Climate activists throw soup on Van Gogh's 'Sunflowers' to protest fossil fuel extraction

[Floyd R. Turbo]

LONDON — Climate protesters threw soup over Vincent van Gogh’s “Sunflowers” in London’s National Gallery on Friday to protest fossil fuel extraction.

The group Just Stop Oil, which wants the British government to halt new oil and gas projects, said activists dumped two cans of Heinz tomato soup over the oil painting, one of the Dutch artist’s most iconic works.

London’s Metropolitan Police said officers arrested two people on suspicion of criminal damage and aggravated trespass.

The group has drawn attention, and criticism, for targeting artworks in museums. In July, Just Stop Oil activists glued themselves to the frame of Leonardo da Vinci’s “The Last Supper” at London’s Royal Academy of Arts, and to John Constable’s “The Hay Wain” in the National Gallery.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2022/10/14/climate-protest-soup-van-gogh-sunflowers/10494863002/

[spooky3]

1. Assholes. Nt

[FBaggins]

2. I don't see how that makes sense even from their perspective

Did the artist use oil-based paints?

[emulatorloo]

5. Sounds like mental health issues to me.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. Wow. Of all the hot takes, I didn't expect that.

Did you just pick that phrase at random? Or do you really think being a climate protester is a symptom of mental health problems?

[harumph]

41. Let me pipe in - YES, irrespective of their environmentalist stance

people who deface and destroy art - especially art of this magnitude - are mentally ill
and probably kinda dumb.
It brings disrepute on others who share their environmentalist position.
They need serious help.

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. Oh, bollocks. You know full well they didn't "destroy" it

because this thread is full of people pointing out it was protected with glass.

You really do damage to mental healthcare by trying to use it as a accusation against people who do something you wouldn't do yourself. You bring disrepute on yourself.

[emulatorloo]

50. "You bring disrepute on yourself." I think you're projecting.

[inthewind21]

84. Mentally ill

Is the standard go to of excuses.

[Celerity]

90. +10000

[emulatorloo]

48. Hot take? Hmm... Climate protesters who seek to destroy art are hardly sane.

I worked in mental health care too. If you think these actions are “rational,” I can’t help you.

[muriel_volestrangler]

64. They didn't "seek to destroy art"

Why you insist on trotting out fantasies before proclaiming yourself a mental health worker and passing an offensive judgement on those you've made shit up about, I can't tell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union

[MarineCombatEngineer]

66. How do you know they didn't seek to destroy the painting?

Were you there? Did you ask what their intent was?

The only reason it wasn't damaged is because it was behind a pane of glass, but regardless, this isn't the way to garner support for their cause and it will backfire on them along with criminal charges and paying restitution for the clean up, something I fully support.

[muriel_volestrangler]

74. Because they've said so.

The canvas of the painting is protected with a glass screen, a factor Just Stop Oil said they had taken into account.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/14/just-stop-oil-activists-throw-soup-at-van-goghs-sunflowers

[MarineCombatEngineer]

77. I can say alot of things

doesn't mean it's true.

[muriel_volestrangler]

81. What did you want - a mindreading?

The painting is glazed. They could see that. They have said they knew it. Now you're saying that these primary forms of evidence aren't good enough for you. What would you actually accept as evidence, or are you just assuming that you have read their minds already?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

83. Once again,

I can say alot of things, doesn't mean it's true.

How does this garner support for their cause?
You weren't there, you don't know what there actual intent was, they can say they didn't intend to harm the painting, but how do YOU know that's true?

My opinion is that they've got a screw loose if they think this idiotic stunt will get the support they want.

[emulatorloo]

68. Oh so I am a Soviet era psychiatrist now? Get a grip.

“Why you insist on trotting out fantasies…” Obviously more projection on your part.

[muriel_volestrangler]

73. No, you're just following in their footsteps, by trying to paint those you disagree with

as mentally ill.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

75. It's called an opinion, not hatred,

something we're allowed to do in these United States of America.

[emulatorloo]

76. Uh huh, sure. You're the one trying to falsely smear DU'ers as "hating activists."

[LeftInTX]

7. Sunflowers produce oil...sunflower oil is a major source of atmospheric CO2

[ProfessorGAC]

28. If It Were Oil,...

...there's at least a 70% chance it was seed oil, like castor or flaxseed.
So, it would make even less sense.

[jmowreader]

62. Linseed oil is traditional

And he would have probably thinned it with turpentine - which comes from tree sap.

[ProfessorGAC]

79. Thanks

I meant linseed, not flax seed, in my post. Linseed comes from flax, but is a far more common term
You're clarification is appreciated.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

3. Stupid. Destroying art legacy because they are bummed that climate change is destroying legacy. nt

[jimfields33]

10. I think we need to do to all paintings what they did to the mona Lisa.

That painting is so protective and they need to do that for all paintings. Put protective covering over it and have people unable to get close to the painting. They should do this all over the world.

[inthewind21]

85. Ummmm

That's already done. No where on the planet will you be able to get anywhere near an unprotected Van Gough. Unless you own it.

[Happy Hoosier]

23. Fortunately, the soup is unlikely to have caused permanent damage.

These young people are complete assholes for doing this, but at least they chose to use a substance that has a visual impact, but doesn't really have permanent. destructive power.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

26. Gallery says the painting is "glazed" which is Brit-speak for "covered with glass". . . . nt

[demmiblue]

4. The painting is unharmed.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Brenda]

6. Why bother with facts?

As in the other thread about this, DU would rather hate on activists than accept the truth that the painting is unharmed.

[LeftInTX]

9. This happened in July

https://www.thenationalnews.com/arts-culture/art/2022/07/26/why-are-climate-activists-gluing-themselves-to-artistic-masterpieces/

Why is it in the news now?

Hmm...election...Fox News: "Left wing activists destroy Van Gogh painting"

[Bernardo de La Paz]

12. No. Read the tweet, read the OP. Throwing soup happened October 14, not July. . . . nt

[LeftInTX]

15. OK...Article is from July, but the pic is apparently dated Oct 14th...

Oh...internet news.....grhh...

[Bernardo de La Paz]

17. Wrong. GALLERY says the action happened Friday. READ THE TWEET!

You don't have to be a twitter member to read tweets. I'm not.

Read the first tweet you replied to.

[LeftInTX]

29. Twitter is known to recycle! Happens all the time!

I read the article linked in the tweet....

Date of the article is July 26, 2022

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. so now you know "The National News" is not a reliable news source

They've added a new picture to an old story. Notice the text of the story doesn't mention 'soup' at all. Archived version from the 26th July to 15th August are available, eg https://web.archive.org/web/20220815203124/https://www.thenationalnews.com/arts-culture/art/2022/07/26/why-are-climate-activists-gluing-themselves-to-artistic-masterpieces/

[Bernardo de La Paz]

58. I didn't say to read the article, did I. I said to read the TWEET in the subthread

When I write something, please read it, not read what you want to read into it. I was emphatic about TWEET. I capitalized it. (However, I was in error to write "the tweet you replied to" because I thought you had replied to post #4 which contained the tweets).

I did not write "article".
I did not say to go through the article to a tweet.
This subthread (post #4) started with a TWEET.

Now, to get you back on track, go to post #4 which started this subthread, click on the first TWEET, read that, note the date 14 October 2022. IT IS NOT RECYCLED!

[Floyd R. Turbo]

13. :

Protesters throw two tins of Heinz tomato soup at Vincent van Gogh’s famous 1888 work Sunflowers at the National Gallery in London on October 14. Photo: Just Stop Oil

[LeftInTX]

16. Got it...new pic in old article...

[Bernardo de La Paz]

18. Wrong. GALLERY says the action happened Friday. READ THE TWEET!

[onenote]

20. I suggest you go back and read the story again.

The Van Gogh incident occurred on October 14, 2022. The July incident was a separate incident involving other paintings. Seems really clear if you actually read the article.

"In July, Just Stop Oil activists glued themselves to the frame of Leonardo da Vinci’s “The Last Supper” at London’s Royal Academy of Arts, and to John Constable’s “The Hay Wain” in the National Gallery."

So maybe its in the news now because it just happened?

Maybe you want to edit your post?

[LeftInTX]

30. It's in an article dated July 26, 2022

I wish people would read articles and not just tweets. Nevertheless, the photos in the article are likely auto-updating....

https://www.thenationalnews.com/arts-culture/art/2022/07/26/why-are-climate-activists-gluing-themselves-to-artistic-masterpieces/

[Hugh_Lebowski]

35. Since the subject is so similar to the original July article, they just used the same container/url

if you will and updated it to include the new facts from October, and a new pic.

Normally you'd expect something like 'Last Updated 10/14/2022' or the like to appear on the site as well as the original articles publish date.

Had this site presented that, it would've avoided this confusion.

[honest.abe]

45. The Van Gogh soup incident happened today around 11am in London.

The July incidents were different works of art. The photos in that container must have updated to use that current photo.

Confusing for sure!

Link to tweet

[onenote]

54. The article in the OP is from USA Today and is about something that happened today.

The article in the OP is dated October 14 and is about something that happened on October 14. (See post #45 for confirmation).

You linked to an old article from the National News that apparently has been updated with a photo of the most recent attack. But that doesn't mean the attack happened on the Van Gogh as you seem to be claiming.

Again, go back to the USA Today article that was linked in the OP and to post #45.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

61. Wrong. READ the TWEET in post #4. It is not RECYCLED. It is 14 October 2022

[emulatorloo]

57. You are really way off here. The article is from Oct 14, the incident happened Friday.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2022/10/14/climate-protest-soup-van-gogh-sunflowers/10494863002/

Climate activists throw soup on Van Gogh's 'Sunflowers' to protest fossil fuel extraction
The Associated Press

Published Oct 14, 2022


LONDON — Climate protesters threw soup over Vincent van Gogh’s “Sunflowers” in London’s National Gallery on Friday to protest fossil fuel extraction, but caused no discernible damage to the glass-covered painting.

The group Just Stop Oil, which wants the British government to halt new oil and gas projects, said activists dumped two cans of tomato soup over the oil painting, one of the Dutch artist’s most iconic works. The two protesters also glued themselves to the gallery wall.

The soup splashed across the glass covering the painting and its gilded frame. The gallery said “there is some minor damage to the frame but the painting is unharmed.” The work is one of several versions of “Sunflowers” that Van Gogh painted in the late 1880s.

[LeftInTX]

59. There was an article in the tweet dated July 26.

The OP was originally a tweet, now it's an article. I saw the July 26th article in the tweet. Geez. I'm catching flak for posting an article from July 26th. However, the article is likely auto-updated with photos.



https://www.thenationalnews.com/arts-culture/art/2022/07/26/why-are-climate-activists-gluing-themselves-to-artistic-masterpieces/

Good grief, this really is about nothing. And it's not my fault that it's in an article dated July 26th.

[emulatorloo]

60. You are incorrect about the date of this incident. Re read the article OP posted.

I provided you another link above. I don’t know where you found that “tweet” but the AP article USA today posted clearly states this happened Friday, October 14, 2022.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

63. Wrong. NO tweet in the OP. There is a tweet in POST #4 people are POINTING YOU TO. . . nt

[FBaggins]

19. "Why does it matter that I threw rocks at passing cars?!"

“I didn’t actually hit anyone so it’s ok!”

[hlthe2b]

32. Oh, stop it! Lamenting a poorly chosen act of activism--one that potentially could have destroyed

an irreplaceable treasure is hardly worthy of the nasty attack you just launched on those of us who point it out. You appear new to DU. I can assure you we are environmental activists here ourselves, but we don't go out and try to hurt people, animals or irreplaceable masterpieces in some misguided way to get attention.

Accusing DUers of "hating on activists" may put you astray of the TOS for this site. Just a caution.

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. That "accusation" is an objective fact

The hate for the activists is clear from several DUers, in this and another thread. And it's not a "nasty attack" to point it out.

The painting is behind glass. So they weren't going out "to hurt people, animals or irreplaceable masterpieces". You're just making accusations up.

[Brenda]

38. I guess I've received my threat.

Good luck muriel.

[emulatorloo]

53. Your 'victimization' at the hands of evil DU'ers is duly noted.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

56. Oh, this is too funny.

Carry on with your victimization.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

47. Despite what you may think or say,

it was a nasty attack, whether or not it was protected and they did violate the law.

I don't hate them, I have nothing but contempt for them for attempting to deface a beautiful work of art by a famous artist.

If my comments bother you, well, that's your problem, not mine.

[emulatorloo]

55. BULLSHIT. No matter how many times you falsely claim DU'ers "hate activists," it isn't true.

[muriel_volestrangler]

72. Here's the hate:

"Assholes"
"Sounds like mental health issues to me"
"mentally ill and probably kinda dumb"
"hardly sane"
"Stupid"
"complete assholes"
"SO dumb you almost have to wonder if they're even for real"
"These are not climate activists these are anarchist assholes"
"These are entitled assholes"
(in reply to "Ever hear of Earth Liberation Front?&quot I helped beat the shit out of one of them back in the day lol The little fuckstick was outside an Earth Crisis show waving a sign that said "Spike Trees - Kill The Tree Killers - Earth Liberation Front". It wasn't as well-received as he thought it would be, even at an EC show. I just got a couple kicks in, but watching a rather large guy smash the punk's head with the stock his sign had been mounted on was immensely satisfying"
"Imbeciles"
"my feelings for these shitheeled thugs pass through mere contempt into vengeance. Fuck these useless vandals with a rusty drill pipe"
"entitled assholes"
"spoiled antics of white kids"
"Genuinely idiots"
"Idiots"
"the brain-dead little fuckers won't receive anything close to the punishment they deserve for this sick stunt."
"They should've sat on the curb outside and set themselves on fire."

This is why it's objective fact.

[emulatorloo]

86. That's not proof of your unfounded claim that DU'ers 'hate activists'. People questioning tactics

and whether or not the tactics of this group are rational and ill-advised isn’t ‘hating activists.’

You are way off base here with your attacks on your fellow DU’ers.

[muriel_volestrangler]

87. Comedy gold!

[emulatorloo]

88. You're right, every post of yours in this thread is increasingly off-base and comical.

You really aren’t doing yourself any favors with yr disinformation campaign against your fellow DU’ers.

Have a great weekend, I mean that sincerely. Bye.

[Hortensis]

113. I sorta agree with both of you, you most because you're right

about DU. Muriel ONLY about that horrible list of posts, more of the daily evidence that what's happened on the right is contagious.

And Muriel, to be clear, I don't appreciate your slurs against those who don't deserve them.

[hlthe2b]

95. Accusing me of WHAT? Why are you ATTACKING ME? Those activists did not know that they would not

Last edited Sat Oct 15, 2022, 07:36 AM - Edit history (1)

cause irreparable damage as appears to be their intent... Give these irreplaceable treasures essentially belong to the world, that is an unforgivable thing to try to do.

I don't deserve your attacks. I criticize the tactics of these activists as do most people here--not their cause. Further response to you will only enable this behavior and I will not do so. Have a good day.

[muriel_volestrangler]

97. No, their intent was not to cause "irreparable damage". They'd said so.

This is the thing - you're making unfounded accusations against them. Bringing up the DU TOS, when the other poster was nowhere near being a problem with them, was also an attempt to shut them up. Saying " we don't go out and try to hurt people, animals or irreplaceable masterpieces" is obviously an accusation that the activists you are slagging off do do things like that, when they don't.

It's clear (see the list in #72) that many DUers do hate these activists; pointing out that they do is not a "nasty attack".

[hlthe2b]

99. You are wrong. Period. And yes, they DID vandalize and cause damage, if only the frame .

As countless Duers on this thread have repeatedly told you, tactics matter, no matter how noble the cause. Attacking other Duers and making unfounded accusations is the projection of your own behavior on this subthread. You are better than this. I hope you will give THAT some thought.

[muriel_volestrangler]

101. Damage to the frame is reparable. The picture is already on display.

And I don't believe anyone here thinks that damage to a frame in the UK was really worth commenting about.

My behaviour in this thread is a result of hatred (not just about "tactics" - again, look at the names they've called the protesters in this and the other thread - sometimes including wish of physical harm) expressed by DUers. That evidence is in front of your eyes. You ignore it, and instead go on a holier-than-them "we don't harm people or cause irreparable damage" patting-you-own-back session, when your scapegoats don't do that either. You just see an opportunity to think yourself better than them, even though it requires making stuff up about them.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

102. This is the best comedy gold I've seen in awhile.

So everyone else here is wrong and you're right?

The only one here who thinks they're holier than them in this thread is YOU, but what the hey, keep that shovel digging.

[muriel_volestrangler]

103. A lot of DUers were screaming about "destroying" and "irreparable damage"

so yes, they were wrong, objectively. We all know that. We also all know they spent a long time insulting, and even wishing physical harm on, the protesters. This was all based on their wrong ideas about what happened, and so, yeah, the "holier-than-them" expressions were widespread. And wrong - they didn't bother finding out what happened, because many people love a chance to feel superior to someone, and don't want facts to get in the way of that.

It's sad that such knee-jerk reactions against climate protesters happen on DU; you'd hope that given the cause, all DUers would inform themselves of actual facts, and think things over, before leaping in with accusations of "mental health issues" and so on. But to many people, climate change is one of those things that can be nice to avoid, but not of great concern when there's an internet pile-on to join.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

104. This is where you're completely wrong,

we're condemning their mode of protest, not their cause.

Tell us, how does this further their cause?
How does the attempted destruction of an irreplaceable piece of art help their cause?
And yes, it was an attempt to harm or destroy that painting, whether or not it was glazed, by a couple of moronic idiots who should have known better, and I don't care what they say about not intending to harm it, we have no idea what their actual intent was.

Calling them out is NOT HATING, despite what you may say.

I'll say it, they're a couple of assholes for their actions, not their cause and if you want to deem that as hateful, have at it, I couldn't care less.

[muriel_volestrangler]

106. DUers have condemned the people, as well as the mode of protest

You call them "assholes", "moronic idiots" and worse.

It's simple how it furthers the cause: it gets publicity for what the government is doing - handing out new drilling licences for oil and gas (which is mentioned in the Sky News story on the painting), at a time when fossil fuels should be kept in the ground.

No, the fact that it was glazed, and they've said they knew that, means that it was not an attempt to harm or destroy the painting. I can't understand why you're still denying that - you're just ignoring reality (their intent is stated). You are not just calling them out, you're attributing false goals to them. And yes, that, and the personal insults, add up to hating them - bearing false witness against them.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

107. One more time,

just like Benedict Donald, people say a lot of things that aren't true, so how do YOU know, other than their word, that they had no intention of harming the painting?

This screwed up stunt will turn more people away from their cause than bring more people to it, so how does that help?

Judging by the majority of comments here, it doesn't, and I will continue to call them idiotic assholes who should have known the backlash it would create, all negative, they certainly didn't create any sympathy for their cause among those that would possible join in.

That you can't see that and continue to label us as haters is beyond me, but, like I said, I couldn't care less if you label me as a hater, it affects me in no way possible.

[muriel_volestrangler]

108. If you didn't hate them, you wouldn't throw away the actual evidence of their goal

ie what they say, in favour of your made-up goal you want to attribute to them.

Yes, DU is pretty crap when it comes to the climate, especially when in kneejerk mode. Thankfully, lots of people are more thoughtful than the DUers who react to a headline.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

109. At this point, I'm going to bow out of this useless convo.

we're just going around in circles, we're not going to change each other's minds and I don't care to read anything further you have to say on this particular issue, but I will read other posts of yours, which I generally agree with, so, on that note, I bid you a fare thee well and have a great weekend.

[harumph]

42. It was unharmed by accident then.

And, yes, sign me up for the hate brigade. I'm "hating" on activists who deface and destroy art.

[hlthe2b]

96. "unharmed by accident..." Exactly

[MarineCombatEngineer]

46. Nice attack on DUer's.

I guess I'm one of the "haters" also because I criticized their actions also.
I realize the painting wasn't damaged being as it was "glazed", but it was an asinine and illegal thing to do and won't garner any sympathy for their cause.

[emulatorloo]

51. Bullshit. DU doesn't "hate on" activists. Questioning the rationality of this tactic isn't "hate."

[secondwind]

8. The article says this story is from a while back.

Not current.

[Floyd R. Turbo]

11. 14 October 2022!

[onenote]

22. The article says nothing of the sort. Re-read it.

The incident that just occurred involved an attack on a Van Gogh painting. The story makes clear that this isn't the first time these folks have targeted art work. As the article states, "In July, Just Stop Oil activists glued themselves to the frame of Leonardo da Vinci’s “The Last Supper” at London’s Royal Academy of Arts, and to John Constable’s “The Hay Wain” in the National Gallery."

[marble falls]

21. I'm getting old. Is the concern about a multimillion dollar painting being vandalized or that a ...

... piece of art was vandalized? And I realized: I didn't care as much about that as I did about all the pickups and cars I saw in the parking lot at the HEB with engines running while the occupants were inside shopping this morning.

I'm getting old.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

24. It is not necessary to destroy humanity's legacy of art to save the climate

The two concepts (saving and not destroying) are compatible and non-conflicting.

Just like it is possible to chew gum and walk at the same time, it is possible to save our culture legacy and the environment at the same time.

[marble falls]

27. Absolutely no parity with the two in any way. I teach oil painting. I was commenting ...

... on my age and how locality modifies outrage.

[BlueTsunami2018]

25. Yeah, that'll do it.

What a dopey way to “protest”.

Greedy big oil execs and their paid waterboys in government are going to see people throwing soup and gluing themselves to a wall and say “You know what? They’re right. Let’s shut down the whole industry.”

Pulling these stunts turns away people who might be sympathetic to their cause.

It’s just dumb.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

37. It's SO dumb you almost have to wonder if they're even for real (nt)

[LeftInTX]

89. I grew up in the 60s and 70s....There was lots of dumb stuff

Not all of it was meaning and worthwhile.

[BlueIdaho]

52. More likely, the Big Oil Execs

Will look at their private art collections and think “I guess that makes MY Van Gogh just that more valuable.

[madinmaryland]

33. NO SOUP FOR YOU!! The Soup Nazi.

[Dr. Strange]

94. LITERALLY!

She's even shown flashing the white supremacist signal!

[Duppers]

100. Good fucking grief.

Climate activism is a liberal cause.

White supremacy is as ReichWing as it gets.

So damn.

[ripcord]

39. I'm sure their actions will have people flocking to support their cause.

[Dirty Socialist]

40. Defile the arts?

Even though the work wasn’t harmed, it’s still not cool IMO

[milestogo]

44. What kind of soup was it?

[jmowreader]

65. The kind that was hauled from the soup factory...

…in a truck fueled with petroleum diesel.

Yeah guys, great way to protest the oil companies.

[jcgoldie]

67. tomato

delicious!

[milestogo]

69. Tastes good on a cold winter day with grilled cheese.

I guess they picked something that would be worst if the painting were actually exposed.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

70. Don't forget the crackers.

Gotta have crackers with Tomato Soup.

[milestogo]

78. The floaty ones

[MarineCombatEngineer]

80. +100. nt

[Vinca]

49. What the hell does Vincent van Gogh and/or "Sunflowers" have to do with it?

Attention is fine, but not at the expense of a fine work or art. Throw soup on gas pumps or something.

[Kaleva]

71. They'd be better off spending their time preparing for the coming calamity

If like to know how much time and effort they are putting in to adapting.

[moonshinegnomie]

82. what a stupid way to protest

what the courts should do (since they are so concerned about fossil fuels ) is ban the 2 arrested from using fossil fuels.
no more driving,taking mass transit, heat or electricity. after all they are all derived from the evil fossil fuels.

[sakabatou]

91. ASSHOLES!

[beaglelover]

92. Complete assholes.

[XorXor]

93. I'm sure that will do a lot of good.

Not all attention is good attention.

[Hekate]

98. Complete idiots

[Owl]

105. Idiotic assholes.

[treestar]

110. Why that form of protest?

It does not seem related to oil.

[AntivaxHunters]

111. They said it was due to

the British government being more concerned with art & spending a ton on it when they aren't spending money where it should be spent & focused on - climate change

[treestar]

117. Thanks, I kind of see their logic

though they might start with other things, some might think, other than art!

[betsuni]

112. The "art establishment" was mentioned. Blaming Teh Establishment is always convenient.

Poor Vincent, .

[treestar]

116. OH thanks

seemed very odd for them to put those two things into some kind of competition!

[AntivaxHunters]

114. Some of the replies are just cringe....

I really wish people would read a different article than this one from the USA Today which doesn't say WHY they did this.

Climate change is THEE #1 cause of young people & to be honest, Britain isn't doing enough to fight against it. And quite frankly, we aren't either! Do you notice anything? The climate activists doing this are young people. And it happens here in the United States as well but the MSM doesn't cover it.

Activists from Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil are raising awareness the best possible way that they can and while people on here freak out, these are the young people who will be living with the drastic effects of climate change. I'm pretty sure that being able to breathe is more important than a piece of art but anyways....

They full well knew that the painting was shielded by heavy glass. Did they harm anybody? No. No one was hurt. So given the painting was fully protected and nobody hurt, exactly WHAT is the problem?

There is no other emergency as large as climate change.
Punching down on climate activists ain't it. And if that's going to be the path forward we're going to lose a shit ton of elections given young voters are now the largest voting bloc. Instead, punch up on the the British government & others like our own who aren't doing enough to fight against climate change despite the countless & decades we've been warned. And these activists specifically said that the British government is more concerned with spending money on expensive & valuable art than it is with climate change. We should be supporting activists not disparaging them. How many of you were around during the Viet Nam War & the protests which took place. I am not but I full well know how much shit anti-war activists got.

Don't be those people please.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Meowmee]

115. Not a very bright idea

to attack an innocent work of art, a masterpiece, to further your cause to save the environment or anything else. It's likely to do the opposite of gaining support for your cause. I find it sad that such works have to have glass over them in the first place because people feel the need to do this sort of pointless thing for whatever reasons.

[XanaDUer2]

118. "Soup is Good Food"