• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Merged Damaging/destroying art in the name of protest

commandlinegamer

Philosopher
commandlinegamer
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Messages
9,582
Location
Mazes of Menace
Protestors linked to Just Stop Oil threw tomato soup this morning on a painting housed in the National Gallery, London: one of Van Gogh's Sunflower series, created in 1888.

They were quoted as saying "What's worth more art or life?" (via Twitter).

The picture (see below for my recent photograph of the piece) does not appear to have any glass or plastic screening. Presumably there will be various layers of varnish that might afford some defence.

This is one of multiple similar actions in recent months. I can't help but feel a big sick at this which I realise is an overreaction as the painting is likely undamaged.

Destruction of culture is hardly a new phenomenon: rampaging armies have been at it for centuries.

And the damage oil pollution causes is horrendous. I don't disagree that it would be in our interest to lessen our usage of fossil fuels.

But I can't see their actions as being terribly effective. In a similar fashion to those undertaken by Extinction Rebellion, I think they risk alienating potential supporters in the mainstream.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63254878


 
I think this falls under the 'any publicity is good publicity' principle. They are keeping the issue in the news.

What irritates me is that they do not need to do this in the way they might have needed to ten years ago? The idea of anthropogenic global warming has been long accepted by the Uk government and I think the vast majority of the UK population.

What really needs to be focussed on is not where we are going, but how to get there, and these demonstartions as you say alientae people who you need to convice need to make sacrifices if we are to get there more quickly.

If they started carrying out guerilla insulation it would be more hepful. Sneaking into homes and replacing single glazing with double glazing, installing heat pumps. Even investing in an electric bus and delivering a volunteer bus service to rural areas where people are car dependant because of the withdrawal of diesel bus services.

I also think that they need to adopt at least a neutral approach to nuclear power. too much of the 'Green' agenda is anti-industrial / luddite with opposition to gene editing, nuclear power etc.
 
It has also happened to a Picasso in Melbourne.

Pointless and counter productive. Those who are inclined to vote Green will do so regardless of stunts like this. I believe that those contemplating a move to Green will hesitate. And targeting great works of art? That can only be the product of addled minds.
 
Planigale said:
I also think that they need to adopt at least a neutral approach to nuclear power. too much of the 'Green' agenda is anti-industrial / luddite with opposition to gene editing, nuclear power etc.
Click to expand...

Maybe they could name themselves "Let's go nuclear!" which would be in keeping with their performative melt-downs.
 
I prefer spiking trees and breaking windows.

That was a joke, but at least most eco-terrorism is coherent. This is just weird.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
Just FYI, we've got about a page tops before the Confederate Statue trolls shut this conversation down.
Click to expand...

Confederate statue trolls? OMG, it makes sense now! Unrepetent Confederates were Tolkien trolls! They turned to stone in sunlight, and that's where all those statues come from! That's why some people don't want them destroyed!! They're hoping for a cure to bring them back!!!!

This would make a great SyFy TV movie and you know it. All the greats could be in it: Corin Nemec, Casper Van Dien, Lexa Doig, Tori Spelling!
 
Remember back when flag burning was a big debate?

While I always agreed with the Constitutional right to burn a flag, as a method of protest I always found it a bit silly. It's too obvious, uncreative, and on the nose.

Same thing here. Legality/Constitutionality/Morality all that aside, it just seems like a really lazy, low hanging fruit way to protest something.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Remember back when flag burning was a big debate?

While I always agreed with the Constitutional right to burn a flag, as a method of protest I always found it a bit silly. It's too obvious, uncreative, and on the nose.

Same thing here. Legality/Constitutionality/Morality all that aside, it just seems like a really lazy, low hanging fruit way to protest something.
Click to expand...

You can burn your own flag, but if it is property damage of priceless pieces of art, there is a very huge moral and legal distinction.
 
commandlinegamer said:
They were quoted as saying "What's worth more art or life?" (via Twitter).
Click to expand...

Depends on whose art, and whose life.

Destruction of culture is hardly a new phenomenon: rampaging armies have been at it for centuries.
Click to expand...

The recent example that jumps out at me is the Taliban. Perhaps an appropriate comparison.

Matthew Best said:
As a result the damage is just souperficial.
Click to expand...

Well played, good sir.
 
angrysoba said:
You can burn your own flag, but if it is property damage of priceless pieces of art, there is a very huge moral and legal distinction.
Click to expand...

Well of course as "property damage" it's cut and dry, but stull like this (oddly in my opinion) is always treated as something bigger and grander than that.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Well of course as "property damage" it's cut and dry, but stull like this (oddly in my opinion) is always treated as something bigger and grander than that.
Click to expand...

Just consider it regular property damage...and the property in question has infinite value.
 
Very stupid indeed, as if this sort of thing were binary. Sure, you can say life is more important than art, but that does not mean art is not important.

You can pull this kind of utilitarian moral triage on anything. Something is always going to be more important than something else. Feeding people is more important than feeding pets, but starving the pets won't feed the poor. Living without nearly anything you can name beats not living at all, but need we see that as the choice?

A gesture that shows, if it shows anything, that whatever the merit of the cause, those people are the wrong representatives of it. Fanatics or tyrants, the difference is trivial: the green Taliban, convinced that their vision of the good is worth any price.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
Well of course as "property damage" it's cut and dry, but stull like this (oddly in my opinion) is always treated as something bigger and grander than that.
Click to expand...

Sure, and it is bigger and grander than mere property damage given how valuable the work is considered to be.
 
Ziggurat said:
The recent example that jumps out at me is the Taliban. Perhaps an appropriate comparison.
Click to expand...

Hard not to think of the Bamyan Buddhas, or the damage wreaked by ISIS in Syria. Then of course there's the destruction during the Reformation. All committed by those who thought they were doing the work of a higher power.

I might not be a fan of religious art or architecture but I wouldn't see it eradicated.
 
(Obviously) neither happening is better, but I'd rather see art vandalized then a bunch of rich twats buy it all up so they can basically use it to launder money and nobody (probably even them) ever gets to see it.
 
bruto said:
Very stupid indeed, as if this sort of thing were binary. Sure, you can say life is more important than art, but that does not mean art is not important.

You can pull this kind of utilitarian moral triage on anything. Something is always going to be more important than something else. Feeding people is more important than feeding pets, but starving the pets won't feed the poor. Living without nearly anything you can name beats not living at all, but need we see that as the choice?
Click to expand...

Agreed. The I'm to go out on a limb here and take a wild guess that the number of points in history where the metaphorical Mona Lisa and the metaphorical guy who's going to cure cancer have been tied to trolley tracks with someone manning the switch having to make a choice have been exactly zero.
 
JoeMorgue said:
(Obviously) neither happening is better, but I'd rather see art vandalized then a bunch of rich twats buy it all up so they can basically use it to launder money and nobody (probably even them) ever gets to see it.
Click to expand...

It's displayed in the National Gallery in London. The gallery is free to enter, and six million people go there a year.

The gallery does the exact opposite of the problems you see with art.
 
angrysoba said:
It's displayed in the National Gallery in London. The gallery is free to enter, and six million people go there a year.

The gallery does the exact opposite of the problems you see with art.
Click to expand...

I was speaking generally, not of this one incident.
 
The protesters have been targeting works of art by dead Wwhite males so they've not only been striking blows for the climate but against the patriarchy and white supremacy as well.

Let's hope that, at the upcoming COP-27 Europe actually get out their checkbooks and starts dealing with trillions of dollars of climate reparations owed to developing nations.

Then there's all that Industrial revolution and imperialistic spamming of the world thing to be addressed, but that's for another thread.

6 years, 280 days. Clock is ticking.
 
Damaging art for various reasons

(Inspired by the protest in another thread. If the mods want to merge them...)

OK.

The Taliban destroyed a load of ancient (Buddhist?) art.
Liberated Communist countries pulled down and/or destroyed Communist era statues.
Various statues/plaques/etc in the UK of people connected with slavery have been pulled down or threatened.
The latest appears to be a Channel 4 programme where art by various 'problematic' people is discussed and may be destroyed (by Jimmy Carr - not a good choice, IMO).

So, are any of these acceptable? If they are, why? If not, ditto?
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
The recent example that jumps out at me is the Taliban. Perhaps an appropriate comparison.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a good comparison. As far as I can tell, the Taliban selected specific works of art that were offensive to their ideology. Same with Joe's example...

... Though Joe's example may have some Venn overlap with destroying the commons in a fit of pique because you're not getting enough attention and people aren't taking your grievance as seriously as you think they should. That's certainly true in my city, where the same protestors who tore down a statue of Teddy Roosevelt (marginally understandable, in the paradigm of protest action), also smashed windows, looted shops, committed arson, and just generally punished the community for daring to exist and have nice things while there was outrage in people's hearts.

---

"... punished the community."

I think that might be the actual explanation for this kind of arbitrary destruction as protest action. Ostensibly it's about drawing attention to the problem. But I suspect it's actually about punishing all us sheeple for not already raising the black flag and joining the revolution.
 
Seems like you could destroy Jackson Pollack paintings and nothing of value would be lost, but some people really get off on them. Eye of the beholder and all that. Basically you shouldn't damage what isn't yours, and art kind of belongs to everybody, if it is culturally significant? I think?

That Banksy cat pretended to destroy his own work as a protest against hypervaluation or something, and hypervalued it in the process. Hard to take any of these artist types real seriously.
 
SteveAitch said:
(Inspired by the protest in another thread. If the mods want to merge them...)

OK.

The Taliban destroyed a load of ancient (Buddhist?) art.
Liberated Communist countries pulled down and/or destroyed Communist era statues.
Various statues/plaques/etc in the UK of people connected with slavery have been pulled down or threatened.
The latest appears to be a Channel 4 programme where art by various 'problematic' people is discussed and may be destroyed (by Jimmy Carr - not a good choice, IMO).

So, are any of these acceptable? If they are, why? If not, ditto?
Click to expand...

Protestants destroyed a lot of idolatrous catholic imagery, whitewashing over wall paintings etc.

Clearly to hard line protestants such would be acceptable as following the will of god (no graven images).

Most public art (sculpture) is of poor quality and we lose little by its removal. Just as there is little justification for keeping slums. The removal or destruction of statues to dead white men does not hugely worry me. Pretty much all will have expressed themselves using currently unacceptable language and done unacceptable things. What I do object to is that if it is a public structure then any change should be through a public agreement not the action of a few individuals. Clearly there are some staues who either because of age or artistic quality it seems justified to protect. Most of the Roman / Greek gods did utterly unacceptable things and do not deserve our worship or adoration. but most surving statues probably justify admiration. Trajan's column in Rome glorifies / justifies slavery but I would not throw it into the Tiber.
 
I wonder if all these smashing and looting of stores we've been seeing is a first amendment protected protest against the evils of capitalism and wealth distribution? 'Cause it kind of looks like trashing stores recreationally.
 
Re: OP title: I vote yes. Gives the art a little character and chicks dig scars. A little background story to tell, like why the sphinx has no schnoz.
 
SteveAitch said:
(Inspired by the protest in another thread. If the mods want to merge them...)

OK.

The Taliban destroyed a load of ancient (Buddhist?) art.
Liberated Communist countries pulled down and/or destroyed Communist era statues.
Various statues/plaques/etc in the UK of people connected with slavery have been pulled down or threatened.
The latest appears to be a Channel 4 programme where art by various 'problematic' people is discussed and may be destroyed (by Jimmy Carr - not a good choice, IMO).

So, are any of these acceptable? If they are, why? If not, ditto?
Click to expand...

In the case of the television show, performance art is art. If the destruction of the art is itself an artistic expression then it seems to be it's conceptually just as valid.

If we consider art to be a form of expression, it also becomes murky as to whether creative expression should enjoy more protection than, say, political expression, in the case of the statues. Arguably (and this has already been thoroughly hashed in other threads) statues are more a form themselves of political speech rather than creative expression, so destroying them becomes more counter-speech as opposed to vandals damaging art.

As for the giant Buddhist statues; people bring them up a lot in discussions like this, but to me it always comes off as a bit token. The statues were very old, but they were also first and foremost, inarguably religious iconography, and I'm of the school of thought that believes desecration of religious iconography as a form of expression is valid; the Muslim military unit destroying the Buddhist statues as an expression of "that religion is wrong" isn't, to me, substantively different from a South Park episode debasing a religious figure because "that religion is stupid" in that respect.
 
Checkmite said:
I'm of the school of thought that believes desecration of religious iconography as a form of expression is valid; the Muslim military unit destroying the Buddhist statues as an expression of "that religion is wrong" isn't, to me, substantively different from a South Park episode debasing a religious figure because "that religion is stupid" in that respect.
Click to expand...

You don't see a difference between someone creating something to express a message, and someone destroying something someone else made to express a message?
 
TragicMonkey said:
You don't see a difference between someone creating something to express a message, and someone destroying something someone else made to express a message?
Click to expand...

Obviously there's a difference; just not one, I feel, that's relevant to the question of whether one is "more valid" than the other, or whether one person's expression can and should be specially protected against others' expression. Certainly one would make people angrier than the other, and I understand that.
 
Doesn't tomato soup more fit Andy Warhol than Van Gogh? They should have glued their ears to the painting.
 
Meadmaker once said he would like to see objectionable works of art moved to a museum instead of being destroyed. Someone put a lot of time and effort into sculpting bronze statues for example. It'd be shame to see them trashed.

That's pretty much my thoughts.
 
Checkmite said:
Obviously there's a difference; just not one, I feel, that's relevant to the question of whether one is "more valid" than the other, or whether one person's expression can and should be specially protected against others' expression. Certainly one would make people angrier than the other, and I understand that.
Click to expand...

But it's not a question of whether the message itself is "valid" -- by which I mean it doesn't matter if what is being expressed is right or not. The question is whether anybody has the right to destroy the work of another just because they disagree with the message.

At the very least, even absent any and all possible messages, it is still a matter of property rights. If it doesn't belong to you then you may not destroy it. You may try to buy it from the owner and then destroy it, that would at least get you off the hook for the property damage aspect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom