>

It probably pushes more people away than it brings to support their cause. They have become the very thing they swore to destroy!
I gotta disagree, when people ruin art the convo is just about them ruining the art. People talk about climate change all the time >

~~People~~ Companies and governments don't do ~~anything~~ nearly enough about it though. These people are protesting inaction, not trying to bring awareness to its existence >

This is, of course badly off the mark.  People, governments and companies all over the world take action all the time to reduce carbon emissions. >

“Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.” >

It probably pushes more people away than it brings to support their cause. They have become the very thing they swore to destroy! >

Yeah I agree, that was my main reservation about posting this in the first place. But ultimately I believe that the more conversations we have regarding climate change the better. Maybe I'm naive but ultimately I believe the truth will cut its way through the bullshit and make its way to the surface, hopefully resulting in some sort of action down the line. Maybe in 35 years instead of 40 for example, but that's better than nothing. And worth the destroyed art in my opinion. >

I like the idea of my heritage and history being preserved. 
If you are fine with that being destroyed, I’m happy to watch your world burn too. >

Looks like it will if enough people think like that.
*Literally cutting off your nose to spite your face. Except your cutting off your children and grandchildrens' noses to spite your face, so I guess you don't care. >

And that’s ok by us. 
That’s the point really, pissing people off is never a viable strategy for positive change. It rarely builds movements that make the world a better place. 
You can argue the media only covers people like this, but the media also gives PETA more attention then far more rational animal rights groups. 
And who actually makes change happen? The stooges who piss people off may get attention, and alienate those who might be reachable, but they aren’t going to make effective change. 
Meanwhile, effective groups attract donations from quieter activists, lobby for real effective change. There are numerous groups that have actually accomplished a lot of good, and those groups are the ones who should be lauded. 
These people only make the journey harder from the quietly kind people who are making an actual difference. >

Destroy millions of dollars of irreplaceable art for 5 minutes of publicity?  I say throw them  in jail, or better yet just leave them glued to the wall or floor they attached themselves to (Edit: for less than a day, I'm not totally heartless.) >

I would add more glue. They wanted to glue themselves? I'd help by adding industrial glue perhaps. >

Hard disagree. You cannot argue against the fact that ruining a painting is just disrespectful to the painter (even if they are dead), the owner of the painting and/or the gallery as none of them are the ones responsible for climate change. It is just ruining irreplacable property of people that didn't do anything.
It is for this reason that these people are just ruining the reputation of climate activists and are therefore doing more bad than good. >

I agree with this take, just disagree with the conclusion. >

Ruining art is pretty cringe as it does nothing to actually solve the issue.
What pisses me off is when they block the roads and cause massive traffic pile-ups, especially if there is an urgent thing that I need to get to like a business meeting or an important flight. >

Werent these recent art vandal activists atleast claimed to be some kinda psyop by some big oil company to make people pissed at global warming activists so people wouldnt be as supportive of some restriction on oil or something? >

Idk maybe but why would they want to put a spotlight on all the fucked up shit they're doing? That sounds pretty dumb to me . But then again people are pretty dumb so maybe it could be true >

There's armored, protective glass in front of those paintings. The protestors really are that stupid.
And you realise people, ie everyone on earth, actually knows about the "climate thing" ...  it's been brought to everyone's attention ... we know. >

I know people "know" about it obviously, but I think it needs to be more at the forefront of the cultural zeitgeist. I think people are too indifferent about it right now, and the more it's in the news and the more regular assholes like me talk about it, the more likely we are to make significant steps towards action sooner rather than later I guess. It all starts with conversation, but I get it - I posted this in unpopularonions for a reason >

I'm not sure that if you have people that have already considered everything, and already have a well formed opinion on the matter, that continually telling them what they already know makes any difference. 
And if people want to do it, by putting tinned spaghetti on some art, it does nothing but undermine their case with the undecided, by making them look infantile. >

I don't think people have already considered everything, and I don't think most people already have a well formed opinion on the matter. I think that in general, most people skate through life only concerned with themselves and their immediate surroundings. Not to sound holier than thou; its completely understandable, but my point is stuff like this at least puts the issue in their mind when otherwise it wouldn't be at all. >

People just need something to be outraged by >

I am outraged that you think this about people >

When did activists ruin any art piece ? They threw soup at the protecting glass ! It was symbolic, nothing was ever destroyed. >

Even better lol >

Though I suspect it was likely accidental/unconscious on your part I'm glad to see you use the phrase "could be" in place of "will be". >

It was on purpose. I actually do think some really smart scientists will find a way to science our way out of the problem eventually. In spite of the widespread indifference nowadays. >

Destroying art is destroying history. It's the worst mean to get sympathy for your cause. >

rotnroll1987: "Let's sacrifice the future for the past." >

That's not what I'm saying. >

Have any of these people actually ruined any art? It seems like most of the time they’re attacking the protective glass but not doing real damage >

I just assume anyone who is an activist about climate change is just a crazy person now. >

That's some real deep thinking on your part >

I don't either. The world is too fucked up in actual ways to get upset about paintings. I suppose I'm not their target audience. I don't own an oil field and say that purple Monet feels divine on my cawk or anything.  I imagine they are trying to draw the ire of a different class of people, you know the paint fuckers. May they live forever and have many colorful children. >

Newsflash: the world has been and will always be "too fucked up". 
Art is a way to express beauty despite living in an imperfect world; high-quality, historic, impactful art is the apex of that expression.
Destroying art to "spark a conversation" is lazy, small-minded, self-interested and immature. >

You're right lets keep doing what we're doing we are on the right track. >

Splashing tomato soup on a beloved work of art does less than nothing to steer that track. >

It started a whole lot of conversations which is how literally every movement starts. I agree it makes the protestors look dumb af but hey whatever works I suppose >

Art is money laundering plain and simple. I know people personally that can make and have made absolutely stunning pieces of art that NEVER sell. The art you see in galleries is only "worth" what it is "worth" because you need to make the cash legit. And the easiest way to do that is "invest" or buy something that doesn't have value your money gives it value. 
Art is infinite and will always be created and there is so many talented artists out there that I agree, if someone destroys the art, so what? Someone will make a new piece. >

I gotta disagree, when people ruin art the convo is just about them ruining the art. People talk about climate change all the time >

~~People~~ Companies and governments don't do ~~anything~~ nearly enough about it though. These people are protesting inaction, not trying to bring awareness to its existence >

This is, of course badly off the mark.  People, governments and companies all over the world take action all the time to reduce carbon emissions. >

“Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.”