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.