this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
335 points (92.4% liked)

World News

38969 readers
2220 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I know Lemmy has mixed feelings here, but I personally applaud these activists for risking prison time to draw attention to a major existential threat.

I find it quite entertaining to see all the art aficionados coming out so shook by them getting a little bit of soup onto some plexiglass and a picture frame that they probably couldn't even describe before these incidents. Close your eyes, Is it walnut or cherry? Painted or oil finished? Ornate or simple? 5 or 7 inches wide? Symmetrical or asymmetrical along a horizontal axis?

These protests, which thus far have involved basically zero actual damage of cultural significance have driven significantly more attention (good and bad) to their cause than anything else that has been done. Their protests are non-violent and generally nondestructive.

That said, the real crime here is the judge sentencing 2 years in prison for getting some soup on the frame of a painting - I don't support violent protests, but I'm pretty sure you could just go around and slap oil CEOs in the face for a fraction of the sentence.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Slapping oil CEOs in the face would be much more relevant, and not be targeting irreplaceable cultural artifacts.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)

irreplaceable cultural artifacts

I mean it won't be exactly the same, but I'm pretty sure they can buy more of that plexiglass that got soup'd. Calling plexiglass a cultural artifact feels like a bit of a stretch, but I do think it's replaceable.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Just so we're on the same page here, would this act have been acceptable to you or unacceptable if the painting had actually been damaged?

Frame of paintings like that isn't simply replaceable, by the way, it's also an artifact that's generations old. It's just less important than the painting itself.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Do you condemn the suffragettes?

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Only the ones who tried to damage priceless historical artifacts for attention?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's a yes then, because damaging (actually damaging, not just getting plexiglass wet) was one of their major tactics. It got to the point where museum owners considered denying entry to all women

https://www.npg.org.uk/whatson/firstworldwarcentenary/explore/gallery-stories/suffragette-action

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

That’s a yes then

I am well-aware that Suffragists used this tactic as well, hence

Only the ones who tried to damage priceless historical artifacts for attention?

Or is your argument that the Suffragists were successful, therefore, every one of their tactics was wise?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Depends on your definition of 'damage' - if a drop of soup gets under the plexiglass, I'm not clutching any pearls. If the paintings were completely destroyed, I would not be supportive.

That said its a moot point because these headline grabbing demonstrations have been nondestructive. Stonehenge is fine. The sunflowers will continue to be sunflowery.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Slapping a CEO in the face is assault. That's a serious offense in most countries, and it would be extremely easy to get sent to jail for years.

Throwing soup at a painting that's behind Plexiglas is, at most, disturbing the peace and vandalizing a museum's floor.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Assault on an oil exec... I don't see anything morally wrong here. It's also straight to the point, rather than attacking art.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Morally, perhaps not. But legally yes, justified crimes are still crimes.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

You're welcome to work on that plan.