• 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

Well, I suppose one could do a ranking of which are bigger idiots than others, but I'd say they're still both idiots.
 
Checkmite said:
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.
Click to expand...
In which case it would also be conceptually valid for a performance artist to destroy your home and other belongings in the name of art.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I'd tack on another element: it's mean to destroy perfectly good toys, regardless of their purported economic value they are meant to be played with and enjoyed. Lots of kids would have loved to have those.
Click to expand...

This is the only true answer except for the small issue of them probably not having much appeal to children under the age of forty.
 
Tip for Climate Protestors

Don't try to make your point by absolutely enraging the very people you need on your side - the masses.

We're having a spate of climate and climate-related protests her at the moment, and like those in the UK and throwing paint at works of art in Europe, they're doing the movement a lot more harm than good.

I almost think they're paid by the right to turn people off climate issues, because it seems insane to me to try to leverage governments by inconveniencing commuters and ordinary people.
 
Might be useful for protestors generally.

ETA: Upon (brief) reflection, it seems to me they are mostly trying to impress and outdo each other rather than move the masses.
 
Last edited:
Destroying the commons - and I include things like art and travel time in that - because your cause isn't getting the attention you think it deserves is childishly anti-social. It's not about getting attention for your cause, it's about punishing the people around you for not paying attention to your cause.

Their words say they're trying to get your attention and make you their ally. But their actions say you are their enemy and that violence against you is justified.

It makes sense when PETA throws paint on someone's fur coat. We all know that specific person really is PETA's enemy. It makes sense to us that PETA would target them for violence. And the same is true when an activist blocks traffic, or destroys art. They're attacking the commons, and saying all of us are their enemy, all of us are in their eyes legitimate targets for their violence.
 
Fortunately we are not required to whole-heartedly endorse all the actions of anyone with whom we share ideas. Climate change remains a problem whether these idiots annoy us or not, and whether they do stunts with artwork or not.

I hope nobody's stupid enough to decide that simply because they do not like the messenger they will reverse course and do the opposite of whatever that messenger said. Please do not destroy the environment just because some jerk with tomato soup said not to.
 
angrysoba said:
This is the only true answer except for the small issue of them probably not having much appeal to children under the age of forty.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure kids can enjoy toys for their own sake, regardless of what brands and IPs are attached to them. Bossk looks cool whether you know who he is or not!
 
TragicMonkey said:
I hope nobody's stupid enough to decide that simply because they do not like the messenger they will reverse course and do the opposite of whatever that messenger said. Please do not destroy the environment just because some jerk with tomato soup said not to.
Click to expand...

That's the exact trouble. People will cut their nose off to spite their face. I seem to recall an election in USA that proved that a few years ago.
 
The Atheist said:
That's the exact trouble. People will cut their nose off to spite their face. I seem to recall an election in USA that proved that a few years ago.
Click to expand...
I think the existence of Herschel Walker as a serious candidate in the American midterms proves that. I'm convinced that the people who are voting for him are doing so because he's a lying scumbag so incompetent that he can't even tell a convincing lie. They want someone like that in the Senate to prove... something, I guess.
 
pzkpfw said:
These ones in N.Z. are saying things like "They just can’t keep blocking their ears and pretending climate change isn’t upon us" just days after the Government announced upcoming taxes on farmers for greenhouse gas emissions.
Click to expand...
Ironically - for those who think these outrageous protests are counterproductive - it is having a positive effect.

I would not have known about those steps the NZ Government is taking to combat Global warming without this thread, which would not be here without those protests!
 
Hmm. Google's 'related searches' include "just stop oil fake", "just stop oil funded by getty", "just stop oil funded by oil", and "van gogh sunflower painting ruined".

But the protesters are not 'fake', not funded by getty or oil, and the painting was completely unharmed. So who is searching for these things and why?

OK, now Goggle has added "just stop oil psyop" and "just stop oil crypto". It's true, the internet really is a cesspool...
 
d4m10n said:
ETA: Upon (brief) reflection, it seems to me they are mostly trying to impress and outdo each other rather than move the masses.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this. For the life of me, I can't understand how their message wouldn't be promoted at least as effectively if they threw tomato soup on the walls next to the Van Gogh. "See, we could have easily done to art what you're doing to the environment!"
 
The Atheist said:
Don't try to make your point by absolutely enraging the very people you need on your side - the masses.

We're having a spate of climate and climate-related protests her at the moment, and like those in the UK and throwing paint at works of art in Europe, they're doing the movement a lot more harm than good.

I almost think they're paid by the right to turn people off climate issues, because it seems insane to me to try to leverage governments by inconveniencing commuters and ordinary people.
Click to expand...
But they made a point there should be more trains which seemed fair.
Essentially NZ is laid out for private cars, and it is ridiculous to deny it.
Freeze the population, get small electric cars, paradise regained.
 
Such campaigns can have mixed results. Usually negative to their cause:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette_bombing_and_arson_campaign
The extent to which suffragette militancy contributed to the eventual enfranchisement of women in 1918 has been debated by historians, although the consensus of historical opinion is that the militant campaign was not effective.[112]
Click to expand...
Although its far from a clear conclusion that this is the case. There are those that disagree.

I also recall the Fathers4Justice founder sat down to work out how he could campaign. He looked at Suffragteetes techniques, and others, and concluded that that wasn't the way forward. Which is why they dressed up in superhero costumes and climbed onto prominent buldings.

Said movement was disbanded when one of them plotted something more violent.

Its a cliche, but one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. At what point is someone a terrorist rather than a protestor?

But climate change is quite a nebuluse cause, that is difficult to gauge in its success. So I don't know how you would measure their success. Maybe major investment in decarbonising concrete & steel production; green hydrogen production; major investments in carbon sinks; or something more general such as economic reforms?
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
But they made a point there should be more trains which seemed fair.
Essentially NZ is laid out for private cars, and it is ridiculous to deny it.
Freeze the population, get small electric cars, paradise regained.
Click to expand...

I know you lot are experts in moving frozen meat around thanks to your lovely lamb but won't that be expensive and involve a hell of a lot of building and expenditure? Or would you use the refrigerated ships and repurpose them?
 
One of the protestors has now published a video (see below) to say they were fairly sure the painting would be undamaged and does articulate the issue of new oil licenses being issued at at time of climate crisis.

I still don't think it's an effective protest for all that. It has garnered a lot of temporary media attention. In another week, it'll be just another stunt to be forgotten. They may have engaged more people on Twitter/Facebook, but alienated a lot also, not just the Daily Mail crowd.

https://www.tiktok.com/@freeseedfilms/video/7155427304569720069
 
There's also a cultural issue here, in that certain populations aren't used to such disruptions. I remember been in france when the fuel strikes started, and we couldn't get home to the UK, as lorries were blocking all the roads. I saw them pull up, and saw residents come out, tut, and go back in, as iff it was "normal".

While the UK had similar demos, and it was a major thing, with panic buying.

There did seem to be a noticable response to the demonstrations.
 
Darat said:
I know you lot are experts in moving frozen meat around thanks to your lovely lamb but won't that be expensive and involve a hell of a lot of building and expenditure? Or would you use the refrigerated ships and repurpose them?
Click to expand...
As a misanthrope I like your literal take but actually think 5 million head of human is enough for NZ.
 
theprestige said:
Destroying the commons - and I include things like art and travel time in that - because your cause isn't getting the attention you think it deserves is childishly anti-social.
Click to expand...

I think they would tell you that destroying the environment we all need to live and breathe is criminally antisocial.

I don't support their methods, but it seems there are two choices, protest in a socially responsible way, which, if you're lucky, might make 300 words on page 13 of the paper, or protest in a criminally irresponsible way and get headlines.

No, I don't know what the solution is.


Incidentally, despite all the headlines, the painting wasn't damaged at all, only the frame. Which is definitely a frame that impoverished Vincent had bugger all to do with.
 
Last edited:
I've seen some mildly conspiracy-theoretical speculation that the stunt was pre-arranged, both with the press (which seems pretty likely), and with the museum staff (which, who knows?).
 
3point14 said:
I think they would tell you that destroying the environment we all need to live and breathe is criminally antisocial.
Click to expand...
I'm sure they would. People generally need to give themselves some kind of justification for committing violent acts against those around them.

I just think it would be a good idea to get all that out in the open. Get rid of the fig leaf of "raising awareness of the issue". No, you're attacking the commons. You're attacking your community. You should understand that and be honest about it. The community you're attacking should understand that. The person who is late to work, or to pick up their kid from school, or to the hospital, should understand that they're not being advised of some important problem. They're being attacked.
 
theprestige said:
I'm sure they would. People generally need to give themselves some kind of justification for committing violent acts against those around them.
Click to expand...

I agree:

"Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress."

"The direct damage costs to health (i.e. excluding costs in health-determining sectors such as agriculture and water and sanitation), is estimated to be between USD 2-4 billion/year by 2030."

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health


I just think it would be a good idea to get all that out in the open. Get rid of the fig leaf of "raising awareness of the issue". No, you're attacking the commons. You're attacking your community. You should understand that and be honest about it.
Click to expand...

Excellent mind reading skills. I think they view the distress and inconvenience they cause as a necesasry evil to highlight the fact that the very planet we live on and the environment we need is being destroyed for profit and convenience.

The community you're attacking should understand that. The person who is late to work, or to pick up their kid from school, or to the hospital, should understand that they're not being advised of some important problem. They're being attacked.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's how they feel. But it generates headlines. Which standing protesting in a 'designated free speech area' (in the USA) or standing quietly somewhere out of the way because you're not allowed to make noise while doing it (in the UK) just doesn't get the headlines.

The planet is being royally ****** by vested interests with no regard for the long term livability of the only space-ship we have. It is only headline news when people have some reason to be outraged. (that is, a reason beyond 'all of your grand-children will die of heatstroke)
 
I'm so glad I'm not the kind of person who that literally the only sin I recognize is good people not being good the way I want them to be.
 
3point14 said:
I agree:

"Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress."

"The direct damage costs to health (i.e. excluding costs in health-determining sectors such as agriculture and water and sanitation), is estimated to be between USD 2-4 billion/year by 2030."

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health




Excellent mind reading skills. I think they view the distress and inconvenience they cause as a necesasry evil to highlight the fact that the very planet we live on and the environment we need is being destroyed for profit and convenience.



Yes, that's how they feel. But it generates headlines. Which standing protesting in a 'designated free speech area' (in the USA) or standing quietly somewhere out of the way because you're not allowed to make noise while doing it (in the UK) just doesn't get the headlines.

The planet is being royally ****** by vested interests with no regard for the long term livability of the only space-ship we have. It is only headline news when people have some reason to be outraged. (that is, a reason beyond 'all of your grand-children will die of heatstroke)
Click to expand...
Justified violence is still violence. Attacking someone in self defense is still an attack.

That's the point I'd like to make more clear, in the heads of attackers and victims alike.

I think violence is justified in some circumstances. I'm a big fan of justified violence. I have a lot of respect for people who commit violent acts that they believe are justified, even if I don't necessarily agree with their justification. As long as they're honest with themselves about what they're doing. And as long as they understand and accept that violent acts invite violent reprisals, and that that's the path they've embarked on.
 
"Raising awareness"...how valuable is that, really? I'm pretty sure that everybody who is capable of caring about climate change already knows about it. What are we supposed to do, precisely? Throwing soup on a painting didn't stop oil drilling. Me getting mad at either the soupers or the oil companies isn't going to stop oil drilling. My complaining to my elected representatives isn't going to stop oil drilling. My getting rid of my car isn't going to stop oil drilling. My selling the 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of oil companies I own through a mutual fund isn't going to stop oil drilling. The only thing I could realistically do is throw soup on a painting...to encourage other people to....throw soup on a painting because they, like me, can't really stop oil drilling.

If these people truly believed in their cause they'd be throwing soup on the oil executives. That would at least impede Big Oil for the time it takes them to change clothes and shower.
 
Dear comfortable white people,

Quit tone policing. You should be in the streets with the protestors.
 
theprestige said:
Justified violence is still violence. Attacking someone in self defense is still an attack.
Click to expand...

I don't see how this is a relevant comment.

That's the point I'd like to make more clear, in the heads of attackers and victims alike.

I think violence is justified in some circumstances. I'm a big fan of justified violence. I have a lot of respect for people who commit violent acts that they believe are justified, even if I don't necessarily agree with their justification. As long as they're honest with themselves about what they're doing. And as long as they understand and accept that violent acts invite violent reprisals, and that that's the path they've embarked on.
Click to expand...

Are you attempting to imply that climate change (global warming was too scary, so they changed it) protesters are not honest with themselves? If so, how do they know? If not, then I'm entirely missing the point of your statement.
 
TragicMonkey said:
"Raising awareness"...how valuable is that, really?
Click to expand...

That depends on how you do it.

Stick honest journalism on the front page of every newspaper and website highlighting the very real dangers presented by climate change and vividly illustrating the future we are headed towards where people die (see the WHO link above) and see if that sort of 'raising awareness' changes how people vote.


These days, climate change makes the news once a year, when the IPCC puts out yet another' We've ****** it, it's too late, but we might be able to save some of it if we act now' report and whenever someone does something deemed too antisocial to be considered an appropriate response to the planet becoming literally unlivable.
 
3point14 said:
I don't see how this is a relevant comment.
Click to expand...
It's the essence of my point, which you seem to be talking past.

Are you attempting to imply that climate change (global warming was too scary, so they changed it) protesters are not honest with themselves?
Click to expand...
Yes. In fact, I wasn't really intending it to be an implication. But here, let me make it explicit: It is dishonest to portray an attack on your community as "raising awareness".

If so, how do they know?
Click to expand...
How do they know what? That they're being dishonest? I think mostly they don't know. I think they need to be told. I think we all need to be told. I think we all need to stop and think about what's really going on, when someone destroys art or blocks traffic, or otherwise attacks the commons in the name of drawing attention to their cause.

If not, then I'm entirely missing the point of your statement.
Click to expand...
If I can think of any simpler, clearer way to express my point, I'll post it here and you can let me know if it's finally coming through to you. Right now I'm pretty much at the limit of what my communication skills can do. I wish it weren't so. I'm sorry it's still not clicking for you.
 
theprestige said:
It's the essence of my point, which you seem to be talking past.
Click to expand...

I think you're rather missing the point of why they view these acts an necessary. And you seem to believe you can read their minds, which I find odd.


Yes. In fact, I wasn't really intending it to be an implication. But here, let me make it explicit: It is dishonest to portray an attack on your community as "raising awareness".
Click to expand...

I don't see how it cannot be both 'raising awareness' and, as ou describe it 'an attack on their community'.

I think they believe that such extreme measures are the only way to be heard. I think they may have a point.


How do they know what? That they're being dishonest? I think mostly they don't know. I think they need to be told. I think we all need to be told. I think we all need to stop and think about what's really going on, when someone destroys art or blocks traffic, or otherwise attacks the commons in the name of drawing attention to their cause.
Click to expand...

Apologies, that was meant to be "how do you know." You assign motives to the protestors that they, themselves do not. What makes you so certain they are lying? Again, I think you seem to be stating that you can read minds.


If I can think of any simpler, clearer way to express my point, I'll post it here and you can let me know if it's finally coming through to you. Right now I'm pretty much at the limit of what my communication skills can do. I wish it weren't so. I'm sorry it's still not clicking for you.
Click to expand...


I just think you're wrong about motive. You ascirbe a malicious motive in your writings, to protestors who would tell you that their motives are to literally save the planet and that they have discovered only extremism (most of which can be descibed as 'violence' only in a quite expanded definition of the term) actually works to generate headlines.


In short, you think they're a bunch of students, malcontents and layabouts using climate change as an excuse for an antisocial festival of paint throwing and traffic disruption. I think they're probably genuinely concerned for the future of the planet and are exploring the only options they have to be heard.

It's not that I don't understand you. It's that I disagree with you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom