019.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Paul_Getty
Jean Paul Getty Sr. (/ˈɡɛti/; December 15, 1892 – June 6, 1976) was an American-born British petroleum industrialist who founded the Getty Oil Company in 1942 and was the patriarch of the Getty family.[1] A native of Minneapolis, he was the son of pioneer oilman George Getty. In 1957, Fortune magazine named him the wealthiest living American,[2] while the 1966 Guinness Book of Records declared him the world’s wealthiest private citizen, worth an estimated $1.2 billion (approximately $8.6 billion in 2023).[3] At the time of his death, he was worth more than $6 billion (approximately $25 billion in 2023).[4] A book published in 1996 ranked him as the 67th wealthiest American who ever lived (based on his wealth as a percentage of the concurrent gross national product).[5]
So she assuages her guilt for having a huge oil inheritance by donating some of it to encourage other people overseas to go to jail protesting other people doing what her grandfather made his money doing. Great.
Honestly, got no problem with that. We aren’t responsible for the actions of our ancestors. The issue is whether what she’s funding is effective.
I dunno. if I was born into a family rich on something like oil, I hope I’d spend a bunch to end our dependence on it. chiefly because it’s better than not, and I’d also have the fortune to do so, and the irony of using oil money to get us post-oil like we’re Norway would be a bit of added cheek.
What should she do in her position: lay about like Bruce Wayne or try to do good like batman?
What do you expect her to do instead?
Maybe she should be the one throwing the soup if that’s what she thinks need to happen?
So… you’d be okay with this action if she were the one throwing the soup? I’m super lost.
No, I’m saying if that’s what she thinks should happen, she should do it herself and not hide behind her money. It’s not about whether or not I’d be okay with the action, it’s about her cowardice.
Well, she inhereted all that money, right? Maybe… Juuuust maybe she could spend it on nuclear or green energy production technologies.
Just Stop Oil has to be the most destructive and idiotic activist group I’ve ever heard of (besides Greenpeace and their anti-nuclear agenda). They make activism as a whole look bad with their pointless stunts.
What does Vincent van Gogh have to do with the current state of the petrol industry? What does any classical artist have to do with the current state of the petrol industry? Why go out of one’s way to try and ruin something that isn’t even remotely related to the subject? They’re only making themselves look like a bad joke.
Doesnt help they’re total assholes either; a few years ago they blocked a motorway in England in protest. Fair enough. But there was a family who’s baby had to be rushed to the nearest hospital, and they weren’t allowed to pass! Seriously, fuck them.
Heard an interview a while ago with a founder of Just Stop Oil who clearly said he doesn’t care whether they even stop climate change (around 40:00-43:00).
What does Vincent van Gogh have to do with the current state of the petrol industry?
It’s famous, so attacking it gets attention.
Evidence suggests that disruptive protests actually help, rather than hinder organisations like JSO:
It’s all about raising awareness and facilitating discussions.
Meanwhile petrol companies are doing everything they can to smother protests: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/26/anti-protest-laws-fossil-fuel-lobby
Consider who gains the most from perpetuating the idea that JSO are the bad guys…
You’d have to live under a rock to not be aware of climate change. If you do live under a rock, you wouldn’t hear about some dumbasses throwing soup in an art gallery.
If you know about climate change, but don’t care about climate change, a stupid act like this is not going to change their mind. Nothing will.
You’d have to live under a rock to think hegemony is doing anything about climate change apart from profiting,
High profile protests like this keep the matter of climate change in the spotlight. They prevent it being brushed under the rug by other events and ensure it remains on the political radar. Maybe you’re right in that if you don’t care about climate change JSO are unlikely to change your mind, but if they help to convert even a handful of people, or at least encourage conversations on the topic that they weren’t having before, that’s a win.
Climate change is a subject that has never left the spotlight. It’s more in the spotlight than ever, no thanks to Just Stop Oil. These guys are contributing absolutely nothing.
only 30% thought disruptive tactics were effective for issues with high awareness but low support
Nicely cherry-picked.
69% of experts thought that disruptive tactics were effective for issues (like climate change) that have high public awareness and support. For issues with high awareness but low support (like anti-vaccination), only 30% thought disruptive tactics were effective.
Lucky JSO are about the former, not the latter.
If they have such high public support why doesn’t the public vote accordingly?
deleted by creator
The majority of people see climate action as a priority:
The reason not everyone is voting accordingly is because political motivation is complex. There’s more things pressing for people’s attention like being able to feed, cloth and home themselves. That’s why addressing societal issues like poverty, inequality etc are part of addressing climate change. We need to free up people’s bandwidth to allow them to concentrate on issues like the climate.
Because we don’t vote on the policies themselves really, we vote on the people who are supposed to vote on the policies in our interests, but the side that claims to be against climate change keeps perpetuating it and we keep allowing them to and reelecting them because learning another guy’s name is hard and they have to have a D in front of their name or else they’re useless, even though those with Ds in front of their name are also useless.
I don’t agree with this but I think I can see the point.
I think it shows how upset people get when they think something like the painting is being destroyed, but do not connect that to the planet being destroyed by the people they protest.
