[HN Gopher] Activist glues his head to 'Girl with a Pearl Earrin...
___________________________________________________________________
Activist glues his head to 'Girl with a Pearl Earring' painting in
The Hague
Author : f1shy
Score : 64 points
Date : 2022-10-27 16:26 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| donatj wrote:
| I feel like if anything this would just turn people against your
| cause.
| unglaublich wrote:
| Not caring about the cause is effectively the same as being
| against it. So there is nothing to lose, much to win.
| bell-cot wrote:
| Yes, in many cases. Assume that their real objective to is to
| quickly (1) score points for high-profile performative
| activism, and (2) vent their emotions.
| 1ris wrote:
| It's like telling people you are burning a puppy with napalm
| "for demonstrating the effect" at an anti-viet-nam-war-
| protests. First people get crazy angry at you, then they
| change their attitude about napalm.
| bell-cot wrote:
| Perhaps. But convincing the military to replace napalm with
| a variety of other weapons - also designed to hellishly
| maim and kill people - is not exactly a huge moral victory,
| nor a big defeat for them.
|
| Vs. the big oil companies, culture-war conservatives, etc.
| might be considerably more invested in giving little ground
| on climate change.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Considering the this seems like a straightforward outcome to
| you, what would you do if you desired that outcome?
| thot_experiment wrote:
| > Dutch Junior Minister for Culture Gunay Uslu said "everyone has
| the right to make a point. But please: leave our shared heritage
| alone. Attacking defenceless works of art is not the right way.
|
| _wooosh_ the whole point goes right over his head, amazing.
| Leave our shared planet alone.
| slothtrop wrote:
| Nature isn't sacred.
| nerpderp82 wrote:
| Things are more important than the planet.
| giantg2 wrote:
| If that was truly the point, then wouldn't they be attacking
| the sources and not some static, non-emitting object?
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| It's about making people realize, "if you're so upset about 1
| painting being destroyed, why aren't you upset about the
| entire planet being destroyed?"
| giantg2 wrote:
| Which again, is ineffective communication. Only the people
| who accept the planet's destruction are going to
| understand/interpret that statement. The people who don't,
| aren't going to make that leap.
| rnd0 wrote:
| That's a fucking stupid point. It's quite possible to be
| upset about both.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| they should love him for a couple of days.
| Flatcircle wrote:
| "I didn't agree with your political stance, but now that you've
| destroyed some priceless art, I'm starting to come around to your
| point of view."
| puyoxyz wrote:
| These are getting more and more ridiculous each time and I love
| it
| LatteLazy wrote:
| What's that quote about insanity being the only sane response to
| an insane world?
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| To quote Matthew Todd: "We just had another warning from the UN
| that we are essentially on course for the end of the world - it
| was hardly reported in the media, not heard anyone talking about
| it on the radio. Please do not moan when people block roads. This
| broken society deserves everything it gets."
| legitster wrote:
| > "We just had another warning from the UN that we are
| essentially on course for the end of the world"
|
| The UN Report said no such thing. A world past 1.5 degrees is
| going to be very unrecognizable to us, but referring to it as
| "the end of the world" is complete hyperbole.
|
| > Please do not moan when people block roads.
|
| Consumer resistance to nuclear (spearheaded by environmental
| groups!) has been a larger contributor to climate change than
| even the automobile.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| "This broken society deserves everything it gets."
|
| If this idea gets developed further, it may develop into
| outright terrorism one day.
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| It was on CNN some 5 hours ago.
| joemazerino wrote:
| I wonder why only Western art is being targeted?
| selfhoster11 wrote:
| Western people are more likely to care about it than other art.
| joemazerino wrote:
| Stopping oil is a Western problem? That is news to me
| 1ris wrote:
| The most solvable to these people, anyway.
| 323 wrote:
| Because the press would destroy them if they would dare to
| target art created by a black woman for example.
|
| Not to mention that they would probably be arrested for hate
| crimes too in that case.
| hotz wrote:
| Just more eco warrior crazies by the day.
| assbuttbuttass wrote:
| This stuff is just so ridiculous that I have a hard time
| believing that stopping climate change is the real goal here.
| Things start to make more sense when you learn that the group
| funding these protests, The Climate Emergency Fund, is founded by
| oil heiress Aileen Getty
| vaylian wrote:
| From the article:
|
| > In videos from the Dutch museum posted online on Thursday,
| one of the men says:
|
| > "How do you feel when you see something beautiful and
| priceless being apparently destroyed before your very eyes?"
|
| > "That is that same feeling when you see the planet being
| destroyed," he adds.
|
| Many people still don't acknowledge that climate change leads
| to /destruction/ of important ecosystems and human settlements.
| And that this destruction can and must be stopped. And for some
| reason this is a very difficult message to get across.
| guelo wrote:
| That's just baseless conspiracy theory and ad hominem on your
| part.
| omginternets wrote:
| I hold an unpopular opinion that this kind of activism is
| fundamentally the same quest for transcendent meaning as one
| finds in radical Islam. This is about people wanting to
| dedicate their lives to something greater than themselves,
| their material achievements, and hedonistic pleasures. The same
| can be said about the extreme fringes of most social activism.
|
| This is exactly what you'd expect from a society where a
| significant portion of people are alienated, experience their
| lives as meaningless or senseless, and where free-floating
| anxiety is rampant. To be sure, you would expect such people to
| seek meaning, to derive their sense of identity from the group
| that provides them with meaning, and to exhibit frustration and
| aggression towards the rest of society, from whom they are
| isolated anyway and therefore have a tendency to treat as an
| undifferentiated mass of "bad people". More concretely, you
| would predict these people chant the same slogans, and respond
| with extreme defensiveness when the thing that provides them
| with meaning is criticized.
|
| It should also be obvious that such people are inherently
| primed for action, and that a bit of money and encouragement is
| enough to set things in motion.
|
| EDIT: another thing that is hopefully obvious is that none of
| this precludes the existence of an actual environmental crisis.
| mrwnmonm wrote:
| Ugh
| rsj_hn wrote:
| > I hold an unpopular opinion that this kind of activism is
| fundamentally the same quest for transcendent meaning as one
| finds in radical Islam.
|
| I would believe that more if it weren't constantly done in
| front of TV cameras. This is about drawing attention to
| yourself because you can't convince someone with rational
| arguments.
|
| It is, ultimately, a tantrum as most of the world doesn't
| find their message convincing.
|
| The world needs fossil fuels, as Europe is discovering right
| now. Rich kids vandalizing art doesn't change the fundamental
| reality that fertilizer is made from natural gas and higher
| fossil fuel prices cause mass starvation - millions or
| billions would die if we stopped producing synthetic
| fertilizer from natural gas. And the price of natural gas
| directly drives the price of the food that the global south
| needs to buy each day. It's one thing for a London Art
| Student to say "I'm willing to pay more for bread", but it's
| quite another thing to impose those higher prices on the
| global South, as commodities are sold in a global market.
|
| That trumps whatever performative display these children
| throw.
|
| If they wanted to do things in a serious manner, they would
| work on developing technologies that would allow the world to
| create fertilizers, heat homes, and power industry in a cost
| effective way with alternate mechanisms. And if they lacked
| the skills to do that, they could fund the work of others to
| find feasible replacements. Ultimately it's technology,
| rather than tantrums, that will determine how food is grown
| and factories are powered.
| 0x_rs wrote:
| It's interesting to me how this post is greyed out but the
| vacuous "ugh" reply is not.
| omginternets wrote:
| >I would believe that more if it weren't constantly done in
| front of TV cameras. This is about drawing attention to
| yourself because you can't convince someone with rational
| arguments.
|
| I don't disagree. I don't think the two are mutually-
| exclusive. The public performance is very much part of the
| quest for transcendence, and has its equivalents in the
| other forms of radical ideology.
|
| > Ultimately it's technology, rather than tantrums, that
| will determine how food is grown and factories are powered.
|
| Quite. And to your point, the interesting question now
| becomes: why are they throwing tantrums instead of useful
| work?
|
| Every theory I have seen falls into one of two buckets:
|
| 1. They're incapable of it, or being undermined
|
| 2. It's not actually a solution they're after
|
| I think it's overwhelmingly #2. Moreover, I think the thing
| they're actually looking for is exactly transcendent
| meaning.
|
| >fertilizer is made from natural gas
|
| P.S.: Is this true? I can see how it could be, but I was
| not aware of this. That's quite ironic, if indeed true.
| elil17 wrote:
| This has always seemed like a weird conspiracy theory to me.
| (Not saying that conspiracy theories can't ever be true - just
| that this one seems to contradict the evidence). It's unclear
| that Getty even has a financial interest in the oil industry
| anymore. Getty is one of several major donors to the CEF.
| Others include Adam McKay, who is also on the board of
| directors. Why would he support the group if they were secretly
| pro-oil?
|
| In turn, CEF is one of many donors to Just Stop Oil, who in
| turn did the Van Gogh protest. I don't understand how people
| draw the conclusion that the Just Stop Oil protests are some
| sort of anti-climate conspiracy because a board member/donor to
| a group that gave a grant to JSO inherited oil money (but
| probably does not have significant financial ties to the oil
| industry anymore). Even if she wanted to bolster support for
| oil companies, why would she use this tactic? While a lot of
| people don't agree with the protests, I don't see anyone saying
| that they now support more oilfield leases as some sort of
| counterreaction.
|
| Plus, Getty's other donations are to far less controversial
| organizations that are definitely trying to solve climate
| change. For example, the Climate Reality Project trains people
| to lobby for climate-friendly regulations. It's clear that that
| does not align with the interests of oil.
|
| There's a much simpler theory: Just Stop Oil is a bunch of
| normal, fallible, non-conspiratorial people using a distasteful
| and likely ineffective tactic to advocate for a sensible policy
| (stopping new oil drilling) being funded by wealthy, fallible,
| non-conspiratorial people who probably think the protests will
| have an impact on policy and are probably wrong.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| >"There's a much simpler theory: Just Stop Oil is a bunch of
| normal, fallible, non-conspiratorial people using a
| distasteful and likely ineffective tactic to advocate for a
| sensible policy..."
|
| My view is that there are people in our society whose
| personalities make them so passionate about righteous causes
| they wind up becoming delusional extremists. When enough of
| them get together and have a source of support, you can end
| up with this kind of thing. I have no doubt they truly
| believe they are helping to avert the apocalypse by doing
| this.
| dmix wrote:
| It's like everything, it's a complicated problem that
| internet warriors like to over-simplify and reduce to a
| single boogieman (ie, rich people).
|
| You see this in every major social issue, for example in
| housing 'affordability' everyone tries to blame foreign
| Chinese buyers, even when (depending on the area) they might
| only be 10% of all house buyers. Part of the problem, yes,
| but rarely even close to the bulk of it.
|
| Most importantly it distracts away from all the other more
| natural causes of the problem that are harder to confront
| (like well-intentioned run-of-the-mill climate activists
| making dumb decisions all on their own).
| differentView wrote:
| This is bigotry, to dismiss a person's sincerity because of
| their birth.
| houstonn wrote:
| "This was funded by a group started by three rich Americans who
| became concerned about climate change after their houses in
| Malibu were threatened by wildfires in 2018. I'm not making
| this up.
|
| Two are heirs (a Getty and a Kennedy) and the third has made a
| career of advising celebrity philanthropists."
|
| https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1580966385932414977
| busyant wrote:
| whoever is funding this, i would say their approach is
| ineffective at best and almost certainly counterproductive to
| their cause.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Hopefully they'll all be charged as co-conspirators.
| FredPret wrote:
| Unless discrediting the cause is the goal
| warbler73 wrote:
| Agreed. That's really the only interpretation that makes
| sense, assuming they are acting rationally.
| 1ris wrote:
| Genuine question: What would you expect a rational actor
| to do FOR the cause? Because to me this looks very
| rational and very much for the cause.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| I'll be up front and admit that I don't know what
| activism FOR the cause would be effective. But that
| doesn't stop me from knowing what isn't effective and
| what is actually wholly counterproductive.
