Did you know that you can actually get formal training in how to stage an effective peaceful protest? I got some non-violent activism training years ago. There really are experts in this subject who are steeped in the history and statistics and strategies.
I guess these two bozos skipped the class.
I am so entirely supportive of the cause of reducing oil production and consumption, I would be cheering on the cause except…
Their chosen form of protest was to throw tomato soup (what symbolic message is that sending?) on a famous Van Gogh oil painting (is that supposed to be a connection to the oil industry?) and super-glue themselves to the wall. This action sends only one message: the members of the “Just Stop Oil” protest are fucking irrelevant idiots.
Here’s their weak justification:
What is worth more: art or life? Is it worth more than food? Worth more than justice?one of the activists yells, adding,are you more concerned about the protection of a painting, or the protection of our planet and people?She continued,
The cost-of-living crisis is part of the cost of oil crisis. Fuel is unaffordable to millions of cold, hungry families. They can’t even afford to heat a tin of soup.
The problem with that logic is that putting art in a museum does not at all conflict with the goal of reducing oil consumption. Are they suggesting that sacrificing art is necessary to protect the planet and to feed the hungry? They’ve also “called for roads across London to be blocked every day in October to protest fossil fuels” which sounds like a stronger protest than defacing paintings. There’s at least a strong connection between the action and the goal.
Also, the painting was protected behind a sheet of glass. They couldn’t even get the defacement right.
I believe the painting being behind glass was part of why it was chosen. They didn’t want to actually cause damage to a painting, they just wanted to draw attention to their cause. Personally, I’m less interested in critiquing their tactics and more interested in discussing the issues they’re concerned about. Critiquing non-violent protest tactics always seems to me to drift entirely too easily into system justification.
Well, the solution is simple.
Shut off all food and petroleum to London during the fall and winter to protect the starving poor from life.
And ban soup and glue.
Since we’re unable to prohibit idiocy, might as well join it in the new idiocracy.
Or sentence both to six months of tomato soup as primary ingredients of all meals, with no heat or warmth allowed for said meals.
Throw soup at oil execs? Sure.
The production of super-glue and tomato soup require fossil fuels.
I’m curious what part of the message leaving behind swatches of bloody hand epidermis plastered to the wall is suppose to represent.
@ ^ Dennis : That they’ve got skin in the game and are sacrificing bits of themselves for their cause?
That they are literally being “hands on?” A bloody stop sign even?
I understand that # 1.kome is correct. They didn’t want to damage the painting.
They wanted to gain attention and make people think. Maybe they’ve done that since here we are talking about it.
Is that a bad thing?
They didn’t actually hurt anyone or damage the painting.
I’m not sure but I don’t oppose what they did here & it follows a previous exampel in Melbourne -Australia – see :
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-09/protesters-glue-themselves-to-picasso-painting-ngv-in-melbourne/101516560
So .. dunno.
Meanwhile much of the eastern states of Oz are going underwater as I type this or still flooded as I type or both..
PS. It occurs to me that you call this protest a form of art in itself..
Performance art in an art gallery on an issue a lot of artists would agree with them on.
Banksy shreds one of his own works to make a point, a urinal in an art gallery becomes a work of art – when is art? (To cite Nelson Goodman.)
Will more people now see this artwork because of this extra bit of, again, non-destructive history added to it?
is this a protest I’d have done or joined? No. Is it something I’d advocate doing? Probly not.
If people have other and better ideas for protests, I’m sure they’d be happy to hear them..
It is clear they are going to cop a lot of outrage and criticism and abuse for this to an extent fair enough and I’m not sure it was the best protest method yet.. what else can or should they do that would suceed in getting this level of discussion going?
I hope this doesn’t set a precedent that ends up either damaging artworks or making art less accessible to people.I think the novelty value and thus attention recived from such form of protests will very quickly wear off.
Priorities? The questions over what and who we value and why?
@ 2. wzrd1 : What the .. really? Why?
Don’t you think that’s a bit OTT? 7
These kids will probably be forgotten by the end of the year.
Yeah, that will show ‘em!
What’s that sound I hear? The sound of oil company executives and libertarian fuckwads laughing their asses off?
@8
I’m figuring the end of the week only to be brought up occasionally by right-wingers to lambast any efforts to deal with climate change.
Everyone knows about it.
No damage the painting.
Mission accomplished.
I saw this yesterday, and was rather outraged at the idea of soup on Van Goghs iconic Sunflowers.
I wish I didn’t have to read to the very last line of the news stories to learn the fact that there is glass protecting the actual painting.
That turned any concern to meh, no harm done. They got attention, but it was a dumb stunt to attack a national treasure in order to win support for your cause.
I liked the initial wordplay by @6 StevoR so worth it? Their spectacle was a bit better and distracted from that provided in this news cycle by Kanye. Another plus. But overall their tactics seemed to backfire for reasons gleaned in PZ’s OP.
Given my crappy week the photo in the OP was priceless though.
… tomato soup (what symbolic message is that sending?) …
We’ll need a seance summoning Andy Warhol to address that properly.
Oh, great. Performance art against the collective mass ignorance and arrogance of the American people. Lotsa luck.
Performance art?
I want my dead carcass to be loaded into a cannon and fired into the office of one of the lobbying companies that “manufacture dissent” about global warming, smoking et cetera.
Especially if I have died of Ebola or Lassa feber.
weylguy
This occurred in the British Museum, which is in London.
As protests go, this one seems fairly pointless.
If you want to protest Big Oil, throw dead oiled marine animals on their cars–or them–during a press conference, like protesters did to Exxon executives while they were busy BSing that everything was fine and that there was no real damaged caused by the Exxon Valdez oil spill, etc.
The protesters did it on live TV. That’s what an effective protest looks like.
Or this.
https://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/23/us/alaska-fishermen-blockade-tankers.html
Blockading an entire sea route sends a pretty clear message. Throwing soup on a plexiglassed work of art? Not so much.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valdez_Blockade
and of course, this.
https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/arctic/exxon-valdez-oil-spill/
For a protest to be effective, it generally has to inconvenience or embarrass the offending parties and get the public’s attention–in a GOOD way. If the news channels mentioned the protest at all, they did it as filler, not as a feature. In interviews with random passerby, the public perception was largely one of confusion. If you are trying to send a message, it helps if it’s an unambiguous one.
Six weeks from now, these two clowns are going to be the Jeopardy question that no one gets.
@16- birgerjohansson
I had thought writing into my will that someone tandem skydives with my corpse and cuts it loose at a certain altitude and a tombstone is placed wherever it splats into the ground. I get to skydive without triggering my fear of heights.
But now I want my corpse launched and splatted into something that itself offends the world. I could be my own Jackson Pollock style protest painting overlying something else. What though?
@14 – Yes, clearly a reference to Andy Warhol. They wanted to announce to the world that they are a different kind of hole.
Campbell’s Soup Cans
Nothing but adolescent, uninformed fumbling.
First, nobody got the message: people who know about the climate disaster don’t need this kind of stunt, and those who don’t “believe” or are uninterested will only be reinforced in viewing the climate discussion as senseless twaddle.
Second: slippery slope. Don’t give ideas to idiots, as serious damage to art objects is all too easy to do and could become yet another way for such idiots to damage the world. This painting was protected, but many other (and better) ones are not. If it becomes fashionable, any chucklef*ck with a grievance, real or imagined, could do enormous damage.
Lastly, my advice to them if only they could hear it: keep your soup/glue/other at home, and grow a brain.
I agree that this is a Warhol reference. On the bright side, they didn’t choose to reference Piero Manzoni because those cans would’ve contained something much worse than tomato soup.
Not completely true. Have a look at the British museum’s list of current corporate sponsors, for example.
hey glued themselves to the wall afterwards. Police un-glued them and arrested them.
My question is simply, why not LEAVE them glued to the wall for a day or so? To teach them a lesson! They did it to themselves and obviously they aren’t going anywhere so let them stew in their idiocy for a while. Give the staff the day off and have a cop keep watch in case they want to say anything meaningful.
After day 1 or so of pissing on themselves and being hungry and bored with stiff legs from not moving all while being mocked by the cops and any remaining staff, they’d be begging to be arrested without incident!!! Offer them some of their leftover soup from the painting glass to lick for substance.
At that point, jail is optional and we all get entertained for a while.
@24 Cause they’ll probably break something if you left these idiots unattended. In addition, some poor bastard will have to clean their shit and piss off the floor along with the soup.
With the available technology in digital imaging and printing the original is actually superfluous.
Is the art the visual image or the goop and the canvas & board it’s stuck to?
The art is the masterful skill of a human hand using color and brushstrokes on a flat surface to create the image. Van Gogh was hugely influenced by the ancient art of Japanese woodblock printing, and his bold style in turn inspired abstract art.
A scan is a photo of the art.
Schnitzel Von Knobbschafft gets it best.
Me, I’m impressed by the courage of those young women.
No mere keyboard warriors, they.
(They walk the walk, not just talk the talk)
@26 – 27: apart from the skill, Van Gogh’s paintings are often almost three-dimensional. The colours are not flat, there’s a lot of impasto (if that’s the correct term) and the thickness and structure of the brushstrokes are quite significant.
A scan, however good, will not be able to do justice to the actual piece, not in this case at least.
Tethys, my house features prints of H.R. Giger and Hieronymus Bosch, among others.
According to you, they are not art, not being the originals.
(Also, did you know that there are people whose vocation is to determine the authenticity of paintings? So, in your estimation, sometimes one needs extremely high levels of expertise to determine whether a particular painting is art or is not art)
outis, see this: https://nypost.com/2021/09/07/museum-says-art-collectors-van-gogh-piece-is-a-fake-suit/
The principle is simple.
I give you two objects, which to you appear identical, and inform you one is an original and one is a copy.
I ask you which one is the work of art.
How do you answer?
(This is rhetorical, to illustrate the point I am belabouring)
@John Morales
I am trained as a technical artist, and am well aware of how many hours of practice the basic techniques it requires to achieve the hand eye coordination and supreme skill level evident in a Van Gogh.
Mine features Van Gogh, Klimt, Monet, Miro, and Jen Nielsen. I often study them for their various techniques, but I assure you that a digital reproduction of a one of a kind handcrafted oil painting is not Art, but art.
It does not have quite the same impact as viewing the original art in person.
Renoir in person is magical. It glows from within.
There are very few people who are good enough artists to fake a Van Gogh, even if they had the original to hand.
You don’t seem to understand that ART is in the skills and techniques you must master in order to create anything that attracts the eye and engages your senses.
Tethys, you indulge in snobbishness.
Um, I’ve seen originals. No glow, contrary to your assertion.
Which is exactly the same as saying at least some people are good enough artists to fake a Van Gogh.
Art is what anyone calls art.
(https://allthatsinteresting.com/piero-manzoni)
@JM
I’m snobbish because I am educated in the area of art, or because I’m refusing to engage your attempts at a silly argument?
Perhaps you saw a different Renoir, not everything he created was great art.
You’re snobbish because you think that, unless something is an original, it’s not art.
Sorry, ART.
You’re snobbish because you think unless some original piece is seen in person, one has not actually seen the ART.
(And, hey, you have been engaging with what you imagine are my attempts at a silly argument. As I once mentioned quite some years ago here, commenting in blogs is my own art-form. :) )
In passing, I put it to you that if one needs special education to appreciate ART, then that ART is not for ordinary people. Peons like me, that never had to study to be able to determine what one finds artistic.
So, yeah, that aspect, too.
As for the topic at hand, well, the painting itself was not damaged in any way.
And commenters all know that.
So I think most of the aggrieved sanctimony expressed herein relates to the effrontery and disrespect shown to the painting.
(FFS! It’s a famous painting! How dare they!)
I am amused to know all these things I supposedly think about Art, but I’m not interested in arguing with someone who thinks a print of an old master is the same as the original work of art. One requires artistic skill, the other does not.
In any case, perhaps you could appreciate the art of Lesser Ury rather than trying to tell me what I think? I am very impressed at his skillful rendering of light and reflections.
Tethys:
Whatever made you imagine I think a print of an old master is the same as the original work of art?
But there’s no supposition about your own claims, unless I believe you to be a liar (which I do not).
“The art is the masterful skill of a human hand using color and brushstrokes on a flat surface to create the image.”
“I am trained as a technical artist”
“I am educated in the area of art”.
“I assure you that a digital reproduction of a one of a kind handcrafted oil painting is not Art, but art.”
Snob.
So, do I physically have to go to where the original art-piece resides, or can I just look up the scans on the internet to achieve that appreciation?
Presumably the former, since otherwise it would “not have quite the same impact as viewing the original art in person.”
—
PS
Your claim that “I’m not interested in arguing” is getting less convincing with each subsequent retort.
(Actions belie claims)
@24, mamba : So you think peaceful protestors who are trying to get action on Climate Change – however misguided their methods may be – deserve to suffer and be mocked and put through a humiliating and painful ordeal to deter peaceful protests aiemd at improving our shared and overheating planet. Wow.
Totally disagree with you there. As well as what #25. gijoel noted in his second sentence. (For his first none note that they deliberately didn’t actually break anything & almost certainly weren’t intending to.. )
I reply because I wanted you to go look at Lesser Ury paintings. As your list had multiple impressionists, I thought you might appreciate a less well known member of that school. His trees and landscapes are especially lovely IMO, and almost abstract in their simplicity.
I Googled your reference, having never heard of that name before (and, shameful to say, to check you were not pulling my leg). Yeah, a painter of old.
In my estimation, from the images I saw, pretty boring stuff.
Not something I’d put up on my walls.
Meh, is my opinion. But then, I’m not seeing the originals.
(I know myself pretty well; I’d still think they were ‘meh’)
@JM
I usually make sure you know if I’m needling you, but why would I invent an artist?
I’m actually looking at his paintings because of how he renders reflections in wet pavement, skies in water, etc. If you attempt painting a landscape, rendering light is technically quite hard to achieve.
I would like to see the original paintings in person in order to see the tiny details and techniques of each artist. Van Gogh has a fantastic technical grasp of color theory, but compare his early work to his later works to see the difference between highly trained technical art mastery, and the bold lines and brushstrokes of his masterpieces from the last years of his life.
I don’t know what you’re on about my supposed hostility to people hanging reproductions of rare fine art on their walls. I did not proscibe any rules for appreciating art, but pointed out that the Art bit comes from the artists technique, eye, and hand.
Thus reproductions aren’t as good as the original, but that doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with people hanging reproductions.
Some of Monets water lilies paintings are wall sized. Highly impractical for the average sized home.
Tethys, fair enough. No worries.
de gustibus non est disputandum
—
Anyway, my substantive comments outside our badinage were @29 and @39.
And this is just my opinion, the subject at hand being rather (ahem) subjective.
[um, I meant 28 & 39]
Generally, art is something that happens when the artist gets famous. Perhaps through self mutilation, or just good PR. Before that point they are just paintings.
Art, art or ART are in the eye of the beholder. Prima facie as objects a Van Gogh equals Piss Christ. Beyond that a person viewing the original or rerepresentation drags their baggage in. Sure education is part of said baggage and can bring much more to the table. That’s probably why museums hire people with knowledge to discuss stuff ranging from “earless guy” to “guy who throws buckets of paint (or excrement) at backgrounds”.
I can play drums by ear. I have a very eclectic appreciation of music, but cannot read music. If I could my understanding would be enhanced. But I can still listen to digital reproductions without being in the studio with the musicians. A digital reproduction of a famous painting is still art (with or without capitalization).
Even kitsch enjoyed by the hoi polloi is still art whether a velvet Elvis or dogs playing poker. Getting too particular sounds like Adorno hating on jazz. Don’t be an Adorno.
hemidactylus:
No it isn’t, but vitreous humor (among other things) is in the eye of the beholder. That is of course most of the beholder, although there are usually also tentacles and/or eye stalks, for instance.
No, clearly not. The various Van Gogh paintings are themselves different objects, and none of them are the same object as Piss Christ (or as “a Serrano,” if we’re trying to put on the same footing by referring to them by their artists’ names).
No, that doesn’t follow. By way of analogy, literacy (in whatever language) does not entail that the person has any better understanding of languages, linguistics, literary theory, the history of any such things, or very generally how to reason about the contents of whatever it is that you’re (by hypothesis) simply able to read. If you do have some grasp on that sort of stuff, what you can do is talk about it in a different way (that is, different from speech), but it may still be that what you have to say about it is a load of crap.
In the case of music at least, one of the things that can enhance your enhance your understanding is some math (and how to apply it), because that’s actually a way of reasoning, rather than just another way of expressing the things (which may be crap) that you already thought you knew and had already wanted to say before you gained any such understanding.
Obviously. I’m still just confused by this whole line of thought, because of course a copy of that Sunflowers painting is still art, as is the original. (Not being “the same thing” doesn’t change that.) However, it’s not as if it’s therefore okay to destroy the original (given the fact that there would still be copies). But also, in fact the original wasn’t destroyed (not if reports are accurate), so it’s odd that anybody would go there in this discussion in the first place.
Just for the sake of completness, ARt, aRt, ArT, arT, and aRT are also not in the eye of the beholder. You don’t have to take my word for it, though. Check it out for yourself. Those really do not exist there.
Did not hurt anyone or anything. Check.
Were clear in what was being protested. Check.
Made sure what was protested was a major cataclysm. Check.
Got noticed the world over, even across the pond at pharyngula blog. Check
That seems like a successful protest to me.
Well, it checks all of your boxes, which should probably count for something. I’m with you there. And I certainly don’t get what makes PZ claim this is “bad,” so very bad that it must go down in the annals of bad protests. Who or what was harmed? It doesn’t sound like much of anything was bad about it.
I’ll admit that it does remain to be seen whether it “succeeds” in making any substantial change with regard to our use of fossil fuels or the (related) economic problems that the protests were raising. (If not, I still would not say that by itself makes it “bad.”)
If it’s just supposed to be a contribution in a broader array of social discussions which might collectively make a difference (someday), then we don’t actually hold every such statement (public or otherwise) to that standard. I mean, if we’re going there, then it seems to me that everything PZ has ever written on this blog about the topic is less consequential than these two bozos with some cans of soup and a little glue. Even if the results were nearly the same in terms of effectiveness, you could at least say they wasted less time accomplishing almost nothing with their contribution. (And it does after all concern something urgent, which is also partly about reducing waste and conserving resources, so it’s not easy to see how that sort of thing just doesn’t matter.)
Anyway, how many protests which PZ would call “successful” (or “not bad”) actually do end up making a substantial difference? Not many, presumably, given how many happen have happened over the decades and how little has actually changed. But normally, we hold back a little on that kind of criticism, since literally everyone would have to consider themselves hypocrites for not being effective enough at one time or another while nonetheless complaining about others who behave in the same ways.
@51- consciousness razor
Awesome job at taking a common phrase too literally. As if the visual cortex did not exist and all the processing was taking place inside the eyes. You really got me…
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/in-the-eye-of-the-beholder
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/beauty%20is%20in%20the%20eye%20of%20the%20beholder
I would go deeper into this but my heart is not in it. Next up we will deconstruct “an ear for music” and “long in the tooth”.
As an addendum when I said I can play drums by ear I literally mean I use my ears to bang on the drums. Coordinating high hat and snare is difficult. I use modified pedals for bass. And last time I tried an elaborate fill on the toms I wound up in the hospital with a concussion. I misunderstood what “by ear” meant and have regretted it ever since. My ears are severely mangled, especially from getting them stuck in the high hat.
so, they’re against…big linseed oil? the oil in oil paintings is not petroleum-based. i learned that much in high school art class.
Well, it was nothing. I didn’t think so, at any rate. I’ll still try to do some other awesome stuff today, just to be sure, but I appreciate the feedback.
I am of course aware that it’s a common phrase. That doesn’t make it true, whatever you may think you mean by it (which, true or not, nobody is supposed to take seriously anyway, an odd position to be in regarding a purportedly true statement). Ordinarily, you would need an argument for such things. If yours is that (1) it’s common and (2) I’m too stupid to know that it’s common, then I don’t find that one very convincing.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but that does not change my print of Van Goghs ‘Irises’ into a valuable work of art.
In the same vein, a live music performance is not the same experience as listening to that same music on a recording.
I make a lot of art, in multiple mediums, but IMO very few of my finished works qualify as Art. Oddly though, I’ve had a few clients who hung up my color/finish test boards on the wall as decorative art after I’ve renovated their buildings.
J.Morales: “You’re snobbish because you think unless some original piece is seen in person, one has not actually seen the ART.” that’s an interesting point.
But I must say, sometimes it may be valid. Tethys mentioned Monet’s Water Lilies, and for stuff like that, if you don’t eyeball it on place no repro will do. It’s as if that pesky Monet wanted to make something that requires direct viewing… annoying. And for sculture, ditto. I do love myself some good sculptures photos, but the originals are often regrettably 3D. So I’d say that generally, if you can see the original, it won’t hurt.
(There are some exceptions: that poor Mona Lisa, immured behind a foot-thick glass and wall-to-wall tourists, is not worth the bother. Also, she needs a good cleaning, but who will dare take a turpentine frottis to that fabled visage?).
Lastly, nobody says that reproductions are bad in themselves, I have some posters hanging too: Canaletto, Boccioni, Hokusai, Magritte. They please me a lot and tie the room together nicely, no need for carpets.
For those who can’t be bothered reading the entire thread, I offer a summary (in satirical form) of all the arguments offered so far in defence of these utter fuckwits:
Scenario: *Next week two clowns decapitate babies with chainsaws in central park while wearing “Say no to oil” t-shirts*
Pharyngula commentariat arguments:
1) Hey they got attention!
2) At least they took action and they’re not just keyboard warriors!
3) When PZ posts about climate change it does nothing to save the environment, so I don’t know why everyone is criticising sawing off babies heads for doing nothing to save the environment.
4) Babies don’t even know what a saw is! If it was adults who knew their heads were being sawed off that would be bad, but they made sure it was only babies so that’s fine.
5) Parents whose babies’ heads have been sawn off can always replace the baby with a photo. I never understood what the difference is anyway!
That’s not satirical, that’s just stupid, Sb.
I could easily show these kids to a pumping station on a major oil pipeline and show them how to make it go boom. They’re not hard to find. Also making oil go boom, is not hard. I’m starting to think I’m a bit tooooo, pragmatic…. to do this kind of protest.
Idea for a semi-violent protest… Break into Mar-A-Lago and firebomb DJT’s personal golf cart. I could probably pull that off, but it would take about 20 grand in expenses. Plus about 3 grand to pay me to spent 6 months in florida.
@60. Silentbob : Seriously?! You’re really going to equate peacefully protesting in an art gallery “attacking” with soup a painting that was protected (as the protesters knew) and was undamaged with actually murdering babies? Wow. For .. pities.. sake! What a bizarre and utterly absurdly false analogy.
@ 64 StevoR
No mate, chill. I am not saying throwing soup at an irreplaceable masterpiece is the same as murdering babies. It’s called parody. Where one shows the absurdity of arguments by exaggerating them to throw them into sharp relief.
Every one of the five imaginary arguments I made up was present in this thread, just in less obvious form, but equally as ridiculous, so I highlighted them.
(Google “a modest proposal, swift”.)
The point is: trying to destroy art that belongs to all of us is utterly vile behaviour, whatever your cause. (And you don’t actually believe for one second they knew the glass was there, right? Even if they did – had they checked there was silicone sealant all around the frame? Nothing would seep in and drip down? No of course they hadn’t. They couldn’t give a flying fuck. The goal was to get high fives from their mates and get their pictures in the papers and pretend they’re Greta Thunburg (who would never do such an idiotic thing).)
.@62 Ray Ceeya
You wanna protest people burning too much oil by burning oil? Wut?
@65 silent bob
It is at least way more benign than blocking roads, where it impedes emergency services.
@66 I want to protest MAKING MONEY from burning oil. There’s a difference.
@1
Even behind glass the painting is at risk here. Soup contains acids and bacteria that could still seep into the canvas via capillary forces. No sealing is ever completely air-tight This was an extremely stupid and unnecessary risk to take.
It took some time to wrap my head around it, but actually I think it was an excellent protest. I’ll leave it to Peter Kalmus to explain why: https://twitter.com/ClimateHuman/status/1581146439098716160
Also, I think debating the tactics of some desperate young people watching their future going down in flames, is even less productive than the action itself.
Debating Emily Davison throwing herself under the king’s horse never contributed to women’s rights. Throwing herself did.
rietpluim @70: Sounds good to me. “There is no art on a dead planet”, indeed.
I suppose it’s never occurred to any of us old fucks that have so far failed to avert the impending doom of the planet that if no one manages to actually stop us and our cohort that there won’t be anyone (or enough, or enough skilled) left to preserve these words of art and they will deteriorate and be destroyed anyway…
This protest made the protestors look like unhinged idiots. All this accomplished was just another moment of cringe by activists.
@73
Protests like these does not prevent climate change. In fact it makes a joke out of it instead. Its braindead and done for shock value and clout. Rich privileged people doing rich privileged shit. Protests have to be disruptive in a way sure, but actual thought needs to be applied. This is PETA level stupid.
“logicalcat”cat:
To people like you. Reactionaries.
Neither do they exacerbate it.
The media isn’t about to cover anything that makes a protest or disrupting the status quo look appealing or effective. Can’t make their advertisers look bad now, can they? Nope. To save their own lives, much less those of future generations, they cannot and will not ever besmirch the hand that feeds them.