Wreck a van Gogh goto jail, wreck the planet profit.
There is no connection. That’s why it’s stupid.
Also totally unconnected: Oil barons trading these works of art at free ports.
Idiotic is when people still think that the actual art was harmed at all. There have been like dozens of these protests and people still spout this nonsense.
Big oil thanks you for spreading their propaganda for free.
Big oil gets away with shit because the activists that suck up all the attention are retards.
That is the most delusional take.
So delusional it’s actually the reality of the situation.
Tell me, how many oil companies have stopped doing oil since these started throwing soup?
I mean they and others got the UK government to agree to no new oil leases. You can fuck right off cuz they done more then you pissing on this forum and telling us it’s a golden shower.
Big oil dummy is also gross ableist. I’m super surprised.
pointless stunts.
Well, we’re talking about it. I also understand (which doesn’t mean I support) their message without even looking it up. I’m glad someone else clarified it (cf “There is no art on a dead planet.”) proving that it’s really not that hard.
Who cares about the most beautiful piece of art ever if there is nobody left to enjoy it because we are literally burning up the only livable ecosystem we know?
And destroying that art so that if we do end up fixing it and living we still can’t have it isn’t a good look, imo.
It was behind glass. A janitor had to take some Windex to it. The horror!
Ah well that’s good, at least they didn’t destroy anything then.
We’re talking about their pointless stunt, not about climate change. They’re adding absolutely nothing.
Just like art, it is up to the viewer to decide what conversation they want to have. Neither an artist or a protestor can force viewers to have a singular interpretation.
What does Vincent van Gogh have to do with the current state of the petrol industry? What does any classical artist have to do with the current state of the petrol industry? Why go out of one’s way to try and ruin something that isn’t even remotely related to the subject? They’re only making themselves look like a bad joke.
They literally address this: “There is no art on a dead planet.” If all humans are dead, art means nothing. Just stop using oil.
Pearl clutching aside, the art was protected by a plexiglass barrier and did no permanent harm.
An incredibly stupid sentiment.
What’s stupid about protesting while causing zero harm?
The stupid part is y’all falling for this clickbait headline.
And yet, you talk about Just Stop Oil, so it does work.
It’s not a productive discourse though. They draw the ire of everyone doing something so senseless, and that in turn causes damage to the progress of their cause because people don’t want to support them.
An anecdotal example is that I agree with some of their sentiments but I will never support them because they do stupid ineffectual nonsense like this. Take your protests to the places that control these issues. Not a fucking art gallery.
This the exact same sentiment as people had in segregated US had towards activists.
Bringing attention and drawing ire are both sides of the same coin. Your sentence points of the hypocrisy:
Take your protests to the places that control these issues. Not a fucking art gallery.
They have been doing that for decades. And it didn’t do anything, did it? The fact that you tell them to do this points out how ineffective it was because you didn’t even know they were.
This same rhetoric you’re saying existed during many protests, from the suffragettes to the civil rights, and it’s always the same response. “It’s ineffective.” “It’s bothering people.” “Do it elsewhere.” “You’re making the cause worse.” It gets pretty repetitive.
Please don’t misunderstand me. I’m absolutely all for bothering people because it’s needed for change. But there are more and less effective ways to do that. Trashing art thatcis unrelated really seems less effective. Effective to a point, but less effective overall. You mentioned there have been protests at the appropriate places, and I admit I only know a handful. Do you have examples where people have damaged say, a corrupt politicians car? Or perhaps blocked the street where a lobbyist lives? Or maybe thrown red paint or buckets of organ meat and offal on the steps of the supreme court and picketed about the damages they’ve caused to womens rights?
If they have been doing outlandish things to the politicians and places of government, then I’m sorry. I haven’t noticed and I will agree it’s come time to demonstrate elsewhere. I will add that if that’s truly the case, I wish they’d say so when doing these stunts.
Does it though? All I’ve gotten out of it is fuck Just Stop Oil
It does. There’s actually been a fair amount of change from it, and pointing out the incredibly harsh punishments targetted at Just Stop Oil kinda shows that. If it didn’t accomplish anything, why lock up activists for years for an act that was solved by cleaning the plexiglass?
Yeah, so Just Stop Oil grabbed attention with a stupid act. What’s everyone talking about? The stupid act.
The name is the message. Just Stop Oil. And it does work.
Right, because we’re all talking about how greatly effective they are.
I’m confused who this is for. Even many who agree with them don’t appreciate vandalism of art and art galleries.
It’s to get cameras thrust in their face so they ask when oil executives will face consequences.
“Is destroying art worse than destroying the whole planet???”
It’s an idiotic form of protest, it accomplishes nothing but turning the public against you, and forever associating your cause with petty vandalism.
…and yet, here we are talking about climate change. If they’d instead organized a protest of 10,000 people marching for hours it wouldn’t have been international news and we wouldn’t be talking about climate change.
10 thousand people marching would make world headlines. Though admittedly that’s more difficult than smuggling soup in to an art gallery.
You’re really close to getting it. Just a few more steps.
Confirming that “We don’t want to do things the hard way that works, we want to do easy stuff” is the motivation is a hell of a take to present as a positive.