|
| The reason why this doesn't look rational or 'for the
| cause' is because the target in question really has
| nothing to do with the petroleum industry. Johannes
| Vermeer painted this art in 1665 before the industrial
| revolution. The subject is just a woman with a pearl
| earring. So neither the painter nor the work of art have
| any persuasion or symbolism that encourages fossil fuel
| use. It seems totally illogical to commit an act such as
| this. I think the public at large sees no connection
| between what the activists went after and what they are
| trying to achieve. When that happens, it delegitimizes
| the movement in peoples eyes.
| warbler73 wrote:
| Agreed. The argument seems to be that the targeted pieces
| are "oil" paintings. But surely they know that the oil in
| these masterworks is derived from renewable sources and
| that therefore makes no sense, oil in oil paint is not
| petroleum based. So it seems the argument is disingenuous
| and there is a conspiracy. On the other hand I have
| realized that very few things people do are rational so
| the assumption common in economics theories that people
| are making rational choices I am not convinced by.
| Personally I think these people are all just crazy.
| However I can not rule out conspiracy to discredit. Like
| UFOs, this movement is an enigma.
| [deleted]
| 1ris wrote:
| What about this is counterproductive? People get angry,
| emotional involved. After a few minutes they realize that
| the glass in front of the painting is not _that_
| expensive and all is well. Or is it? That 's when they
| have time to think about destruction and maybe what these
| people just said about climate change.
|
| What picture exactly is of course not important. Any
| popular picture with a glass plate in front of it could
| have done the job. I don't they have any ax to grind
| about Vermeer, nor will the controversy have any
| connections to him or his art.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| >"After a few minutes they realize that the glass in
| front of the painting is not that expensive and all is
| well. Or is it? That's when they have time to think about
| destruction and maybe what these people just said about
| climate change."
|
| I don't think this is true, _for most people_. People do
| not generally stop and think in a deep and reflective way
| after getting angry about something. What these activists
| did was not inspiring and it did not look like justice.
| They aren 't Rosa Parks 2.0, they're people throwing
| liquid at valuable inanimate objects which people find
| beautiful while gluing themselves to surfaces at a
| museum. There is no powerful symbolism of defiance here,
| this is not speaking truth to power. They just look like
| childish weirdos. Childish weirdos do not make me self-
| reflect and question if _I 'm_ actually the one doing
| something wrong.
| serf wrote:
| look at any other 'eco-terrorist' group, you'll find more
| direct action rather than propagandist actions intended
| to influence the public.
|
| the Animal Liberation Front didn't ask the public to
| destroy slaughter-houses. the sea-shepherds didn't ask
| the public to attack whaling vessels, and to give an
| example from fiction 'Avalanche' didn't ask the public to
| attack power stations.
| pvaldes wrote:
| > What would you expect a rational actor to do FOR the
| cause?
|
| Di Caprio is rich and support nature conservation. Is not
| really so much difficult if you are rich. You just buy a
| chunk of land with a unique ecosystem, keep people from
| entering on it and you save ten species from going
| extinct. Is as simple as that.
|
| What I would -not- expect is the children of some
| millionaires convincing poor or dumb people to perform
| humiliating, illegal and dangerous stunts in public for a
| small fee.
|
| Lets imagine the outrage if one influencer would be
| caught paying homeless people to glue their heads and
| hands to a wall, and videotaping them while claiming,
| hey! I do it for the environment!.
|
| This is mocking ecologists, manipulating poor people to
| perform degrading acts in public and endangering
| invaluable art. Three in one, all in the same stinking
| package.
|
| This kind of fun is unacceptable, and should have
| consequences.
| badwolf wrote:
| If one must throw soup, Perhaps instead of throwing soup
| at works of art... Throw soup on oil conglomerate
| executives, to start.
| [deleted]
| bts327 wrote:
| Likely the case
| [deleted]
| colechristensen wrote:
| Doubtful. Having little connection to reality and doing
| ridiculous things is much more likely than malice.
| 1ris wrote:
| That's what people said about PETA and whatever outrageous
| stuff they did.
|
| Time has disproven these people. I don't see how this is
| any different.
| chucksmash wrote:
| That's a huge subjective leap to say time has disproved
| people who consider PETA and their methods ridiculous.
|
| I would consider myself a person in favor of the ethical
| treatment of animals, and PETA campaigns like (the now
| quite old, but eminently memorable) "rebranding fish as
| sea kittens" [1] are so far out in la-la land, so
| ridiculous, and go so far in letting perfect be the enemy
| of good ("let's go after those unethical pescatarians!")
| that the organization loses credibility.
|
| It doesn't help that in the intervening years, my main
| interaction with the organization (as well as Oxfam,
| ASPCA, etc) has been shady third party donation
| subscription hawkers trying to earn commissions off of
| tricking me into acknowledging them on lunch hour.
|
| If there have been improvements in the treatment of
| animals over time, I'd make my own subjective leap to say
| they happened in spite of PETA, not because of it.
|
| [1]: https://spotlight.peta.org/petaseakittens/
| bawolff wrote:
| I mean, at least "fish are sea kittens" has some
| connection to their cause. The girl with the pearl earing
| isn't exactly mining coal.
| 1ris wrote:
| Yes, peta are profoundly unlikeable people, back then and
| now. I don't like them, I think their holocaust
| comparisons are unforgivable and neither am i vegan. My
| point is that they are living rent free in peoples heads
| and do actually change attitudes. Because there was a
| huge change and i just don't see who else could have
| caused that.
|
| My point was: Effective activism does not have to be
| likeable. Going for the opposite seems a viable strategy.
| chadash wrote:
| I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you implying that
| the world has come to accept PETA's cause. Because while
| some issues are dramatically different than 20-30 years
| ago (e.g. marijuana legalization, gay marriage), I don't
| think the bar has shifted very much on animal welfare.
| ElevenLathe wrote:
| When was the last time you saw someone wearing fur?
| 2muchcoffeeman wrote:
| I think the implication is that PETA legitimately
| believes in their cause and methods.
| 1ris wrote:
| Of course everybody thinks PETA as lunatics, maybe
| rightfully. But it was them made veganism a thing. It's
| mainstream now. I guess about between 2% and 5% of the
| population and growing. Burger king and McDonalds sell
| vegan options. That's absurdly successful. When they
| started it was literally about 5 people.
|
| I don't think most vegans will quote them for their
| change, but their activism that gave animal welfare
| attention in a attention economy, when it would otherwise
| simply not have gotten any.
| _hypx wrote:
| I've come to realize that most environmentalists don't really
| understand climate change. I guess it is similar to how PETA
| protests animal abuse but in a very dumb manner. Sure, there
| is a problem at the bottom of it, but these groups are very
| detached from reality.
| [deleted]
| site-packages1 wrote:
| I don't see this form of protest as effective nor do I agree
| with the methods at all. However, we as human beings can only
| focus on so many things at a time. Sometimes something bad
| happens that causes us to suddenly become attuned to or care
| about an issue. This seems to happen a lot when people
| undergo a horrible tragedy like being a victim of a mass
| shooting or contracting ALS or getting breast cancer.
|
| I don't think it's ridiculous at all that someone had
| something nearly bad happen to them (wildfires encroaching on
| their houses) and that caused them to become attuned to an
| issue and start taking a form of action to curb it (funding
| protestors).
|
| Again, not the actions I would take and in my opinion they're
| ineffective actions, but we shouldn't guffaw at people for
| becoming attuned to something through tragedy or near
| tragedy.
| hulitu wrote:
| > However, we as human beings can only focus on so many
| things at a time
|
| Those kind of protests do one thing : discredit those
| organizations who made them. Just notice that there are
| mainly very young people who carry those "protests", who
| are easily fooled to do such things. Unfortunately for some
| of them can be a harsh lesson (jail time).
| colpabar wrote:
| I agree with you, but I think that when we are talking
| about extremely wealthy people, it changes things. An oil
| heiress knows people in the oil industry. A kennedy knows
| people in politics. These people paying randos to throw
| soup and glue themselves to paintings is already
| ridiculous, but to hear that they're doing it because their
| mansions (which contribute much more carbon than wherever
| the randos live btw) almost burned down is just stupid and
| will not help anything. They could try to pressure the oil
| people they know. They could try to pressure the
| politicians they know. But they don't! Instead they are
| paying to destroy art that millions (billions?) of people
| from all over the world enjoy.
|
| Someone who smokes cigarettes whose partner dies of lung
| cancer from a lifetime of smoking who then decides to quit
| smoking and become an anti-tobacco activist should not be
| written off just because they're "only doing it" because it
| directly affected them via someone they love. Someone who
| is extremely rich because their ancestors made a killing
| selling oil who decides to become an "activist" after their
| mansion almost burned down due to wildfires should be
| mocked. Anyone can throw soup at a painting. Only the super
| rich can influence politicians (in america at least).
| kevinventullo wrote:
| On the other hand, maybe destroying priceless art is a
| more effective way of sending their powerful relatives a
| message than, I dunno, reaming them out over Thanksgiving
| dinner.
| ben_w wrote:
| I think you may be right. Most people don't get to
| experience fine art except in reproductions, so for most
| people the physical destruction of all the originals
| takes nothing from their experiences.
|
| People who do love and adore fine art are not limited to
| the super-rich (this was after all on public display),
| but I bet it cuts the super rich who can afford to hang
| originals on their bedroom walls a little deeper than
| most.
|
| That said, I do know I'm not normal in many ways, perhaps
| more people than I assume care about originals.
| weaksauce wrote:
| They aren't destroying priceless art... unless you
| consider the glass that protects the actual paintings
| priceless art.
| hulitu wrote:
| > but to hear that they're doing it because their
| mansions (which contribute much more carbon than wherever
| the randos live btw) almost burned down is just stupid
| and will not help anything.
|
| They are not doing it "because their mansions ... almost
| burned down". They are doing it because they know that
| this will distract people from their real actions. And
| they look like philantropists now which is far from
| reality.
| rowanG077 wrote:
| > They could try to pressure the politicians they know.
| But they don't!
|
| How do you know this? It's not exactly and either
| situation here.
| colechristensen wrote:
| Rich people funding the dandy version of terrorism deserves
| scorn. These are people with money and many powerful
| connections. Go fund a nonprofit solar development project
| or plant a forest and actually do something. Don't
| cultivate "awareness" by paying poor people to glue their
| head to shit in a museum. Or if you're going to, at least
| do it yourself.
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| "Raising awareness" feels good to lazy people and doesn't
| require any real commitment or systematic effort. It's
| more "glamorous" than painstaking work in the paltry
| manner of a sassy tweet.
|
| Maybe next time, they should try self-immolation instead.
| It might spare a painting.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| What they are doing also risks destroying cultural
| heritage. Causing damage to great works of art will do
| nothing to endear me to your cause. Why did they even go
| after this painting in particular, if not for sheer
| attention seeking?
| adamredwoods wrote:
| That's the point: something shocking that gets massive
| media attention.
|
| I don't support their actions. If straight-forward
| conversations how the earth is going to become
| uninhabitable doesn't change people's patterns, then I
| doubt shock-media will either.
| wewtyflakes wrote:
| The article indicates that the activists knew that the
| paintings would not be damaged, as there is a protective
| covering for the art. The quote:
|
| "How do you feel when you see something beautiful and
| priceless being apparently destroyed before your very
| eyes?"
|
| Being as they said, "apparently", and that a similar
| stunt was pulled previously, of which also had protective
| covering, seems to show that nobody intended (or did)
| destroy anything.
| serf wrote:
| > The article indicates that the activists knew that the
| paintings would not be damaged, as there is a protective
| covering for the art. The quote:
|
| all it takes is a single copy-cat to ruin a less
| protected piece.
|
| their message is shocking and attention-grabbing, not
| responsible.
|
| They won't take responsibility but when Joe-Bob runs into
| the next museum and legitimately destroys something
| whilst emulating their antics it will have been their
| fault for instigating this recent spree.
| ben_w wrote:
| To be blunt, the public obviously includes people
| suffering from paranoid schizophrenia delusions that make
| them believe they are an ambulance[0] and therefore
| "drive" into a painting where someone is injured in order
| to rescue them or something.
|
| Or bored kids with crayons will try colouring it in
| and/or peeling off gold foil[1] if it has any, or well
| meaning idiots will try to restore it like that Jesus
| picture, or a hundred other things because the public
| isn't just the best of us, it's all of us.
|
| If art isn't protected, it _will_ be damaged. Failing to
| take preemptive defensive measures against predictable
| threats is not as blame-worthy as the actual proximal
| causes, of course, but it 's still blame-worthy.
|
| [0] I've met someone who had to be sectioned after
| something similar made them think they were a car and
| therefore started walking along the middle of a lane.
|
| [1] I've witnessed that.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| I'm going to be upfront and say that I'm glad it was
| protected, but that doesn't make it right. If you are an
| average person, you probably read this headline and did
| not envision the art being behind glass. Your first
| thought was probably intrigue about what the damage
| looked like, and then hoping the damage can be reversed.
|
| If you are an activist, or you condone this kind of
| thing, it is important to realize that the average person
| is not going to delve any farther into this story in
| order to give the activists the benefit of the doubt.
| They are going to be upset that an innocent work of art
| was vandalized - _even if_ it wasn 't actually harmed in
| any way. They will associate the cause with unhinged and
| irrational people.
| hulitu wrote:
| > Rich people funding the dandy version of terrorism
| deserves scorn.
|
| They are doing it for their own good. From a long time.
|
| As long as profits increase nobody gives a damn. See for
| example "America's most beloved war criminal".
| [deleted]
| ransom1538 wrote:
| If Putin decides to end the US and Europe (which is a very real
| possibility), the climate will be forever destroyed. We need to
| put long term climate policies on hold, until we deal with this
| WORLD ENDING event: a Nuclear holocaust. Getting mad and
| putting paint on old art just seems childish at this point,
| there are bigger fish to fry.
| threeseed wrote:
| It's a possibility but not a remotely likely one.
|
| If Putin decides to launch nuclear weapons at US/Europe, then
| US would do the same from their Ohio class submarines.
| Everyone knows this. But it's useful for Russia to amplify
| the threat since it distracts politically from their losing
| war in Ukraine.
|
| Now since it's not likely we should focus on what is likely
| and that is climate change.
| rowanG077 wrote:
| I don't see how one excludes the other. What do we need to do
| with Putin that excludes us fighting climate change?
| ransom1538 wrote:
| In my mind that is like taking a car to a carwash, right
| before driving it off a cliff. There really isn't a need
| for a carwash. There are 2k nuclear missles pointed to us -
| with a mad man about to push a button. Sure recycle. But.
| threeseed wrote:
| Well not everyone can be involved in international
| diplomacy.
|
| So for the rest of the world maybe we can focus on
| climate change.
| rowanG077 wrote:
| So why are you still going to your job and
| working/studying/ doing whatever you do daily instead of
| going full time political activist or something else?
| After all your jdaily thing won't matter if the world
| dies in nuclear fire. By your own logic it makes no sense
| to continue working and instead you should divert all
| your resourced to stopping Putin.
| 1ris wrote:
| This was the case for 70 years and thus far all the mad
| man where all to wise not to press it, because at the end
| of the day they know how it will end.
|
| We didn't stop all human activity or activism for the
| last 70 years and neither should we have done so.
|
| This is the biggest Whataboutism if have ever heart of.
| [deleted]
| TremendousJudge wrote:
| That's an interesting claim. Do you have a source where I can
| read more on this?
| stronglikedan wrote:
| https://www.google.com/search?q=The+Climate+Emergency+Fund%2.
| ..
| yunohn wrote:
| So the reporting claims that she is an oil heiress who
| hasn't worked in and appears to not like the oil industry.
| Makes sense that she's funding them?
| teawrecks wrote:
| My test for whether a certain behavior is the correct response
| to problematic one is: if the opposition took over my body and
| made me do stuff to drive as many people away from my cause as
| possible, what would they do?
| jhbadger wrote:
| Except that absolutely sincere people do things that alienate
| potential supporters all the time. A lot of people
| (particularly people of Irish ancestry that live elsewhere)
| were sympathetic to the cause of Irish unification prior to
| the Troubles, but the terrorism committed by the IRA in the
| name of that cause pretty much destroyed international
| sympathy for that movement.
| bawolff wrote:
| I mean, i think that terrorism is the wrong way to fix
| problems, so i dont really see that as a counterargument to
| the grandparent's post.
|
| After all, sincere people can and often are
| counterproductive.
| jhbadger wrote:
| I was interpreting the hypothetical "if the opposition
| took over my body and made me do stuff" to imply that
| they believed that the art damagers were not really
| environmentalists but actually trying to discredit them
| by making environmentalists look crazy, but maybe they
| just meant "don't do stuff that will discredit your
| cause".
| 1MachineElf wrote:
| This perspective is of critical importance. I wish more
| dialog and studies were devoted to it's exploration.
| gw99 wrote:
| Actually the guy who set up Just Stop Oil was interviewed a
| while back and said it was never about climate but being
| against the system. Managed to loop a bunch of lunatics into
| doing his bidding initially.
|
| As for Aileen Getty, I'm on the fence. I think she has good
| intentions but threw money at these morons.
|
| As for the morons, while I agree the message is good, the
| approach does nothing but damage the cause. They recently
| smashed all the pumps at my local petrol station. All that you
| end up with is pissed off people who associate the cause with
| negative people. This is a universally downward spiral.
| rnd0 wrote:
| >Actually the guy who set up Just Stop Oil
|
| Google isn't showing me who that is; the only results I'm
| getting talk about the Getty heiress. Can you please tell us
| what that guy's name is and ideally a link to the story
| you're referring to?
| gw99 wrote:
| Look up Roger Hallam. Tied to XR as well. There's plenty of
| people distancing themselves from him now including XR.
| [deleted]
| zasdffaa wrote:
| > the approach does nothing but damage the cause
|
| But you have nothing better to suggest. Hint from someone
| who's tried: working within the system doesn't have any
| effect.
|
| BTW do you expect to live through climate change when it
| really kicks in?
| Dma54rhs wrote:
| There are millions of people around the world pushing the
| science and technology forward - this is the only way.
| Thinking you can just change the system on whim is childish
| as these protesters.
| gw99 wrote:
| Yes you're not going to get anywhere from inside the system
| but the system is propped up by a faction of people who
| have vested interests in making money out of short term
| thinking.
|
| The only solution is to target those people directly and
| make it too risky to do business which is environmentally
| reckless.
| peyton wrote:
| I suggest doing something people want. Or creating
| something better/easier/cheaper etc.
|
| I expect to live.
| zasdffaa wrote:
| 'something' and 'something'. So you have no actual ideas
| then.
|
| As for living, perhaps you will - do you think you might
| wish you weren't?
| Turing_Machine wrote:
| > So you have no actual ideas then.
|
| Gluing your head to a painting cannot possibly be
| described as an "actual idea".
| zasdffaa wrote:
| And you suggest...? Nothing. You're just trying to quiet
| your worry with self-distraction. You had a chance to do
| something, years of time when it would have made a
| difference and you didn't, now reality's kicking in.
| Turing_Machine wrote:
| > And you suggest...?
|
| I suggest not gluing your head to a painting because it
| a) does nothing for your cause and b) makes you look like
| a barbaric fuckwit.
|
| > You had a chance to do something
|
| Sorry, no one put you in charge of assigning guilt to me.
| No one put you in charge of anything.
| zasdffaa wrote:
| > No one put you in charge of anything
|
| No, adults put themselves in charge of what needs doing.
| That is, taking responsibility. No-one needed to tell me
| shit was going to happen if we carried on and it needed
| to be stopped.
|
| Guilt changes nothing at this point. You won't change a
| thing about your life. You have some idea of what's
| coming down the line and are desperately trying to blot
| it out and your posts are the attempt to deny it to
| yourself (less so others than to yourself). When it
| arrives remember that you let it happen. A tip: when
| things go, they go quickly.
|
| Damn you and all the other bastards that have destroyed
| this planet through collective, willful, deliberate
| ignorance.
| rizzom5000 wrote:
| > But you have nothing better to suggest.
|
| What other methods have these people tried that have
| failed? How do you measure the success of this method in
| terms of achieving desired results? Is there data that
| shows traditional marketing is less effective at achieving
| the particular aim of this cause; whatever that aim is
| (because I'm not sure).
|
| In terms of just spending money to stop climate change; do
| you have data to show that this method is more effective
| than spending the money on green energy research or other
| direct funding?
|
| It seems incredibly vague to say that "working within the
| system doesn't have any effect" but I'd love to see the
| data that this is more effective than putting ads on TV in
| terms of actually getting people to support your cause.
| throw827474737 wrote:
| Sorry, if we would be honest, we know that "they" did all
| you ask for a long time and nothing worked. We would need
| serious change RIGHT NOW, but we are slamming this planet
| against a wall.
|
| I'm not on their side, I don't think it is good.. but I'm
| really surprised by the non-empathy of many here.. those
| folks are kind of panicking for the future and imo
| radicalization if nothing happens will become much worse
| - this glueing is also kind of little self-destruction,
| and in the end still a very peaceful protest. And it
| least gets them attention. And while I have accepted the
| fate that future generations (if they are there haha)
| will hate us for what we have done, or what we have not
| done, in my lazy chair.. and while I would similarly
| judge those activists for doing some non-sense.. if I'm
| honest, I have no clue what they should do better.
| Resigned, kind of. We all know not much will happen. :(
|
| What you do here is really just very top-down distracting
| rhetoric, imo ;)
| zasdffaa wrote:
| And you too have nothing to offer but question other
| people's actions. So much deeply concerned apathy.
| barbazoo wrote:
| Even if that's true, who cares? Shouldn't we judge an
| organization by its actions and not by who founded it?
| jagaerglad wrote:
| Judging actions by humans are not just events in space and
| time that we can add and subtract, evaluating them we have to
| look at the intent of the person doing it and therefore I
| believe it is valid discussing who the owner organization
| i.e. the "doer" of its actions is, it helps us evaluate the
| intent and see if we think they're good or bad
| tedunangst wrote:
| Waiting for someone to glue themselves to the wall at the
| Getty Museum.
| TheLoafOfBread wrote:
| Local Orthodox church founding a gay club. That would raise
| lot of questions why.
| sosborn wrote:
| Honest question - do you think actions such as will draw more
| people to act on behalf of the planet?
|
| Personally I think acts like this have the opposite effect.
| "Those environmentalists are loons" is probably a common
| response. If you want to discredit a movement, giving
| attention to most extreme people is a good way to do it.
| PakG1 wrote:
| I think parent was simply refuting ad hominen attacks in
| favour of more reliable types of logic, not saying what
| these protestors was doing was great.
| lwouis wrote:
| I think it's relevant here because these type of actions are
| controversial. Some say they serve the cause, some say they
| hurt the cause. If you believe that they hurt the cause, then
| you may find an explanation to those actions by digging into
| who's funding it.
| pelasaco wrote:
| Getting downvoted like crazy here to stating exactly the same
| here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33356450
| LatteLazy wrote:
| I feel the exact opposite. If you actually think global warming
| is an existential threat to our society, these are entirely
| logical actions. I respect them for having the strength of
| their convictions.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| Many, if not most, bad people were known for the strength of
| their convictions.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| As is the case for good people. You've said nothing. Having
| the will to stand up for what you believe in remains a
| human virtue regardless of the belief. Though of course
| we'd wish for people to have good beliefs.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| As are all good people. The rest of us are just neutral...
|
| And ultimately, their crime is disrupting some museums, so
| they might be bad, but no more than people who litter or
| cheat on their taxes...
| jonathankoren wrote:
| I fail to see how someone's accident of birth impinges their
| actions.
|
| This is a textbook ad hominem.
| lwouis wrote:
| Most people model themselves from their parents and the
| environment surrounding their youth. Most people are a
| product of social reproduction. Someone born in a circle is
| likely to identify with it and remain there.
|
| Yes, there are exceptions. What you call "accident of birth".
| Statistically, they are uncommon.
| rowanG077 wrote:
| Judging an individual by statistics of their group is pure
| discrimination.
| jonathankoren wrote:
| So the Marquis de Lafayette isn't democratic patriot in two
| countries because he was born into the aristocracy?
|
| Statistics part literally doesn't matter. You judge the
| person by their actions.
| mbStavola wrote:
| Making climate change protestors and, by extension, the
| concept of climate change seem crazy is directly beneficial
| to someone standing to inherit an oil fortune.
|
| Whether or not that's actually what is happening here is a
| different story.
| Reason077 wrote:
| Aileen Getty inherited a fortune that was made from oil.
|
| But given that she is a climate change philanthropist, I
| strongly doubt she has any _active_ investments in the oil
| industry, and would not benefit from "making climate
| change seem crazy".
| 3a2d29 wrote:
| Maybe you doubt it, but it isn't bigotry to question your
| motives because of your birth.
|
| Especially when your birth is a great fortune
| jonathankoren wrote:
| > Whether or not that's actually what is happening here is
| a different story.
|
| So you agree. The actions and not the birth are what
| matter.
| JPKab wrote:
| You're not wrong.
|
| Apparently activists of this variety tend to be highly
| narcissistic, with movements that engage in highly ineffective,
| yet high publicity activities like this being deeply attractive
| to these types.
|
| https://michaelshellenberger.substack.com/p/infantilization-...
| 1ris wrote:
| I have yet so see any argument why this should be ineffective
| or even highly so. Or why this should be any less effective
| than anything else that has been tried.
|
| With regards to your article: I think the authors answers his
| own questions: These are serious scientists. They told
| everybody in the whole world that we are all going to die
| (I'm paraphrasing, but you get it) in the most adult and
| sophisticated way possible: Highly prestigious peer reviewed
| journals, conferences and so on for several decades. Nobody
| listed. THAT was highly ineffective. Now it seems like time
| for a change in strategy.
|
| And given how very well it worked for the yellow vests and
| their infantile demands it looks like a good strategy.
| ratboy666 wrote:
| No, the serious scientists did not tell everybody in the
| world. I would challenge that assertion. As to "time for a
| change in strategy". Sure, why not. Turn off the lights and
| go home. Remember the quote from the attempted Sunflowers
| incident:
|
| "Is it worth more than food? Worth more than justice?" ...
| "are you more concerned about the protection of a painting?
| Or the protection of our planet and people? The cost of
| living crisis is part of the oil crisis. Fuel is
| unaffordable to millions of cold hungry families. They
| can't even afford to heat a tin of soup". I will let you
| think on this. "No new oil" is the supposed solution to
| unaffordable fuel. And cold.
|
| Sure, no new oil. I guess it is an oil painting. The good
| news? Maybe they are beginning to learn to not make
| statements.
| hulitu wrote:
| This is the sad state of todays organizations. Almost all are
| founded by "rivals" to distract from real world problems.
| mikrl wrote:
| In the spirit of coming up with solutions when you criticize...
| what are you doing?
|
| You're not in the news to my knowledge...
| 3a2d29 wrote:
| The idea that something has to be on the news to be effective
| is hilarious.
|
| If most Americans curved their consumption (didn't buy the
| latest iPhone every year, drove less) that would do way more
| than any climate change awareness.
|
| I get that people want to do radical acts because they feel
| good, but that doesn't mean you are making a big difference.
|
| In short: lack of awareness is not what is in the way of
| preventing climate change, personal choices are. Personal
| choices don't make the news, but are for more important than
| these acts, which make you feel good but don't do anything.
| delecti wrote:
| These protests are fantastic. They're keeping it in the public
| consciousness, doing effectively no damage since the art is all
| behind glass (beyond probably being incredibly annoying to the
| museum workers, who are likely ideologically aligned anyway), and
| doing so incredibly efficiently (for the cost of only a bottle of
| glue, a ride to the museum, and maybe bail). Point to any social
| issue and protests are divided into those that nobody pays
| attention to, and those which people disagree with the methods
| of. The world is at stake, better to be annoying than ignored.
|
| Can anyone remember any other climate protests recently? I
| couldn't when this happened, but I'm sure I'll remember the Van
| Gogh soup and this Pearl Earring incident longer than anybody
| remembered the guy who burned himself to death 6 months ago.
|
| https://www.denverpost.com/2022/04/24/wynn-bruce-climate-cha...
| gambiting wrote:
| >> doing effectively no damage since the art is all behind
| glass
|
| There was an interview with the director of the london museum
| where other attacks took place recently and he said that what
| these people don't realize is that as a result of this action
| museum will need to spend few hundred thousand pounds in
| security over the next few years(hire few extra guards and pay
| their salaries). It's money which could be used so much better.
| The damage this does to the museum is huge, even if the
| painting isn't affected.
|
| >>They're keeping it in the public consciousness
|
| The only thing they are keeping in public conciousness is how
| incredible dicks they are being and how their organisation
| deserves literally zero support.
| malnourish wrote:
| > The only thing they are keeping in public conciousness
|
| Do you have a source for this claim? I see plenty of people,
| in this post even, who approve of these methods.
| gambiting wrote:
| Yeah, and it's so weird to me. Who looks and this and
| thinks "good for them, go guys"??
| delecti wrote:
| You can disagree, but there are lots of reasons listed in
| this thread to like it.
| holyBatmans wrote:
| klyrs wrote:
| Leading image caption
|
| > An attendee draws on a tablet as she copies the famous painting
| by Vermeer 'Girl with a Pearl Earring' using THQ's uDraw Game
| Tablet which works on PS3 and Xbox 360 at E3 in Los Angeles,
| California June 7, 2011. REUTERS/Fred Pouser/File Photo
|
| Is this _product placement_??? Surely there were other pictures
| that could have been used here... like... what I wanted to see is
| a person with their head glued to a painting. Not an ad.
|
| To the naysayers (tongue in cheek): this isn't just any old
| vandalism, this is an _oil_ painting. The symbology checks out.
| sosodev wrote:
| I'm pretty sure they don't even sell that product anymore. So
| it's not really an ad?
| klyrs wrote:
| Funny, I didn't even notice the date. Still, I want to see
| the dang activist with their head glued to glass with a
| painting behind it.
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| Not only do they not sell it, that tablet was a financial
| disaster. It did fairly well on the Wii and so they decided
| to make a ton for the 360 and PS3. They barely sold.
| [deleted]
| soupfordummies wrote:
| This got me to click through and I actually chuckled. Bizarre.
| Is this one of those AI-written articles?!
| Mister_Snuggles wrote:
| The weirdest part of that description is that the tablet "which
| works on PS3 and Xbox 360" seems to have a Wii controller
| slotted into it.
| jameshart wrote:
| Photo is from 2011. More plausible explanation: it's just the
| first file photo that comes up when you search for 'girl with a
| pearl earring' in reuters' news photo archive.
|
| Or it's what the AI language model subeditor chose because its
| temperature was set to 'cute' today.
|
| What bugs me most, though, is that the image has a Wiimote in
| it, but the caption only mentions PS3and Xbox compatibility.
| jankeymeulen wrote:
| sound like just the caption of the stock photo copy/pasted,
| they typically have these kind of very specific descriptions
| warbler73 wrote:
| It definitely is product placement. What is going on behind the
| scenes at Reuters to allow for that is probably quite
| interesting.
| smabie wrote:
| For a 10 year old device that's not even sold anymore?
| etrautmann wrote:
| I need to pedantically point out that the oil in oil paints is
| derived from Linseed oil (and thus carbon negative, potentially
| locally sourced, organic, and shouldn't be protestable)
| PakG1 wrote:
| Don't let details get in the way of a good gimmick. /sarcasm
| klyrs wrote:
| For the sake of the joke, I'll grant that oil paintings are a
| form of sustainable carbon sequestration.
| hypertele-Xii wrote:
| Glue is made of oil or animal and isn't recyclable.
|
| The irony.
| toomanyrichies wrote:
| I've seen commenters saying that the intent of this action is to
| get people talking about climate change. So far, all I've seen
| here is a discussion around the actions themselves. I'd be
| willing to bet that the same effect is observable outside of HN.
|
| To my knowledge, no one is saying "Hmmm, on the one hand this
| stunt inconveniences me, but on the other hand it also makes me
| wonder how much harm I'm doing to the planet." If anything,
| people are probably saying "I'm now going window-shopping for an
| SUV, because fuck these assholes." I'd be lying if I said that's
| not what I'm thinking.
|
| Climate change is real, and we need to defeat it. But you can't
| do that without winning hearts and minds, and you can't win
| hearts and minds by alienating the people whose actions you want
| to change. I understand the frustration these activists have, but
| they need to ask themselves whether their actions are doing more
| harm than good, given what we know about human nature and
| behavioral change. If they continue down this path, I have to
| question whether their real goal is to reverse climate change or
| gain notoriety for themselves.
| ankaAr wrote:
| I'm seeing how society is going to something like Idiocracy film
| every day and it is terrifying
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| Can't tell if these people simply have a mental illness or are
| being funded by pro-oil groups to discredit the environmental
| movement.
|
| Because vandalizing artwork made long ago really makes no sense
| in the context of climate change and it's definitely discrediting
| the movement.
| WFHRenaissance wrote:
| This is just performance art. Change my mind. Institutional
| critique has been the latest hotness for a while in the art
| world... this is just the next phase.
| JPKab wrote:
| You're right. It's narcissistic, self-aggrandizing performance
| art for people who desperately seek attention and validation,
| without putting in effort or sustained, deliberate sacrifice.
| 1ris wrote:
| It's funny that you can say that about pretty much all art.
| educaysean wrote:
| > without putting in effort or sustained, deliberate
| sacrifice
|
| Ah, the hubris of 21st century software engineers
| rr808 wrote:
| Gluing yourself to art - so hot right now.
| agilob wrote:
| Gluing yourself to expensive cars, so cold and dark when
| employees leave.
|
| https://www.autoblog.com/2022/10/21/climate-protesters-
| glue-...
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| > a group called Scientist Rebellion took the sticky route
| when nine members glued their hands to the floor of the
| Porsche pavilion at Volkswagen's Autostadt museum in
| Wolfsburg
|
| Gluing yourself to the floor.
| MerelyMortal wrote:
| I like to imagine at least one of the instances is insurance
| fraud, and the owners are finding a creative way to cash out.
| Much easier to convice someone to destroy it under the ploy of
| climate change than to steal it.
| hypertele-Xii wrote:
| Destroy what, the glass protecting the painting?
|
| Title is clickbait, no paintings were actually harmed in any
| way.
| fleddr wrote:
| I think the problem in today's world is that we're so overwhelmed
| with daily doom stories that we've normalized a persistent inner
| apathy, cynicism, fatalism. It translates into it being
| impossible to make people care about anything, no matter how
| existential.
|
| You could predict that without change, the world will be an
| unlivable hell hole and people will just accept that. It could
| directly jeopardize their children's future and still nobody
| cares.
|
| It's a kind of crisis fatigue that has made everybody numb. On
| top of that, volatility in living conditions forces people into
| short term self-interest. These "luxury long term beliefs" can
| wait.
|
| Easier said than done, but as humanity we need a better story for
| the future. One that is more optimistic, has tangible benefits,
| something to get behind and fight for. "Everything's is going to
| get worse" is not a narrative, people will instinctively reject
| it at any and all costs.
| njdvndsjkvn wrote:
| black_13 wrote:
| thinkmcfly wrote:
| I love all of the comments complaining about how ineffective
| these people are - when the demonstrators goals were purely to
| raise attention.
|
| From where I'm sitting, I'd give this at least a George Bush
| level mission accomplished commendation
| snarfy wrote:
| It's the type activism that has the opposite effect on me. If
| this is how people behave then we deserve the climate hell we
| are creating. It makes me want to roll coal in their faces.
| schnable wrote:
| Does raising attention accomplish anything other than raising
| attention?
| jlokier wrote:
| Yes, for the same reason that advertising works.
| larksimian wrote:
| If these idiots hate climate change maybe climate change isn't
| so bad after all.
|
| (/s)
|
| There is such a thing as sabotaging the cause you claim to
| support.
| karaterobot wrote:
| You mean it's a feckless promotional stunt? Okay, maybe the
| world needs to learn for the umpteenth time that raising
| awareness is not the same as advancing your cause. To the
| extent that I know some dipshit is in the process of ruining a
| piece of our shared cultural heritage, I guess that raises my
| attention to the existence of dipshits to world record levels.
| To the extent that I do not know this person's name, or
| remember the name of his organization, I would say it's a
| failure.
| GemesS wrote:
| The problem is that people are talking about the letter and not
| the message contained within it.
| lawn wrote:
| Maybe they should change their goal to stopping climate change
| instead of purely raising attention on how ridiculous their
| stunts are?
| luckylion wrote:
| Depends on the mission. Do they want to raise attention for or
| against their cause?
| jabroni_salad wrote:
| In terms of 'getting exposure' these are very effective. If
| we're comparing costs it's a way better value than the
| gentleman that self-immolated in front of the supreme court
| back in april.
|
| You see 10,000 ads a day and this is the one that stood out to
| you.
| grej wrote:
| These people are uneducated anti-human Malthusians. In their
| world, all fossil fuels projects are bad, and all solar/wind
| projects are good.
|
| That is an uneducated and unscientific framing of the problem
| that will yield a terrible solution space.
|
| In their view, it's a great win to block a natural gas or shale
| oil project, even though the result of that is Germany chain-
| smoking lignite coal, and Germany and other European countries
| shutting down energy intensive fertilizer plants that help feed
| the world.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| _even though the result of that is Germany chain-smoking
| lignite coal_
|
| Or buying more fossil fuel from Russia.
|
| Things that make you go "Hmmm."
| OhNoNotAgain_99 wrote:
| lolpollo wrote:
| nerdjon wrote:
| I have conflicted feelings on this one. While I support the cause
| obviously, we seriously need to be more serious about climate
| change.
|
| I think they are taking the "any publicity is good publicity" in
| the wrong way. There are a lot of people very passionate about
| art (or at the very least find these pieces very beautiful and
| want to preserve history).
|
| I worry that things like this could do more harm than good.
| Especially given this is now the third? Most of the reporting I
| have seen on it focuses on the art itself and is it ok. But very
| little on the actual cause.
|
| If they make enough people mad about the art I worry it could
| undermine any progress on getting people to care about the
| climate and instead will just react with something like "well
| look at what these immature children are doing so the cause must
| not have any merit". We already have enough deniers out there, I
| worry that this is sending the wrong message.
| kingTug wrote:
| A guy literally self immolated on the steps of the Supreme
| Court in the name of climate change and it was barely covered.
| Anyone who is getting riled up over these glue stunts has lost
| the plot. Don't look up!
| cwkoss wrote:
| When did that happen?
| kingTug wrote:
| About 6 months ago. It barely got one day of coverage from
| the media.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/24/us/politics/climate-
| activ...
| honksillet wrote:
| People should understand that when uninterested or marginally
| interested people hear about these destructive stunts it make
| them NOT want to support their cause, whatever it is.
| unglaublich wrote:
| Exactly, there is nothing to lose! Those uninterested people
| would not give anything more about this cause than they did in
| the last decennia. Those people will simply continue messing
| around until it's too late. That leaves those that will finally
| open their eyes. Pure gains.
| Lonestar1440 wrote:
| Don't you think that this discredits the environment movement
| in the eyes of at least a few "Uninterested"'s?
|
| Nothing's free in this world.
| simonblack wrote:
| These vandals should be blinded in one eye for destroying
| cultural heritage works that belong to all of humanity. It's in
| the same league as the Taliban who blew up carved stone Buddhas
| that were hundreds of years old.
|
| Calling them 'activists' is a poor excuse for their actions. Let
| the punishments fit the crime. Deface something irreplaceable
| permanently, let them also be defaced permanently.
| toss1 wrote:
| Agree if that is what they were doing. But it is not; the
| paintings are shielded by glass, and it appears that the
| "protesters" are specifically selecting artworks with such
| protection for their stunts.
|
| That said, while I feel very strongly about the need to fix
| anthropogenic climate change, I can hardly think of anything
| more stupid and counter-productive. I have no idea how this is
| supposed actually change anyone's mind or even get the
| attention of anyone to the issues of climate.
|
| Sure, it makes headlines, and there's the adage that any
| publicity is good publicity. But that's not true, e.g., while
| 'everyone knows that sex sells', actual research showed that if
| the adverts were too sexy, people did remember the advert just
| fine, but couldn't remember the product at all. Similarly here,
| it's a shocking crime and puts "climate" in the headline, but
| all anyone remembers is the awful behavior of these people, so
| it is a 99% distraction from their intended point.
| jagraff wrote:
| As far as I know none of the activists doing this have damaged
| any art. It was all protected by glass.
| constantcrying wrote:
| What is the point though? Is there a single person who changes
| their mind on the issue of climate change because some lunatic
| does a bit of pseudo-vandalism?
| [deleted]
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| I think it's performative. The "activists" do something random
| and useless, but that lets them feel like they're doing
| something. So from their perspective, it's worthwhile, because
| it lets them feel better about themselves.
| selfhoster11 wrote:
| Excuse the strong language, but what the fuck else can they
| do about it?
|
| Corporate polluters are by far the worst, and if the
| government (which is full of pro-corporate lobbying) has not
| set up a strong industry regulator with sharp teeth, then the
| private citizen can do fuck all about it, legally speaking.
| Which is where you get people gluing themselves to private
| property and historical artworks, because that's only mildly
| illegal and unlikely to land one in prison for as long as
| some other available courses of action - like assasination of
| the CEOs of those polluting companies.
|
| We are way, _way_ past the point where individual
| responsibility on the part of each citizen can fix the
| problem. For one, there are few alternatives available to
| live a greener lifestyle. For two, even if alternatives are
| available, the majority of the society (yes, even in the
| West) simply isn 't paid well enough to implement these in
| the timeframes that we need to meet to not kill the planet
| (which is _now_ , not "in a couple of decades").
| rurp wrote:
| > assasination of the CEOs of those polluting companies.
|
| This sounds even more counterproductive than someone gluing
| their head to a glass case.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Omit the word "else" from your first paragraph. This isn't
| "doing something about it" either. This is just a different
| way of pretending to do something about it.
| selfhoster11 wrote:
| Ineffective and ridiculous protest is still a form of
| protest. In the absence of other options, it's better
| than doing nothing at all.
| seti0Cha wrote:
| So is posting on HN. It's as effective as glueing
| yourself to a painting (that is, not at all), but it's
| more environmentally friendly because none of us had to
| travel to do it.
| ohCh6zos wrote:
| Is it? Action for action's sake is not desirable.
| such12 wrote:
| There are all kinds of people doing serious climate
| change research, politics, business, etc.
|
| Other options certainly do exist.
|
| This ridiculous and ineffective protest only serves to
| make people fighting climate change look ridiculous.
|
| That only hurts the movement.
|
| It would be better if these individuals had done nothing
| at all.
|
| Better yet - if they don't know what to do about climate
| change, they can do any paying job, and donate their
| money to someone who does.
| r3trohack3r wrote:
| I believe there are two camps in the eco movement. One
| camp believes humans need to address our impact on the
| ecosystem. The other believes humans are the problem.
|
| You see this split in the movement around extinction.
| Folks will shame humans for causing an animal to go
| extinct while simultaneously coming out in opposition to
| re-introducing extinct animals to their ecosystem through
| genetic research (I.e the Wholly Mammoth project).
|
| I'd sum up the split as: one group wants to do something
| about it. The other wants humans to "just stop."
|
| Your list of solutions only work for the former group.
| rnd0 wrote:
| and the other group deserve to have no part of the
| conversation at all.
| r3trohack3r wrote:
| FWIW I'm in the "humans are awesome and need to fix this
| camp"
|
| Fortunately we don't live in a society where we get to
| dictate who is in the conversation. We have to have
| conversations with them and spread the good word of
| humanity.
|
| I don't think many of these people understand our planet
| is dying regardless of humans. 75% of all life on earth
| is behind us IIUC. Life has been here for 4Bn years, we
| have another 500m to 800m left in our carbon cycle before
| it grinds to a halt.
|
| This planet is heading towards a complete extinction
| event. Unless life manages to colonize other planets,
| finds a way to artificially maintain the carbon cycle, or
| replaces the carbon cycle, all life on earth is going to
| die relatively soon.
|
| Humans are our best shot at accomplishing that imo. Life
| on earth is extremely lucky that we happened when we did.
| It's extremely lucky that the industrial revolution
| happened. It put life on a trajectory to escape our fate,
| but 500m years isn't a lot of time to figure this out. I
| don't see any other species close enough to figuring that
| out on these timelines. Stopping the wheel of progress
| for humans dooms this planet to certain death.
| Unfortunately there are many calling for that these days.
| such12 wrote:
| > Your list of solutions only work for the former group.
|
| I don't see why this distinction changes anything. Gluing
| your head to an old painting is ridiculous and
| counterproductive either way.
|
| If someone believes the solution to climate change is
| either fewer humans, or less human activity, there are
| certainly constructive actions they could take.
| selfhoster11 wrote:
| > There are all kinds of people doing serious climate
| change research, politics, business, etc.
|
| Not everyone can be, and not everyone can afford to
| support, people like this. Donations are great, assuming
| you actually have any disposable income after paying off
| the soaring costs of rent, food, and energy bills.
|
| The way I see it, we throw stuff at the wall to have a
| chance of acquiring critical mass for change _now_ , or
| we can wait until it's _too late_ and we are guaranteed
| to hit critical mass because people will start feeling
| the pain and will want to do something about it.
| rnd0 wrote:
| Performing self-serving and self-gratifying actions which
| are counter productive takes time and energy away from
| actions which while lacking the panache of attacking our
| cultural heritage taliban style are much more likely to
| effect their stated (but not demonstrated) goals.
|
| It's easier to glue your head to a national treasure than
| it is to slog through meetings and the boring drudgery of
| actually working on fixing the problem is what I'm
| saying.