10 thousand people marching would make world headlines.
No, it wouldn’t. Protest is totally normalized now, it’s just a pressure release valve that helps keep the status quo running.
Here is a protest that happened today - https://cloudisland.nz/@simplicitarian/113212289035494255
Apparently it involved between 20,000 to 30,000 people - https://cloudisland.nz/@simplicitarian/113212686270895144
It will not be mentioned in any big news media outside of New Zealand.
“Is destroying art worse than destroying the whole planet???”
It’s a fair question.
Everyone cares so much about protecting this painting. Why don’t they care as much about protecting the planet? (And the painting isn’t even in any real danger. It’s behind glass.)
The vandalism is practically thought-provoking performance art in itself. It’s probably one of the best pieces in the gallery.
The vandalism is practically thought-provoking performance art in itself. It’s probably one of the best pieces in the gallery.
Jesus fucking Christ.
And also everything they do is wrong because all protests are secretly worse than the things being protested.
Let the planet die like all the reasonable people.
They should throw (cold) soup on the children of oil company executives.
I don’t know how many times I need to say this. THAT IS ASSAULT. In most countries that is years of prison. Soup on a Plexiglas barrier is, at most, a few days for disturbing the peace and vandalizing protective equipment. What doesn’t make sense about this to you?
Because soup on plexiglass doesn’t save humanity?
I think some soup on a person is a small price to pay. Frankly, I feel beheading a few million rich people and their spawn is also a SMALL PRICE for eliminating the problem with humanity.
But let’s start with the soup.
What doesn’t make sense about this to you?
I mean if that’s your opinion, I’m right there with you. It’s a drastic solution, but it might work! Problem is, who are you going to get who’s okay with a serious crime and a prison sentence on their record? It doesn’t matter what action they actually do as long as people talk about it. If the news got all up in arms about them putting up posters on their local community board, then I’d suggest that they do that.
I’m going to keep saying “what doesn’t make sense about this to you?” because I feel you’re being wilfully obtuse.
Oh, you can’t get anyone to do it. Because even then change would probably never happen.
Humanity is over, I’m down for whatever ends it the fastest and lets the earth wipe us from existence.
Long live Earth.
Except when they did protests targeted at oil infrastructure, that was still apparently wrong and got far less coverage than much safer stunts like these.
Getting a couple of ounces of soup on a picture frame is hardly the “vandalism of art” people are making it out to be.
Will art matter when we’re all dead from climate change tho?? I guess everyone has their priorities
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.
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.
to keep people talking about
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 …?
“excuse me, but do you have a moment to talk about our
lord and saviourbringer of war and famine?”so, I don’t know. but it feels like its a net positive.
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.
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
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.
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??
when we’re all dead from climate change
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.
What you’re missing is the understanding that this will keep getting worse, till we are all dead
Apparently the climate scientists are missing that understanding too, as I have yet to see any of them claim such.
Will art matter when we’re all dead from climate change tho?? I guess everyone has their priorities
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.
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.
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?
These pro-acrylic protests are getting out of hand!
Pro-acrylic or anti-ear mutilation?
Well, they are oil paintings sooo…
Yeah, but they were painted by a guy who cut off his ear, so maybe this is the Coalition of Two-Eared Painters.
Have my upvote, you monster.
-
It was covered by glass, unclutch your fucking pearls already.
-
Van Gogh is my favorite painter, and I would still rather have a habitable planet for future generations than have Sunflowers. If you’re more mad about this than you are about what big oil and gas companies are doing, sit down and have a good hard think about where your priorities are. I do not give a shit if you “agree with their message but not their tactics” or if you “think it makes the cause look bad” or whatever other bullshit you want to spew to cover your ass right now. Ultimately, if this caused you to feel a greater sense of righteous anger than the wholesale destruction of our environment for profit does, you are part of the problem. I’d rather side with the people who are trying to make a difference, even if I don’t like how they do it, than side with the people plundering our world for personal gain.
-
Have we considered that these protests are astroturfing by big professional art-restoration backers?
We’ve considered they’re astroturfing for big oil, yes.
Ahhh… big oil paint dollars.
Well, that, and hindering the climate change movement by making everyone look like complete moronic twits.
Money well spent, obvs.
Really easy to do when most people’s first reaction is to express concern over a painting than “hey, maybe we need a big shift in how we generate energy or we’re all screwed”. The actual useful idiots.
Really easy to do when most people’s first reaction is to express concern over a painting than “hey, maybe we need a big shift in how we generate energy or we’re all screwed”.
Oh yes, because that’s the dichotomy here. It’s either we vandalize irreplaceable paintings, or we die from climate change.
Or maybe one is entirely unrelated to the other, and this is the equivalent of jacking off in public and claiming to have participated in the fight against world hunger.
Well, like others have said, they previously tried to apply the Nelson Mandela handbook of vandalizing and disrupting actual oil infrastructure - i.e. more direct to what the cause is for - and people gave 0 shits. Turns out regular people don’t care about oil refineries and wells. They do care about museums and art pieces.
I bestow upon you the Useful Idiot Ribbon.