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| Just because a person does not have an effective means of
| doing something about a problem, does not justify bizarre
| antics. If a person does not have anything useful they can
| do, ... well, don't do something crazy just because you
| feel stuck.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| Accept your powerlessness with meekness and do not
| attempt to disrupt or even annoy the systems that caused
| it? You can't be surprised that people don't accept that
| bargain.
| pvaldes wrote:
| > do not attempt to disrupt or even annoy the systems
| that caused it?
|
| To start, lets don't blame Van Gogh, Vermeer or Monet for
| the climate change.
| svnt wrote:
| Literally no one is. Are people really this dense. Do you
| think anyone will be going to art museums in a +4C world?
| jjgreen wrote:
| In Scotland, yes.
| drewcoo wrote:
| You are advocating "learned helplessness."
|
| https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/learned-
| helplessne...
| svnt wrote:
| Yeah, I mean, just sit down and conform while someone
| steals your children's futures. What's the big deal? Do
| don't anything crazy.
| constantcrying wrote:
| You are far too optimistic. The issue is not this or that
| corporation, even corporate activity is at this point
| meaningless. Clearly China is gambling on climate change
| having little effect and so are many others, especially if
| you are a developing nation that stance is very enticing.
|
| You are not trying to get some corporation to "go green",
| you are trying to influence nation state policy.
| Assasinating some CEO is as meaningless as vandalizing a
| museum. The only way to meet any "climate goal" is if most
| nations purposefully hinder their economies, organized
| boycots against offenders. But lets face it: life without
| "Made in China", is quite difficult. For an individual as
| well as a nation.
| selfhoster11 wrote:
| While I wouldn't personally condone the assassination of
| corporate bosses, I can see them getting collectively
| anxious if this happens a few times. This could result in
| at least some changes to corporate policies.
| [deleted]
| rnd0 wrote:
| > So from their perspective, it's worthwhile, because it lets
| them feel better about themselves.
|
| In short, typical trust fund hippies. Disgusting!
| jandrese wrote:
| The idea is to keep the topic in the news cycle. Climate change
| is one of those issues that people are quick to forget about
| because the day to day effects are hard to see.
| MonkeyMalarky wrote:
| Only if you are willfully blind. Between crazy heat waves in
| Europe, the mass die off snowcrabs, unprecedented forest
| fires and flooding, unending droughts, various Arctic parts
| not fully freezing, disappearing glaciers etc. etc. it
| honestly feels like a week doesn't go by where something
| climate related isn't in the news. Gluing one's self to
| famous painting isn't going to convince the people who are
| already ignoring the real stories.
| vkou wrote:
| It's interesting how it exposes the hypocrisy of how millions
| of people feel _incredibly_ concerned about, say, a can of
| tomato soup destroying a small bit of our shared cultural
| heritage, but many of whom don 't feel anywhere near that
| level of concern at the wholesale destruction of our natural
| heritage.
| threeseed wrote:
| People do care about the bigger issues but not everyone is
| able to do something about it.
|
| It's not hypocrisy. It's just people are limited by their
| resources and capabilities.
| vkou wrote:
| You are mistaken in thinking that people in general care
| about the bigger issues. Most people don't, and many the
| ones who do only care until gas is $7/gallon.
| atq2119 wrote:
| This is exactly it. If you're serious about climate
| change, then you should see high fossil fuel prices as a
| _good_ thing. In reality, few people do.
| seti0Cha wrote:
| The reason people care about $7 gas is because often they
| can't afford it. People who can barely pay bills can end
| up losing their home, their car, getting their power shut
| off when expenses go way up. Poor people often have to
| commute long distances for work because they can't afford
| to live near their jobs. $7/gallon may not be asking a
| lot of you, but it is for them. I would submit that the
| people most willing to make sacrifices, the people
| quickest to condemn others for not being willing, are
| only making sacrifices they can afford, that are fun,
| that fit into their lifestyle, that enhance their self
| image.
| Lonestar1440 wrote:
| These activists certainly manage to keep themselves in the
| headlines. I'm not convinced that they actually get anyone
| incrementally interested in the underlying Global Warming
| issue, much less induce any change.
| ferrocarraiges wrote:
| It's a statement about how we are destroying our heritage, our
| history, and our future.
|
| It makes people think about a world without the famous works of
| art which tether us to our past, to highlight how far adrift we
| are now.
| ncr100 wrote:
| This makes sense.
|
| Is this point made by the activists, in your observation of
| these events? None of the Headline News articles mention that
| intention.
| svnt wrote:
| They can't control what is reported about them. Part of
| this is education of the readership. Seems like that at
| least worked once or twice, here.
| falcolas wrote:
| "You're destroying our heritage!"
|
| _proceeds to destroy heritage_
|
| Idiotic hypocrites.
| jandrese wrote:
| They didn't destroy any heritage. The paintings were behind
| glass. The whole thing was symbolic.
| throwaway5959 wrote:
| At some point they're going to escalate to hammers and
| knives.
| delecti wrote:
| Okay, then _at some point_ we can get be more concerned
| about the protest than about the potentially cataclysmic
| thing they 're protesting.
| falcolas wrote:
| Fair point I missed. Thank you.
|
| The symbolism's still shit though.
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| It's telling that some people find damaging a painting more
| heinous than damaging all of humanity.
|
| (Also no works of art were actually damaged. But I still
| think it's important to note how much this upsets you, but
| general ruining of the earth doesn't seem to)
| boredhedgehog wrote:
| This difference might be another instance of conflicting
| moral foundations
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory).
|
| The painting is ours; it's concrete, and something
| beautiful threatened by chaotic, lawless vandalism. That
| some vague 'humanity', or a potential threat to some
| distant country in some distant future is more important
| than that will appear obvious only to the group with the
| reduced set of moral foundations.
| Lonestar1440 wrote:
| I think that a world with 2d of warming AND damaged
| paintings is clearly worse than one with 2d of warming
| AND NOT damaged paintings.
|
| I see this fundamental flaw in reasoning frequently in
| "Activist" culture. Desiring that The Action lead to The
| Greater Good doesn't change the fact that, today 27
| October 2022, we have a damaged painting but no policy
| change.
| algorias wrote:
| The thing is that while most people agree climate change
| is real, it's not clear at all what the actual damage to
| humanity will be. IME said hypothetical damage is hugely
| overblown by activists, who talk as if the end of
| humanity was certain.
| rnd0 wrote:
| That argument is insanely stupid and assumes that one
| isn't upset about this IN ADDITION TO already being upset
| about our impending ecological future.
|
| Sir or madam, it is quite possible to be upset about two
| things at the same time; thank you.
| tomjen3 wrote:
| Earth is going to be destroyed by climate change anyway,
| nothing we can effectively do other than drastically
| limit the number of people born in the world, but the
| only way to do that would be unconsiable.
|
| But we don't have to destroy the art, in addition to the
| effects of climate change.
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| > nothing we can effectively do other than drastically
| limit the number of people born in the world, but the
| only way to do that would be unconsiable
|
| The elephant in the room.
| vkou wrote:
| If you're outraged by the damage of a small part of our
| artistic heritage, while turning a proportionately blind
| eye to the wholesale destruction of our natural heritage...
|
| There's something that may be worth a moment of
| introspection, and a reconsideration of where you want to
| devote your energies.
|
| These events are a nothingburger, if you care enough to be
| outraged by them, you should probably be many, many orders
| of magnitude more outraged by what they are protesting.
| qart wrote:
| This is the third such instance in the recent past. Canned
| tomato on van Gogh, mashed potato on Monet, and now this. I
| tend to think none of the multi-million paintings are displayed
| as originals. I don't know anyone who has worked at a museum,
| but I'm guessing they are all replicas behind glass.
| morelisp wrote:
| Why would they put a replica behind glass?
| argentier wrote:
| anon, I...
| dekhn wrote:
| That's a pretty uninformed thing to say.
| qbrass wrote:
| Fifth such instance.
| noobermin wrote:
| It garners attention and has people talking about climate
| change, like in this comment thread, like in the attached
| article. It has in fact already achieved its goal.
|
| Many other tactics have not so far. It's for example why people
| block traffic, it's an effective manner to gain attention.
| eli wrote:
| I feel like they should be gluing a poster about climate
| change to the glass protecting the painting instead of their
| hand.
| thinkingemote wrote:
| They are playing the attention game now and are beholden to
| the rules of the game and the organisations that control the
| playing field.
|
| In terms of climate change the media organisations support
| these activists. However where the media do not support the
| cause the attention game is the wrong thing to play.
|
| It's all spectacle now. No actual change of a person's heart
| just ideology mediated through images. It does indeed get
| people thinking about it but only until the next news item is
| shown.
| selfhoster11 wrote:
| OK, what are the alternatives?
|
| - Bribing the politicians to do something (with what
| money)?
|
| - Having someone run on the political platform of building
| a greener future, while competing with turbocharged, lobby-
| backed candidates that want the exact opposite?
|
| - Having those companies clean up their conduct (with what
| effective regulators)?
|
| - Having better coverage in the media of matters related to
| climate change, to raise awareness and convince people that
| this is an emergency (with what media that's not owned by
| old pro-fossil billionaires)?
|
| Raising awareness in this way may be stupid, but it's an
| avenue to at least get people talking for a few seconds.
| bell-cot wrote:
| How about taking a page from the political playbook of
| the U.S.'s NRA (National Rifle Association, an extremely
| pro-gun group in recent decades) - keep detailed records
| of how every politician votes (on climate laws, vs. the
| NRA's focus on gun laws), then zealously turn out to vote
| in every election? That gave the NRA political influence
| far beyond what their membership numbers would suggest,
| decades before America's current culture wars had really
| heated up.
|
| Of course, that would also require some real work, and a
| grown-up attention span. Vs. "I scream for full
| gratification NOW" performative activism, which has
| seemed the default for kids since at least the 1960's.
| DwnVoteHoneyPot wrote:
| An alternative is for people to blame themselves, the
| consumer. Oil companies won't produce oil if no one is
| using it. Everyone is blaming and pointing fingers at
| other people to do something.
| svnt wrote:
| Try buying food and having a social life without
| acquiring plastic or burning coal or gas, directly or
| indirectly.
|
| They can control the supply side, and have. Putting the
| blame on the consumer is what happened in the 90s. The
| consumer can do nothing but hoard soda bottles to keep
| them from landfills at this point.
| MandieD wrote:
| Or we can drink a lot less soda and other bottle drinks.
| Tap water is better for your body, bank account, and
| world.
| svnt wrote:
| Agreed -- my example was intended to be mildly
| hyperbolic.
| selfhoster11 wrote:
| Tap water is not safe to drink everywhere, but even if I
| don't drink bottled water - that's still a drop in the
| bucket next to huge corporations that churn out plastic
| products by the ton.
| CM30 wrote:
| Protesting in a way that governments can't ignore? Like
| imagine if instead of doing this to a random painting or
| sitting in a road, they blocked the door into congress,
| the white house, the house of commons, etc? That would
| get far more attention and press than vandalising a
| statue or painting or sitting in a road.
| svnt wrote:
| You cannot "block the door" into congress or the white
| house. You cannot get close enough to do it. Even if you
| did, you would not accomplish anything as the buildings
| are resilient to spofs at this point.
| owisd wrote:
| They have done these things and it hasn't gotten more
| attention, hence why you've not heard of it. And hence
| art galleries :
|
| https://news.sky.com/story/extinction-rebellion-
| protesters-s...
|
| https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11306813/Now-
| Just-S...
| seti0Cha wrote:
| Have you heard the joke about the drunk man looking for
| his keys under the streetlight? A cop comes along and
| starts helping him, but they don't find the keys. The cop
| asks "Are you sure you lost them here?" The drunk says,
| "no I lost them over there, but the light's better here."
| insanitybit wrote:
| Murdering executives? If you're going to be an eco
| terrorist be an eco terrorist. This is just useless.
|
| Or if you don't want to go that far, maybe a protest that
| actually brings information to people who need it?
| svnt wrote:
| I think it's reasonable to decline murdering people as a
| protest practice.
|
| Who fits your second group? Who is it that needs the
| information that doesn't have it already?
| insanitybit wrote:
| > I think it's reasonable to decline murdering people as
| a protest practice.
|
| If you say so.
|
| > Who fits your second group? Who is it that needs the
| information that doesn't have it already?
|
| Climate change deniers, of course. Go engage with them.
| It can't be any more pointless than fucking up some
| painting.
| svnt wrote:
| Getting their opposition to engage with the brainwashed
| denier masses is exactly what the money wants. They can
| leverage money and scale to convert and you can't.
|
| Hitting them in the art is a bit of class-oriented
| warning, and if you don't see the subtlety of what's
| happening I'd argue that's on you.
|
| edit: Not that I'm not sympathetic. I spent 2019 in a
| dark place admiring the folks who managed to shut down
| that UK airport just by flying drones.
| CM30 wrote:
| But does it get attention to what they want to get attention
| for? At the moment, most responses have been "God these guys
| are idiots" and "what's the point of this?", not "damn,
| climate change is a problem we really need to do more about
| now"
| hunterb123 wrote:
| Noone saw this and said, "you know what I'm going to focus on
| the climate now".
|
| Everyone just sees a person wasting glue, vandalizing art,
| and acting like a child.
|
| It's a selfish act to make them feel better and boast amongst
| their peers.
|
| If anything it hurts the movement they claim to support.
|
| I guess picking up trash doesn't give them a good enough
| high...
| insanitybit wrote:
| I've never once seen people talking about climate change
| directly as a response to this sort of protest. Like, it gets
| brought up in terms of how _I_ just brought it up, I said the
| _words_ "climate change", but we're not having a discussion.
|
| Because of _course_ we 're not. Climate change doesn't need
| more attention, everyone knows about it, whether they believe
| it's a problem or not. This isn't bringing awareness to
| anyone and it isn't changing anyone's mind.
| celeritascelery wrote:
| > has people talking about climate change, like in this
| comment thread
|
| Who in this thread is talking about climate change? Everyone
| is focused on the crazy behavior of the vandals.
| legitster wrote:
| > has people talking about climate change
|
| Incorrect. None of this has spawned a single conversation
| about climate change.
|
| The only thing it has spawned is debate about how much moral
| justification one can receive from the existence of climate
| change.
| deburo wrote:
| >and has people talking about climate change
|
| Not in this thread so far.
|
| Neither in this one:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33309661
|
| There's a few comments in this one discussing the climate,
| but mostly they are puzzled by the activists' method:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33268174
| yetihehe wrote:
| Hacker news is not target audience of that action.
| notahacker wrote:
| I would suggest that Hacker News is considerably _more_
| likely to turn the debate to solving climate change than
| how weird those people are, how much they hate vandalism
| or what the punishment should be than the average group
| of people...
| giantg2 wrote:
| Seems a bold claim to make. Who is, and why?
| insanitybit wrote:
| I think you really need to explain who the target
| audience is, if not a site that routinely discusses
| climate change and climate targeting
| technologies/solutions.
| amelius wrote:
| It is a form of hacking.
| throwawayoaky wrote:
| I mean what do you want em to do, go all FFVII? Seems like the
| paintings were fine; very strange to see all the triggered in the
| comments. Guessing it's because young privileged hippies are an
| easy target for ire.. but idk it's a common trope: "stop
| protesting like that, you're making us look bad! You're playing
| the exact role the bad guys want you to play!" which is funny
| because those lines are right out of the bad guys' playbook. I'm
| not saying I know the right way to protest, just saying you're
| all kinda falling in line exactly the way you're expected to when
| you say that. And you could argue that fine art is a better
| target than say petrochemical facilities where you're just going
| to piss off people trying to make a living: fine art museums are
| strictly optional/luxury/rich spaces.
|
| To those supporting retributive justice against the protesters:
| weird. But if you're into that kind of thing can't you see the
| attempt to exact a kind of symbolic retributive justice here?
| Like, "we can't enjoy nature cause you're blowing it up, so you
| can't enjoy your precious art safe space."
| YurgenJurgensen wrote:
| AVALANCHE would at least have a clear idea of how their actions
| would lead to their goals in a way that isn't just "raising
| awareness". And I expect the general public would actually care
| less about the lives of some oil company executives than some
| famous paintings.
| insanitybit wrote:
| > "stop protesting like that, you're making us look bad! You're
| playing the exact role the bad guys want you to play!"
|
| Well, sorry, but sometimes that might be true. Like, IMO this
| isn't a case of "you're making us look bad", that would be
| giving it too much credit in terms of impact. I would say this
| is effectively neutral - the people who already understand
| climate change will go "yep, climate change is a huge crisis,
| this is dumb", and the people who don't will go "wow they're
| stupid and climate change is fake".
|
| Just because "the bad guys" like to delegitimize a form of
| protest doesn't make the form of protest any more legitimate.
| Yes, it's out of their playbook, but also this is dumb?
|
| > And you could argue that fine art is a better target than say
| petrochemical facilities where you're just going to piss off
| people trying to make a living: fine art museums are strictly
| optional/luxury/rich spaces.
|
| Two things.
|
| 1. No one is saying "go protest a petrochemical facility".
|
| 2. Art museums are not a luxury/ rich space. They're almost
| always free or very affordable, they're one of the few places I
| could go to with friends as a young teen in NYC because of
| that. School field trips to those museums were frequent. This
| idea that art is just for hanging on the wall during fancy
| galas is quite silly. Art in your _home_ might be a luxury for
| the rich, that 's totally different.
|
| > To those supporting retributive justice against the
| protesters: weird
|
| I'm very against that fwiw. At least to the degree people are
| talking about - it's pretty insane how people will say these
| people should be physically attacked over this or whatever.
|
| > "we can't enjoy nature cause you're blowing it up, so you
| can't enjoy your precious art safe space."
|
| This is the sort of thing children think of though. Like, you
| broke my toy so I'm breaking yours, and now we're both sitting
| here crying? IDK.
|
| I think a few things can be true.
|
| 1. Climate change is a global crisis and we need to address it
|
| 2. Getting more people talking about climate change is a good
| thing
|
| 3. This form of protest is stupid
| WJW wrote:
| > Getting more people talking about climate change is a good
| thing
|
| While I would normally agree with this sentiment, this way of
| protesting does more harm than good. Wouldn't you want the
| "fight climate change" standpoint to be the majority
| standpoint, instead of being the standpoint associated with
| idiots who threaten to destroy priceless art?
| insanitybit wrote:
| I had 3 points, I believe the 3rd addresses this.
| WJW wrote:
| I know, just wanted to expand on how the exact way the
| 2nd and 3rd points interact :)
| JPKab wrote:
| What we want them to do is not act like toddlers throwing a
| temper tantrum.
|
| They aren't accomplishing anything but making people dislike
| the majority of climate activists who don't engage in such
| foolish, self-aggrandizing, wanton, and yes, highly
| narcissistic behavior.
|
| Here's a productive activity that the vast majority of climate
| activists are unwilling to do: Take cold showers. Start a big
| movement to take cold showers. Hot water heaters use tons of
| energy. My dad is a climate activist, and uses cold water,
| keeps his thermostat set to 50 in winter, doesn't use AC in
| summer. You know, things that are actually uncomfortable and
| require sacrifice that these narcissists will never do.
| atq2119 wrote:
| Those are all great (and I do some of them), but they aren't
| really going to move the needle. It is a step above a flag on
| your social media profile pic, but it's just a step and we
| all need to climb Mt Everest.
| ok_dad wrote:
| Individual action on the climate cannot solve climate change.
| I can live in a tent off the land and it won't help because
| not even a small minority of people will be willing to take
| cold showers, let alone the other things they would have to
| give up. Things have to change from the top down,
| corporations have to do more than lip service, sometimes
| large organizations will have to be put to an end (big oil,
| big plastics, etc).
| _jal wrote:
| They are attacking museums that have nothing to do with climate
| change, instrumentally damaging them for publicity.
|
| I can think of all sorts of ways to do more of this. Protest
| meat by disrupting homeless shelters. Or protest racism by
| attacking the Red Cross. Do you believe those are ethically
| defensible actions?
|
| I think we both know the reason museums are targets is that
| they know most museum employees are sympathetic to the cause
| and unlikely to get violent. Try the same stunt in a refinery
| and I don't think you'll glue your hand to the wall twice.
|
| It is opportunistic and shitty, and I also believe
| counterproductive.
|
| > "we can't enjoy nature cause you're blowing it up, so you
| can't enjoy your precious art safe space."
|
| What I hear is, "I'm a selfish, naive attention seeker who
| needs a decent spell in jail to think about my choices."
| nerpderp82 wrote:
| Focus on making fun of the protesters, ignore the message. Do
| nothing.
| 0x_rs wrote:
| This post reads like satire, no wonder you made a new account
| to post it and used some interesting words in it. Regardless,
| "fine art museums" are "strictly optional" and "luxury" places?
| That's just something I can't wrap my head around and I wonder
| why a dozen people agreed with it enough to upvote. I believe
| ruining a valuable art piece that can be appreciated by every
| person alike is punishable by at least some laws, so they
| should face the consequences of their actions (despite this
| occurrence not damaging the piece, unlike others in the past
| weeks). Why some people are calling for "retributive justisce"
| is just how some others are claiming this could be a false flag
| attempt: it is so truly inane and harmful to the cause that
| there is little logical explanation to it as a genuine form of
| protest.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| _Like, "we can't enjoy nature cause you're blowing it up, so
| you can't enjoy your precious art safe space."_
|
| Why provoke reactionism? When has that ever helped? Here in the
| US, it's not hard to imagine the footage of these "protests"
| showing up in campaign ads sponsored by the party that's least
| responsive to ecological concerns.
|
| In fact, this almost sounds like a false flag action. It's
| _that_ counterproductive.
| gambiting wrote:
| >>fine art museums are strictly optional/luxury/rich spaces.|
|
| Your school never took you to museums? Theatres? Exhibitions?
| Or is art limited only to rich people where you live?
| 323 wrote:
| nemo44x wrote:
| Someone should glue their hands to an activist.
| pvaldes wrote:
| False flag operations against ecologists in my opinion that are
| shown as crazy people. This dimwits would do anything for ten
| seconds of fame, but the police should focus into finding the
| puppeteer. There is often external grooming and target
| assignation in this cases [In My Arrogant Opinion].
|
| I'm missing somebody at Greenpeace or similar organizations doing
| some damage control and saying that this is stupid as s*t, and
| that this fluorescent adolescents don't represent the ecologist
| collective in any way or form.
| rnd0 wrote:
| >False flag operations against ecologists in my opinion that
| are shown as crazy people. This dimwits would do anything for
| ten seconds of fame, but the police should focus into finding
| the puppeteer.
|
| I agree 100%, it's a shame you're being down-voted into
| oblivion. Of course I suspect that rather than some shadowy
| villian you'll probably find a right-wing think tank but apart
| from that, I agree with you.
| draw_down wrote:
| [deleted]
| nisegami wrote:
| Looking into the funding of "Just Stop Oil" really makes it
| seem like the most likely situation is enabling insane and
| ineffective "activism" by well-meaning but misguided folk as a
| way to discredit the larger movement. Not quite a false flag
| op, but meaningfully the same.
| pvaldes wrote:
| Interesting. Who is funding stop oil?
|
| Maybe Museums should start hanging art at more than 2m high
| so stupid children are unable to reach it.
| daniel-cussen wrote:
| boppo1 wrote:
| I read it's the daughter of an energy mogul using
| inheritance to try to undo her parent's legacy. But that
| seems like a cover story to me.
| ck2 wrote:
| For everyone calling these people crazy, you are talking about
| these stories for way more than a day now, I've seen them
| everywhere and I don't even read the news anymore.
|
| But I agree it's not going to lead to any policy changes so yeah
| I don't get it either.
| LinuxBender wrote:
| Would it significantly degrade the visual appearance of the art
| if it were behind riot-proof glass? [1]
|
| [1] - https://www.riotglass.com/
| boppo1 wrote:
| As a painter, yes, putting paintings behind glass makes me
| significantly less able to evaluate and appreciate them.
|
| What these protests will accomplish will be to make art harder
| for common people to see.
| ls15 wrote:
| Probably airport-like security checks before entering a
| museum.
| amelius wrote:
| Put visitors in an exoskeleton that guides them through the
| exposition in a preprogrammed way.
| ls15 wrote:
| I think I'd enjoy that, actually.
| boppo1 wrote:
| In the early Halo books there's a bit about the
| development of the mjonlir armor: they put a marine in
| who didn't have augmented bones/muscles like the Spartan
| IIs. He moves his arm, the suit accelerates it and
| dislocates the limb. Then it accelerates all the
| reactions he has from the pain and more or less turns all
| his joints to a pulp.
|
| Just thought I'd share.
| luckylion wrote:
| "Sorry, can't let you in with that head and those hands."
| Beltalowda wrote:
| > As a painter, yes, putting paintings behind glass makes me
| significantly less able to evaluate and appreciate them.
|
| Even as a non-painter who quite frankly doesn't really care
| about the technique of the painting style and more about the
| overall scene I find glass incredibly distracting. There's
| always some glare, and it just doesn't look right.
|
| In Den Bosch there's a wonderful little Hieronymus Bosch
| museum which has just replicas Bosch's paintings, but you can
| open and close the triptychs, sniff the canvas if you want,
| and all of that. I've also seen some originals over the
| years, all heavily protected by glass, and I'd much rather go
| see the replicas. From what I know, even many art experts
| have difficulties reliably distinguishing between an original
| and well-made replica.
|
| I wish more museums would use replicas of famous paintings;
| it would be a great addition to the originals.
| Someone wrote:
| FTA (right at the start): _A climate activist glued his head to
| glass covering the world-famous "Girl with a Pearl Earring"
| painting at a museum in The Hague on Thursday, though the
| artwork was not damaged, gallery staff said._
|
| = probably not.
| LinuxBender wrote:
| Well in that case, perhaps I would give them some more glue
| to adhere their hands to the glass and make them temporarily
| part of the exhibit. It might attract more visitors.
|
| [Edit] The more I think about this, there could be some
| learning moments. Provided there are physical security
| present, psychology teachers and professors could bring in
| their students to interview the activist and photography
| students could take pictures. Students could be given
| critical thinking exercises to theorize the thought process
| of the activist and postulate what might be their perceived
| goals vs. what may actually be accomplished.
| jfengel wrote:
| They seem to be deliberately choosing art that's behind glass.
| That gets them maximum visibility without causing priceless
| damage.
|
| I still think they're probably doing more harm than good, but
| climate inaction has gone on so long it's unsurprising that a
| few people would resort to something showy, stupid, and
| useless. I get their frustration, and wish I had something more
| useful to say to them besides "Please don't make me look stupid
| for supporting your cause."
| Beltalowda wrote:
| > They seem to be deliberately choosing art that's behind
| glass. That gets them maximum visibility without causing
| priceless damage.
|
| In the video they say "don't worry, it's behind glass", or
| something along those lines, so the decision indeed seemed
| deliberate.
|
| Besides, kind of hard not to notice whether you're glueing in
| your to glass or a painting.
| colechristensen wrote:
| > An attendee draws on a tablet as she copies the famous painting
| by Vermeer 'Girl with a Pearl Earring' using THQ's uDraw Game
| Tablet which works on PS3 and Xbox 360 at E3
|
| Uh, is this ad copy in the image caption?
| legitster wrote:
| Say what you will about the original protestor, they clearly
| spawned an entire genre of performance art in their own right.
| kennywinker wrote:
| A question for people who don't think this is a good way to drive
| climate action: what are you doing?
|
| These actions are coming from a place of desperation, and they
| aren't going away until actual action happens. Don't like them?
| Do something about climate change.
| Gigachad wrote:
| I'm using every appropriate moment to campaign against the
| unnecessary use of cars. Especially SUVs. After we mostly rid
| cities of cars, the world will be a better place.
| pelasaco wrote:
| its plain terrorism. To answer your question
| https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/climate-change/ i
| think if you live in the real world, you would see that
| policies everywhere is being implemented exactly to fight
| climate change. Doing terrorism is seldom a solution or
| contribution to the cause.
| kennywinker wrote:
| Mock-destroying a piece of artwork is not terrorism by even
| the most wild stretch of the imagination.
|
| As for your link - that's not what YOU are doing, that's a
| plan agreed to by your government. It's also nowhere near
| enough to actually halt climate change, if they even manage
| to hit that target. We collectively need to do much much more
| than outsource emissions to places outside europe.
| [deleted]
| club_tropical wrote:
| yamtaddle wrote:
| Man. They keep this shit up and _everything_ at museums is gonna
| be behind glass.
|
| One of the few remaining sorts of place that don't treat everyone
| like a probable criminal and lock everything up like a pawn shop
| in a bad part of town, these days.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| The security in the video is very passive about resolving an
| obvious vandalism in front of them, why don't they like...
|
| Check bags at the door for Cans of Soup?
|
| Try getting between the painting and the glue people?
|
| Try saying "Stop" with authority?
|
| What are these security people going to do when somebody walks
| up to the wall and just takes the painting with them?
| chatterhead wrote:
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| Can you explain where this feeling of yours comes from? I've
| always wanted to engage with someone who feels that retributive
| justice is actually justified, but not everyone is licensed to
| be so bold.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| Because it's performance art with no real purpose beyond the
| narcicism of the individual doing it. I think it should be
| rewarded with a felony conviction.
| uoaei wrote:
| That description also applies to your comment.
| sib wrote:
| Why wouldn't it be justified? They are inflicting costs on
| the museum and museum goers (monetary and in reducing the
| quality of the experience). "This is why we can't have nice
| things..."
|
| They (and others) should be disincentivized from doing so.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| Interesting, I guess that means some people default to all
| actions are justified and then carve out exceptions vs
| others who default to unjustified and carve out justifiable
| exceptions? What's your null hypothesis of justifiability?
| [deleted]
| ohCh6zos wrote:
| Philosophically, my stance is that all justice is retributive
| or it isn't just. In the state of nature I'm wholly justified
| in trying to kill anyone who tries to kill me. The benefit of
| a state is the ability to ensure justice happens even in the
| event I am killed.
| zasdffaa wrote:
| 'The Frame With The Head With The Girl With The Pearl Earring'
|
| Fuck it, looking at the top comments it's mostly people who
| obviously don't want climate change to be happening. They are the
| problem, not people who try to do something about it, however
| badly.
| theflyingelvis wrote:
| Now that's using your head
| spoonjim wrote:
| If you're trying to wrap your head around this: keep in mind that
| being really loved by a small group is more profitable than being
| broadly palatable to the entire world.
|
| The people who pull stunts like this get the most donations, have
| sex with the hottest activist chicks, and obtain the highest
| status in their in-group, something that you cannot get by
| writing position papers arguing "we should find a reasonable path
| forward to address climate change while keeping the oil rampdown
| slow and cautious."
| unglaublich wrote:
| We tried the paper way for 3 decades. Nothing changed and
| politicians started flirting with anti-science scepticism
| instead. These people are trying a last few tricks to get the
| public to realize the severity of the situation. If they don't
| succeed, at least they tried. The alternative is slipping
| quietly into an abyss.
| legitster wrote:
| Stop giving money to any non-profit whose only goal is to "draw
| attention". They will use your money to "draw attention", and
| spend all of the intellectual capital debating the value of
| "drawing attention".
| uni_rule wrote:
| These protests are all symbolic nothingburgers done by out of
| touch european teenagers. So far the only thing they seem good at
| doing is revealing how uncomfortably common whackjobs who respond
| to these symbolic generally reversible "damages" with calls for
| actual fucking pogroms are.
|
| British tabloids should give these kids a commission for writing
| their "destruction of our glorious heritage" ragebait for them.
| awinder wrote:
| "arrested three Belgian men in their 40s for damage to public
| property"
| uni_rule wrote:
| Wait, everyone just assumed it was the same people?
| lawn wrote:
| In Sweden activists recently blocked a larger road by gluing
| themselves to the road.
|
| The thing is, they also managed to block an ambulance that was
| rushing someone to the hospital. That person later died, and now
| they're all on trial for manslaughter.
|
| How in the world does this help stop climate change?
| TheLoafOfBread wrote:
| It does not but it feels so good when you can make other people
| miserable. It is just a one big schadenfreude for those people.
| amelius wrote:
| > How in the world does this help stop climate change?
|
| This is a bit like saying: how in the world will advertising
| make people buy stuff on a massive scale?
| r3trohack3r wrote:
| I'm using Kagi and can't find any reference to this using
| "activists glue hand to road charged with manslaughter"
|
| Do you have a link handy?
| thraway54321 wrote:
| I doubt you will get a link and if you do it will not be from
| a reputable source. A group calling themselves "Aterstall
| Vatmarker" did glue themselves to a road in Sweden and an
| ambulance was delayed for a few minutes, however nobody died.
| The people responsible are charged with sabotage, not
| manslaughter.
| fourseventy wrote:
| kennywinker wrote:
| veeti wrote:
| The people at Tiananmen had a cause to protest, this is
| just a bunch of privileged assholes throwing a tantrum.
| kennywinker wrote:
| I'd say the impending destruction of our planet is
| actually a few notches MORE important than the system of
| government in any one country.
| sixstringtheory wrote:
| It's inappropriate to perform such a protest in a way
| that can put people at risk. The possibility that
| protesting in a public city square holds up traffic such
| that people could die in traffic is a few notches below
| blockading an expressway right next to a hospital. I find
| your comparison bunk and offensive.
| kennywinker wrote:
| You may not like my comparison, but advocating for
| killing protestors is still not ok. We live in a
| democracy. You can be mad people blocked a street, but to
| say they deserve death for that is undemocratic, the kind
| of logic that has tanks rolling out.
|
| Roads get blocked for all kinds of reasons: Construction
| of roads i don't support, accidents because people drive
| instead of taking transit, cargo i didn't buy falling off
| trucks, parades, concerts, etc. should whoever was behind
| all those causes die?
| sixstringtheory wrote:
| I don't advocate for murdering protesters. And traffic
| can still move with planned closures.
|
| But there are plenty of scenarios where I would choose
| freeway blockaders having to reap the consequences of
| their actions vs some innocent citizen stuck in traffic
| having to suffer or die like if they had a medical
| emergency.
|
| In a highly contrived hypothetical, if I were rushing my
| wife to the hospital with a gunshot wound and got stuck
| in the front line of traffic facing blockaders, and they
| refused or were unable to move to let me by, yeah, I'd do
| what I had to do to get my wife to the hospital. And
| furthermore I'd be doubly pissed at the protesters for
| the PTSD I'd no doubt suffer if I injured or killed them
| in the process.
|
| Life isn't all roses vs tanks, there are a million shades
| of gray in between and people like you and people who
| glue themselves to freeway road surfaces have no capacity
| for nuance. Is it any wonder most people don't take you
| seriously in your endeavors? You're just turning more
| reasonable people against yourselves.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| Were the Tienanmen people climate activists? I am trying to
| figure out the parallel between the situations.
| jagaerglad wrote:
| They are not on trial for manslaughter but sabotage and
| disobedience to law enforcement, which twelve of them were
| convicted for0
|
| 0: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/stockholm/domen-mot-
| miljoa...
| Beltalowda wrote:
| > How in the world does this help stop climate change?
|
| It doesn't really; I think these are expressions of frustration
| over the inaction and ridiculous politics of it all.
|
| On an emotional level I find it hard to to be sympathetic to be
| honest. The solutions aren't even that hard, and the amount of
| investment needed isn't even that large (relatively speaking).
| It's very frustrating things go at a snail's pace just so
| $political_party_x can claim 0.2% extra GDP growth or whatever,
| which will of course be paid for many times over down the line
| in a country like the Netherlands, half of which is below sea
| level already.
|
| Does this sort of activism help? No, almost certainly not. But
| it seems like everything else has been tried already, so... why
| not try it? For my part, I just accepted it's going to be
| fucked and not much we can do about it.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Maybe there are ulterior motives to such actions, such as
| harvesting attention on Instagram and TikTok.
| tomcam wrote:
| I find these protests to be absolutely compelling. As soon as I
| understood the vital connection between Vermeer masterpieces and
| climate change, the scales were lifted from my eyes.
|
| I have turned my life around, sold all my possessions, reduced my
| carbon footprint to below zero (people actually _give_ me carbon
| because I 'm so zealous), sold my Porsche EVs, and am gluing
| myself to the statue of Lenin in Seattle at 4pm PST today. You'll
| be able to recognize me because I'll be the one with a nose ring
| and pink hair, wearing all black.
| luckylion wrote:
| It's because they're oil paintings, isn't it?
| ars wrote:
| They tried that at a Porsche museum, and the staff just turned
| off the lights and heat and left them there:
| https://www.autoblog.com/2022/10/21/climate-protesters-glue-...
| Aleksdev wrote:
| Some people have a lot of free time.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-27 23:01 UTC)