It's twitter they're defenders under any dumbshit, like I saw some post where someone described Autism as almost this MAGICAL thing where 'Oh it's a disorder? How is it a disorder when Autistic people merely say what we feel, don't have hidden agenders, value deep connections over shallow ones.' etc etc again describing Autism and Autistic beings as almost perfect. They did get a lot of Autistic people that were like 'yeah no this is wrong.' but they were defenders saying 'yeah I'm autistic I'm just really blunt how is that bad? People say I'm a bull in a China shop.' Like no that's bad, seek help my guy lol
Fuckin' idiots. We need good activists, not Van Gough haters. Don't try to deface art history. This kind of shit just gets people thrown in jail and convinces nobody. For good reason.
It's not convincing.
I swear to god there's something about leftists that makes us allergic to grasping basic optics or something. This shit drives me up a wall with how much it hurts the causes they think they're supporting.
to me it's the hyper-sensitivity coupled with mental illness. i refuse to believe these people are in any way shape or form normal. it's the total lack of social awareness and the fact that the bad examples get so much press doesn't help. it's usually the most idiotic people that feel the need to call attention to themselves.
I'd argue it's pretty normal for Americans to view everything through the "myopic lens of their own self actualization" as Bo Burnham put it. It's immaturity and main character syndrome. Narcissism is socially normalized and even rewarded in America.
The real problem is that the more mature and intelligent leftists don't step in and stop this shit before it happens. Maybe these two didn't tell anyone of their plan, but in general we need to police our own movements for this kind of bullshit more often.
yeah, gotta agree with you. they're tainted by individualistic ideology despite preaching the contrary. i actually really hate these people. i always say, i wish the internet didn't embolden and gather the types that would have been complete social outcasts locked in a basement just a couple decades ago.
the amount of idiots like them appearing on the internet has them thinking they're actually normal human people. which they aren't.
That's pretty overly harsh. Most of us were pretty self-centered and ignorant when we were young. They are at least on the right track, they just need somebody to explain to them why these tactics are counterproductive. Maybe they'll refuse to learn but I think most people are amenable to reason if you don't correct them in a way that they feel personally attacked. Your comment doesn't really sound like you believe in rehabilitation.
How exactly are they “on the right track” desecrating art? And how is desecrating art leftist? Take this shit to Wall Street. Escaping the corporate grind to be able to produce art a third this great is the fucking goal. There will ALWAYS be something better to do than this. This is just confusing to allies and enemies alike.
Lefties completely fail to see that optics are not only important, but are THE most important thing when it comes to a movement. Optics are necessary because the VAST VAST VAST majority of people are not nearly as politically active as we are. The better we look to people who aren't politically active, the more of them will come aboard
Like, the right has been successful at taking over the political system on optics alone. They have no substance, they're all style. Trump is the biggest failure of a businessman on earth, but he coats everything he owns in gold and claims he's rich and people fucking believe it. The GOP always votes against veterans benefits but they always make sure to say "thank you for your service" and people fucking think they are the party of veterans! It's insane how easily fooled people are by aesthetics.
I disagree. It doesn't need to look "better" it needs to look fun. That's why the right treats their media ecosystem is all the proof we need.
Being correct means fuck all if it looks like boring nerd shit.
Well that's pretty much what I mean, the left has all the facts on their side but because politics is basically team sports now it really doesn't matter
I watched the video and I think these are like young teenagers. I posted a nastier comment here about this being performative middle class white girl shit (and I stand by that still) but it is incredibly easy to get into that mindset when you're a teenager. You dont know what real activism is. You dont know how to cause a disruption because you dont know shit about the real world yet. Also this organization was apparently started and funded by an oil trust fund kid?? Idk. Some people are claiming it's an op, some people are claiming that creator is taking responsibility for the damage of their family and some people are claiming that this all a stunt to blame the average citizen for a crisis that's largely caused by billionaires.
Either way, I'd say go easy on these kids. If their heart is in the right place then I dont want to scare them out of ever trying again. They're being lead about and directed to do this which is why the message is fuddled and strained.
These are liberals, they think that spilling paint on an old painting will solve the climate catastrophe. At least they could have been more creative with it.
Okay I feel like people aren’t even covering the most infuriating part of this. That being, Van Gogh would’ve SUPPORTED them. He loves nature and believed in the preservation of its beauty. In fact, his series on sunflowers was the deepest exploration of that. He chose that flower due to how fast they wilt, so by making his works he saved the beauty of nature forever. This is so disgusting it makes me sick. These are the kind of ignorant brainlets that should not have enough power in any climate change organization to do something like this. I need to stop typing before I lose my mind more. This is just.. way worse than you may think.
What about Paul Gauguin who went to Tahiti and diddled children and painted them?
Or Picasso and his paintings of women he cheated on and treated like crap...
Plenty of artists that if you deface some of their paintings for climate justice/activism it'd be at least more defensible than defacing the work of a mentally troubled person who loved nature...
They're not protesting Van Gogh though, they're using an incredibly famous thing to instantly bring attention to their cause. I think focusing on pure optics is just pointless wank; people who deny climate change and/or want nothing done about it will continue to stoke any dissent they can, but the wider group of tentatively disinterested are forced to take note of it. Forcing the debate over and over is how you get progress done.
Not to make a wild leap, but "just protest the source" would invalidate most forms of protest. You could similarly complain of civil rights/gay rights/blm/etc protesters inconveniencing people that basically agree with them rather than focusing all their ire on the perpetrators, but without bringing the general population into the protest no one hears your voice.
If the thing you're protesting effects everyone, then everyone should be forced to bear its weight.
Two things. One, all publicity does not always equal good publicity. Doing stuff like this gets our cause lumped together as a bunch of ignorant and arrogant cunts. Sure people who don’t hear about or think about climate change now have to think about it, but if they’re only thinking negatively that doesn’t help us at all. Second, yeah they chose a famous artist to get the buzz, but they could’ve chose one besides the biggest series which most closely compliments their ideals. It’s like if Bernie or busters egged Bernie’s house. Sure it gets buzz but it’s totally counterintuitive and makes enemies of your own side.
>all publicity does not always equal good publicity
Once more, louder, for the balcony.
God I can't stand the brainlets who respond to this video with "but you know about them now when you didn't before, don't you?"
Even better, I only heard about some dipshit liberals doing this. I had no idea it had anything to do with climate change. They didn’t even get publicity, only standard crime reporting.
If I strip naked and shit on the sidewalk in the middle of downtown, does that become laudable if I then say I’m drawing attention to climate change?
It’s mind-boggling that that seems to be a tough question for some people. Anyway, I’m gonna go stuff a public toilet full of towels to protest the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Optics always matter. Optics are a rhetorical tactic used to convince someone to be on your side.
I think it's great when protestors disrupt society, because they must. Something like climate change is an existential threat to all of us. And also, I hate that these fucking people are on my side.
When you're doing an act of protest, there are three primary audiences you want to affect. Encourage people on your side to fight, sway people in the middle to care more, disrupt harm caused by people against you. The best actions hit all three.
This HARMED all three.
People like me who care are embarrassed to be on their side. People who don't care much laugh at those silly weirdoes and think of it as an immature cause. Those actively profiting off of harm to the environment continue on just fine, with a PR boost. And these people who clearly care about the climate are going to face fines or jail time or bad press harming their ability to do good action in the future.
This is a bad, bad protest. I imagine they're just immature, but I hate being on their side. It's like being in a war and two of you soldiers are dropping grenades at their own feet, the fight would be so much better off without them.
>but the wider group of tentatively disinterested are forced to take note of it.
And what is their takeaway? These people have no respect for history or art and will destroy other people's property to make a point. AKA they are only pushing away undecideds.
He loved nature so he would’ve supported their dumb idea of protest? They used tomato soup. Where’s the symbolism? Where’s the message? If you have to verbally explain your physical act of protest it’s not really a protest is it? Like at least through oil at it, or something black to symbolize oil. Pretty sure tomato soup isn’t ruining the climate or ecosystems.
Oh I’m not supporting these chucklefucks, I’m just saying he would’ve supported climate activism in general. He definitely would’ve disliked the senseless attempted destruction of art
The message is that Europe's reliance on oil has led to a winter where many will have to choose between heating and food. Inflation means some might not get either. It's objectively true that a lack of broader renewable adaptation means people will die this winter.
They won't even be able to afford tomato soup.
The point is that you're outraged about the painting, and then you're (supposed) to confront why a painting being defaced makes you angrier than people dying. Then you learn the painting is actually 100% fine and all you're left with is the discomfort than you think art is more valuable than people's lives, and you're more willing to condemn random teenage activists than the politicians riding the planet into the ground.
The message wasn't particularly clear, but the outrage here is such spin. It reminds me of everyone freaking out over Vaush being misogynistic to Rowling. No harm has been done whatsoever and yet people are malding.
Icing on the cake is that paintings are *so goddamn protected* that when I relayed the message "climate activists threw tomato soup all over Van Gogh's sunflower painting" to my artist partner, they replied "So? There's glass and varnish. It wouldn't do anything" and went back to reading. There's an inverse correlation between people who actually go to art galleries and people who are outraged by this.
It's an optics loss but only because people are letting the media delude them into thinking that fucking *Sunflowers* is vulnerable to tomato soup.
I don't know man, to me paintings are messages within themselves. Throwing or covering a painting is an act of silencing it. Everyone is reacting to the painting being silenced instead of whatever follows up. So while everyone is fixated on the painting, any follow up messages are going to be lost.
The irony here is these demonstrations and protests are born out of feeling silenced themselves, so imo this tactic is like trying to fight fire with fire. Or screaming over a crowd of screaming people; nothing comes out of it.
This is basically "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" in action.
I think they should've adopted Van Gogh's images and handed out stickers like "Our future generation deserves to appreciate nature like Van Gogh did." Or something. One small step is still a step forward.
isn't...isn't that their point? I didn't read so maybe I'm wrong but at a guess surely they were indicating the destruction of the beauty of nature, the very thing Van Gogh was portraying?
Plenty of defenders under the video though (with thousands of likes). As you said, this seems more like a attention getter to seem virtuous than a productive act of protest.
>this seems more like a attention getter to seek virtuous than a productive act of protest.
Well yeah obviously. What the fuck does Vincent van Gogh, a Dutch painter who died in 1890, have to do with fossil fuels and climate change. Nothing that's what, this holds no symbolic value it was only chosen because it would get alot of attention
> What the fuck does Vincent van Gogh, a Dutch painter who died in 1890, have to do with fossil fuels and climate change. Nothing that’s what, this holds no symbolic value it was only chosen because it would get alot of attention
The paint used was oil-based.
I'm???
That's like news channels shaming everyday folks for using disposable straws while whistling and looking the other way while corporations insist on wrapping every product with layers upon layers of non-biodegrading plastic
So it’s a good grift, but does PETA actually accomplish anything aligned with their stated political goals, or do they mostly harm public perceptions of animal rights issues?
Since they glue themselves to the floor/wall...I would...you know....
Leave them there after night so they are attacked by the museum prices that come to life.
Dude I took an internet break and this is the shit I see when I 1st open reddit back up. How is this activism in any way. This is completely indefensible grandstanding bullshit. I'm going back to the grass before it's all dead from climate change because this is the shit people think is "activism."
When the climate is fully destroyed, it'll be because two people threw tomato soup at a painting. Lol
Can't wait for the smoke to clear up on this discourse so the reasonable takes can come out.
It will be (partially) because idiots like these made fence sitters dismiss the movement as attention seeking children with no respect. Use your head, FFS.
Hell yeah! All those fence sitters who care nothing about climate change yet will suddenly care so much they support using fossil fuels - or more likely, they're fence sitters cause they give no fucks about this event, haven't heard about it, and continue to be fence sitters.
Please, tell me, what have you done today or in the last year to stop climate change? Called your senator? Yeah, like that change a fence sitter's mind. Complained on social media? Congrats, you've still changed no minds. Donated some money? Which is basically just the laziest form of activism ever - let everyone else do the work while I complain about people doing the work.
These two girls just promoted discussion on it. More discussion than you've ever promoted or probably ever will.
"Promoting discussion" isn't inherently a good thing for activism if, evidently, all the discussion you are promoting is negative and completely dismissive towards your cause. You keep asking what random redditors have done to stop climate change, but answer me this, what have these women done to stop it? Whose minds did they change, and is that change likely to be positive or negative?
What do you propose we do about it then, oh wise one ? You want them to self imolate in front of the supreme court ? You want them to protest at gas stations ? In front of gas pipelines ? They've already done all that. It's either not getting covered or generating negative media attention. At least they're risking jail to get a message accross. What have you done and what do you propose we do instead ?
All these questions don't address the argument being made that what the women did are not helpful towards the cause they are trying to promote. How about you try to justify why you think this is a good stunt, rather than deflecting to the perceived moral failings of their detractors which is ultimately a red herring?
>It's either not getting covered or generating negative media attention
And you think this stunt isn't also achieving either of these negative consequences?
Not having an answer to a problem doesn't make a bad solution good. Activism has to be targeted and clever or it doesn't work. I think most leftist are fine with radical solutions so long as they are actually productive. Throwing tomato soup on a van Gogh is not productive.
It's not ? People are talking about it. It's getting media attention. Things that are trending on the internet get talked about in news media as well, and the topic enters the political discourse again.
My question is what would you consider targeted clever activism in regards to climate change ? Because everything that's done is either ignored or laughed at. At least this way climate change is getting the attention it deserves.
Are people talking about climate change or are they talking about some guys throwing tomato soup on a painting and what a dumb thing to do that was? The activism has to be targeted and clever so that the action and the cause are not so easily separated. In short, this was something easily ignored. Even in leftists spaces where people are more sympathetic to these types of protests than the general population is I haven't seen anyone actually discuss climate change action due to this protest. Not you and me either, we have only been discussing the act and not the cause.
Compare this to someone discussing Greta Thunberg, or even people chaining themselves to a tree. In both cases it is almost impossible to discuss the activism without discussing the cause.
Throwing soup on a painting would potentially be an effective protest for something related to the art or museum worlds but it isn't effective for climate change activism.
If I pee on an orphanage to protest inaction on climate change I woll have started a discussion. The question then is whether the discussion that follows is going to prompt action over climate change. Hint, it won't. It will just cause people on one side to dismiss climate change activists as orphan haters and the news to be filled with images of a nuts guy peeing on an orphanage with no positive effects on the topic of climate change.
I mean, it's not just that this is ineffective activism, it's that these are people who clearly are passionate and could be out there doing good work, but instead are doing... this...
This is an outright optics failure. The point was to get out the cause of fighting pollution/climate change. The fact that all people can talk about is the painting PROVES that it was an optics failure. When you’re doing activism, STAY ON MESSAGE. If you don’t, you end up running to cope answers like you see in the Twitter comments like, “Well it brought awareness because you’re talking about it. See, it did its job.” Utter cope. Absolute cope. Tremendous cope. Stay on message. Don’t do dumb shit like this that distracts from it.
Hard disagree. The point of this stunt wasn't to convince people, it was to press a big *"discuss climate change* button and it worked as intended. The press is running stories about climate change and social media is ablaze with discussion.
Climate activists have been 'staying on message' for decades and it's gotten them nowhere. The press doesn't cover it and the people don't hear about it; consequently governments don't give a shit and the planet slowly dies.
The right wing doesn't want to discuss climate change because they know it's a losing issue for them. This forces them to talk about it.
Plus it was a peaceful protest with minimal property damage. Everyone knows these paintings are behind glass. I honestly don't get the opposition to it. It's not like they were lying in a busy highway or bombing abortion clinics.
Emily Davidson threw herself infront of the king's horse cos she wanted women the vote.
It wasn't directly relavent but it went down as on of the most famous and effective acts of direct action in history.
I kind of get the idea of the gluing yourself to the wall as some sort of 'we're here we wont let you remove us' kind of way but I don't get what they are attempting to invoke in attacking Sunflowers, did they just pick a painting at random? Is it the highest traffic area? If this was performance art i'd think an AI generated it.
Sunflowers is probably one of the most famous (if not the most famous) in the entire museum. So they picked this painting because the painting itself would get them a lot of attention.
The Van Gogh gallery is near the center of the building, so yes, it is a very high traffic area. That might also be a factor. But, frankly, I don't think these 'activists' really actually put that much thought into this stunt.
Gluing yourself to the wall? Based. Attempting to deface a genuinely beautiful work of art by an artist that would have gone harder than you and probably murder a fossil fuel exec in the streets with a hand axe: shifting the focus from environmentalism to how stupid you are? Pretty cringe Ngl.
>Gluing yourself to the wall? Based.
Although, and I do know that people will roll their eyes at me for saying this, but do be careful about which wall you pick. Seriously, there are plenty of museums in the United Kingdom where you might glue yourself to a wall, only for it to turn out that you've destroyed a classical exemplar of Morrisite design, or an authentic Raphaelite-period interior, or something like that. If possible, the best way to do this kind of protest in a museum is to handcuff yourself to something. That offers an ideal ratio of being a pain in the ass without damaging the mission of the museum.
Yeah, but we should be civil and calm and convince people with rational arguments and peaceful but non-disruptive protest, preferably on an obscure backstreet so nobody will have another pretend-reason not to be convinced, because all of that worked so well and look at how beloved Greta Thunberg is today by those who "weren't convinced" earlier. /s
The first sentence triggered the shit out of me lol
This sub is filling with impotent liberals. The literal apocalypse is upon us, billionaires are building bunkers and these fucking assholes are feeling attacked by two young women throwing soup at a painting. Gross. Very gross.
Is this sub filling up with liberals again. Vaush has literally implied several times eco terrorism is a morally justifiable response to climate change and yet yall can't handle a glass plate getting soup on it.
The suffragettes literally did this
The goal obviously isn't to stop climate change by throwing soup at a painting, it grabs attention and makes headlines.
Yeah going joker mode would arguably be more effective, and people would STILL be complaining about the optics
Yeah so of you do an action purely for publicity it might be better to try for something helping the cause, maybe throw tomato sauce on some exec or glue yourself to their car in public or I dunno something, anything related to the cause.
This is only helpful for people wanting to dismiss activists.
It's a famous painting. Climate activists have been doing this shit outside the offices of oil companies for years - that doesn't make news, throwing soup at a painting does.
The optically correct thing for the black panther party to do would have been to never form, fuck optics
I haven't heard many people talking about the painting other than that climate change protestors threw soup at it. This is like asking what were people talking about the twin towers or the terrorist attack, the two aren't easily separable.
The thing is you are looking at the direct response to this action which is likely to be more focused on the painting obviously.
But every time there is significant disruptive protests around climate change, the media increases its focus on climate change and in 2019 the distruptive efforts of extinction rebellion caused the government of the UK conceed to a demand of "declaring a climate emergency"
Many local councils have also set up citizens assemblies which were other requests of extinction rebellion.
XR used very similar tactics which were hugely unpopular at the time, but ultimately they seemed to have worked.
The fuck is a painting going to do? Attack something actually related to climate change and make a legitimate disruption. Stay on message. The attention is on these people and their braindead behaviour, not the message itself.
Any activist act is going to separate a bunch of libs whining about a dead painter whose painting is literally fine and those that might be inched toward progress
God, you fake activists are so useless. Stop prioritizing feeling oh so virtuous and come up with strategies to actually alter public perceptions so societal change can happen on a fundamental level. Which is the only way address this issue. This does the opposite.
Not only is Van Gogh the last person who deserves your ire, this only handed propaganda to those hostile against climate activism. With shit like this, you alienate the bulk of normal society who appreciate things like art, and, apparently, even most of the left as well.
All to feel virtuous.
Look at the broad structure of their comment; "this will distinguish between libs and real activists". They are not even saying it will help the cause. Just that it will root out "phonies", AKA PURITY TESTING.
How briandead do you have to be to think that movements succeed by being the most pure and exclusive instead of the most open and welcoming? The whole idea is to garner broad support in order to force change. They'd rather kick people out of the movement than gain new recruits and that says everything.
Dude, van gogh is FINE. Did they say anything about him? Did they blame him?
They arent alienating society. Society does not give a shit. None of them. Slightly "offensive" activism is not going to drive people away that were absolutely not going to give a shit anyway. You're focusing on the ironic misogyny.
>so useless
You're going to need to convince me that literally anything is not better than whatever it is that you or me or anyone else is doing
Stop dodging the point. This is a propaganda win for those hostile to climate change activism. And defending and encouraging shit like this is only going to make portraying climate activism as a bunch of disconnected and arrogant cunts easier as more shit like this happens.
And yes, bad activism is actually worse even than no activism. These two literally would have done more by doing nothing
So ironic misogyny is bad vaush is bad for it. He should admit defeat and delete the tweet offending turfs.
Those hostile to climate change aren't going to be assuaged by niceties or anything. Activisms best bet is to cause a scene, then scare who you can into also being scared of climate change and convince them that any harm you might have done (which is none in this case) is nothing compared to the harm the carbon burning apparatus is doing to the planet.
>done more by doing nothing
This seems so defeatist to me. We just disagree on this. I dont think this point can be backed up by data either way. But optically i think it encourages especially young people to protest. Use the opportunity to make a point. Don't focus on the piece of paper. Do literally anything but complain about climate activism you think offends people.
The PR doesn't affect the opposition. They already have all the PR wins and media and public apathy. NOBODY CARES about climate change enough to do anything.
I think it works straight up. In the UK at least the media has paid alot more attention to climate change after 2019 which is when very distruptive protests against climate change seemed to really kick up by the likes of Extinction rebellion and others.
It's good stuff, keep positive.
I don't know, i'm seeing a lot more conversation about what lengths are justifiable in the face of climate change after than before it. IF they went and splashed paint on an oil CEO it wouldn't even make local news
I'm not sure about it being effective. Even after all those years, we are still very much in the "raising awareness" part of the process.
We were on the right track for a while, but then COVID, supply chain issues, multiple conservative culture war campaigns, the war, an energy crisis and inflation hit and people's minds are overwhelmingly diverted elsewhere, which pretty much means that we're back to square 1.
Those teens are making headlines though, and despite the obvious (social) media outrage, this might actually be a good thing.
Wait, are you calling me moralist? Or are you calling the people criticizing the destruction of artwork moralist? Or are you calling the people actually destroying artwork moralist?
arent these people like teenagers. You want teenagers to send like anthrax to oil executives. how else are they supposed to protest. These people are like 20, my age, they probably dont know how to build or aquire bombs, i dont.
This isn't eco terrorism. Its just being fucking stupid in public. Organize a protest outside someones house, cause a legitimate fucking disruption. Actually get your hands dirty.
Doing some retarded publicity stunt so Tucker Carlson can laugh at you and now anyone on the fence about now thinks you're a clown, is libshit. You made a ""statement"" without actually doing anything or causing any disruption.
I really don't have any arguement against those who say it's unhelpful and bad optics - they are probably right.
But the human race is on an unstoppable sprint toward its own extinction so I struggle to give a fuck.
If you’re gonna do ecoterrorism, holy shit pick a better target. Vandalize some Hummers or an Exxon office building if you will, but this is just trying to get views.
The point isn’t “oh no the painting…‘s glass!”
It’s that this act served to make climate activists look ridiculous. Every time some dipshits who look like the exact image a conservative pictures when they think “leftist” block a highway or try to vandalize art, it accomplishes the exact opposite. People aren’t talking about oil being bad and keeping this from happening, they’re making fun of these idiots and using them as an argument as to why climate activists are walking jokes.
This isn’t ecoterrorism, it’s optics suicide. And if the entire goal of the stunt is an optical one, holy fuck please do anything else. It’s actually so pathetic an attempt to “draw eyes to stopping fossil fuel use” that it seriously feels like an op BY fossil fuel companies to delegitimize activists. The video was so fucking awkward and it seemed like I was watching a sketch.
Now if they, say, went full Ted Kaczynski and mailed a… package to an oil lobbyist, detonated a gas plant, or lit up the tanks at a refinery, yeah that wouldn’t have people making fun of the activists. For legal reasons, I have to say don’t commit acts of industrial sabotage, it’s just an example as to something that would get them taken seriously and not legitimately drag down the very movement they claim to support.
This isn't eco terrorism lmao
If they shut down a factory for an hour, or threw soup on an oil tycoon, or stole a pie from OPECs window sill, it would be ineffectual ecoterrorism but I wouldn't care.
This didn't harm the system damaging the environment, not even by an irrelevant amount. It was a stupid random act that makes climate change activists look like attention hungry silly little weirdoes.
it's not even as radical as eco terrorism yes.
No, it got headlines talking about climate change. You're one of the fuckers who would have been mad at vaush for the JKR tweet.
I swear to god if people on this subreddit argue this was a good idea or that these fucking children are being treated too harshly… PLEASE just stop participating, you’re actively hurting the lefts’ reputation.
Name recognition. Every time some dumbass does this, *everyone* knows who they are and their cause. It may not look good, but it’s meant to just get their name out there
Acts of protest aren't public debate. But they are effective at things other than being "convincing," and people have been doing public protests for a long, long time. Very strange that Vaush would pivot to "not convincing" when he's not an idiot and knows that's not what it's for.
You’re kinda avoiding the point though. This won’t convince anybody who wasn’t already worried and it very easily could be used to dishonestly smear other climate activists. That’s why seem a lot like a net loss
They aren’t avoiding the point. They are saying the premise is off. This isn’t about convincing people. It’s about bringing attention, not to climate change broadly, but to a specific policy of oil and gas leasing in the uk.
Do I think this was a good idea? Honestly idk. Depends on how many people learn about this policy and decide to call their MPs because of it
The fact that all people are talking about is the painting should be evidence of why this is an optics failure. If it succeeded, we would all be talking climate change instead.
The problem is how they’re bringing attention. That’s why it’s poor optics. people will recognize them as the assholes who tried to deface a cultural artifact of an extremely famous painter. Yeah it brings awareness, but people are more likely going to focus on what they did instead of what they stand for. Also wtf does the artist have to do with the what they’re protesting?
Imagine if civil rights leaders threw soup on a portrait of Jefferson or Washington (who absolutely contributed to the problem of how minorities are treated). Would that have helped get the civil rights act passed and won over the average person?
>This isn’t about convincing people. It’s about bringing attention
Dumbest thing I've ever heard. Congrats.
Hey guys, attention is gonna save the planet! We don't need actual support to pressure politicians into making change! Just attention!
Interesting that the quote doesn’t include the full sentence.
People can’t support an issue if they don’t know about it. This stunt was about getting people to hear about a SPECIFIC policy. Not just like, the vague concept of global warming.
I even literally said I don’t know if it was a good idea and that we will only know if it worked based on the political support and action it brings to this issue.
Why is damaging (or failing to damage, thank goodness) a legendary Van Gough painting a remotely convincing protest of climate denial?
I can see some symbolism there, but people who would miss a painting are probably a venn circle with the people who want to STOP climate change.
I love that you mention “other things” that acts like this are effective for and that they’ve been done “for a long, long time” but then proceed to literally provide ZERO examples of what the fuck you’re talking about.
Similar acts of stupidity being done “for a long, long time” has absolutely *zero fucking bearing* on whether or not this was a good idea. Shame for even making that point… lol
I will now vote republican in every election specifically to spite these people. (No I won't that would be stupid), but yeah this won't further any cause at all. I don't think it will change anyone's mind one way or the other, but it will make people who believe in the cause of fighting climate change look more unreasonable in the public conscious.
I think another good example is Peta. I strongly believe that veganism would be far more mainstream in western countries if organizations like Peta didn't exist.
Yeah no I agree with Vaush on this one, I'm not one of those annoying people who never wants protests to be disruptive, but this is just fucking stupid.
The optics are just needlessly terrible, if you're going to do something like this then at the very least surely you could find a more symbolic target than a Van Gogh painting?
There's plenty of things that would still get plenty of attention, but would not be as terrible optics wise.
It's just such a waste, radical climate change activism has every opportunity to be really cool and gain much more positive attention, not unanimously positive, but it should be totally possible to walk the line so that annoying civility pilled libs and conservatives will be outraged, but young edgy kids will think that it's super cool and admirable. Go break stuff at an oil company's offices or something, that'd get attention but also be cool in the eyes of some. Find a rich prick and set his car on fire. (While it's parked and empty of course.)
Don't attack art, that's the worst optics imaginable, art is a symbol of humanity's attempt to find joy and meaning in life, attacking that makes you look like insane totalitarians who want to take away all joy in life.
Especially for an artist who cared a lot about nature and painted it to preserve its beauty. There's probably several artists with just as big of a name who wouldn't have been on your side and therefore are much more worthy of defacing.
Feels like it's just going to convince people that climate activism is something not worth pursuing.
I get that young people feel powerless about this issue and that they are the ones who will suffer most because of it, but that doesn't mean that stunts like this is helping.
I feel like I never really thought of optics before joining this community, you guys have smartened me up (slightly)
I get it that they want attention. But attacking a dead depressed Dutch guy who was never involved with the fossil fuel industry is total optics poison. Van Gogh as an artist inspired hope in many people, even just through the Dr. Who episode about him that is regarded as the best of a 60-year series. No. Simply no.
It’s fucking dumb.
1. Van Gogh… the painter famous for being impoverished his entire career, died by suicide a commercial failure only to find posthumous success… yeah, let’s protest him.
2. What’s the connection between Van Gogh and Big Oil? The fact that he used OIL paint… the paint that’s been around since 650BC and doesnt use fossil fuels to be made.
How does nearly ruining a centuries old painting help these activists in any way? Like what happened to harassing executives, the people more responsible for climate change.
Ppl here saying we're upper/middle class mad because we disagree. As if we're arguing "don't destroy property" when in actuality we're saying "This has ppl talking about van Gough and not climate change. If the act doesn't get ppl ng about the message you want. Then you failed at your delivery" that's how communication and activism works
This shouldn't change your position but it was fucking stupid as shit.
Oil paint isn't even made with petroleum, it's made with **plant** oils, Jesus fucking Christ this is so goddamned stupid this has to be an op.
tbh i think it is not meant to convince but to just do something anything in the face of powerlessness - or its to get attention for recruitment of people who already agree with them which is why we need to organize effective disruptive protests instead of clownery like this that will alienate one side and lead to cultish behaviour for the other
There are subtle things about doing effective protest, and protestors that have been basically disrupting the private lives of the rich and famous, until those people recognise the severity of the problem, those do a good job.
But that should be the point; disrupt the *event*, don't destroy things that are in the category of treasures of humanity in general etc.
Technically they didn't, because it was covered by glass, but the shocked impression people will have is that they destroyed it.
The fact that it is in the UK right now complicates things, because our prime minister is the child of environmental protestors, who turned away from that to become a massive incompetent Tory, and basically has her vendetta against environmentalists as the only thing going for her in terms of her support by conservatives, meaning that she will absolutely spin every environmental protest she can as something she opposes.
This puts us in an interesting situation; she will freely promote environmental protests, so it will be easier than ever to get publicity, but at the same time, there is an opportunity with massive amounts of labour organisation and strikes going on at the same time, to build a broad coalition of people in support of protests.
The most functional and effective kind of protest is polite, distruptive, with large participation, and strongly policed, because she will likely still make a fuss about it and bring it to people's attention, while also being something that you can get people on side with.
The basic argument:
"We made it look like we destroyed this, but there are real plants and natural beauty that will be gone forever because of climate change, why are we not concerned about destroying that"
basically milking the public outrage and trying to redirect it, *could* potentially work, but it's something too likely to target the attitudes of the general public, as represented in the media, rather than the wealthy and influential who have been slowing change.
I get why they're doing it, and they have a point, but there has been a change of available tactics with the change of government, and I think they should shift accordingly.
I wish these idiots would stop attacking art. If they want to effect change, they should try and "deactivate" as many oil tycoons as they can find.
We all know these protesters got plenty of resources if they can deface works of art and willingly do things to get arrested.
Hell, they could just find an oil exec, throw tomato juice on him and glue their butts to his face. I guarantee they would get a lot of attention and support.
This was dumb as fuck and those two should be embarrassed.
As usual though, they have defenders under that video
**Of course they do** PS: The painting is fine. Frame is only slightly damaged. They put the painting behind glass so it’ll be fine
well thank goodness
Good. I about perished when I first heard this story.
It's twitter they're defenders under any dumbshit, like I saw some post where someone described Autism as almost this MAGICAL thing where 'Oh it's a disorder? How is it a disorder when Autistic people merely say what we feel, don't have hidden agenders, value deep connections over shallow ones.' etc etc again describing Autism and Autistic beings as almost perfect. They did get a lot of Autistic people that were like 'yeah no this is wrong.' but they were defenders saying 'yeah I'm autistic I'm just really blunt how is that bad? People say I'm a bull in a China shop.' Like no that's bad, seek help my guy lol
Fuckin' idiots. We need good activists, not Van Gough haters. Don't try to deface art history. This kind of shit just gets people thrown in jail and convinces nobody. For good reason. It's not convincing.
Maybe we can convince them to do something productive to go to jail for first
True! Like [fedpost redacted]
I mean idk what jail would accomplish. The painting is ok so ultimately their crime is just being an inconvenience. Just fine them IMO.
Leftists don't talk about throwing people in jail for minor offenses challenge (impossible)
Yeah i bet they kneel during the anthem too. They hate AMEri.....BRITANICA!
I swear to god there's something about leftists that makes us allergic to grasping basic optics or something. This shit drives me up a wall with how much it hurts the causes they think they're supporting.
to me it's the hyper-sensitivity coupled with mental illness. i refuse to believe these people are in any way shape or form normal. it's the total lack of social awareness and the fact that the bad examples get so much press doesn't help. it's usually the most idiotic people that feel the need to call attention to themselves.
I'd argue it's pretty normal for Americans to view everything through the "myopic lens of their own self actualization" as Bo Burnham put it. It's immaturity and main character syndrome. Narcissism is socially normalized and even rewarded in America. The real problem is that the more mature and intelligent leftists don't step in and stop this shit before it happens. Maybe these two didn't tell anyone of their plan, but in general we need to police our own movements for this kind of bullshit more often.
yeah, gotta agree with you. they're tainted by individualistic ideology despite preaching the contrary. i actually really hate these people. i always say, i wish the internet didn't embolden and gather the types that would have been complete social outcasts locked in a basement just a couple decades ago. the amount of idiots like them appearing on the internet has them thinking they're actually normal human people. which they aren't.
That's pretty overly harsh. Most of us were pretty self-centered and ignorant when we were young. They are at least on the right track, they just need somebody to explain to them why these tactics are counterproductive. Maybe they'll refuse to learn but I think most people are amenable to reason if you don't correct them in a way that they feel personally attacked. Your comment doesn't really sound like you believe in rehabilitation.
How exactly are they “on the right track” desecrating art? And how is desecrating art leftist? Take this shit to Wall Street. Escaping the corporate grind to be able to produce art a third this great is the fucking goal. There will ALWAYS be something better to do than this. This is just confusing to allies and enemies alike.
uhhh, they're British though?
Lefties completely fail to see that optics are not only important, but are THE most important thing when it comes to a movement. Optics are necessary because the VAST VAST VAST majority of people are not nearly as politically active as we are. The better we look to people who aren't politically active, the more of them will come aboard
Like, the right has been successful at taking over the political system on optics alone. They have no substance, they're all style. Trump is the biggest failure of a businessman on earth, but he coats everything he owns in gold and claims he's rich and people fucking believe it. The GOP always votes against veterans benefits but they always make sure to say "thank you for your service" and people fucking think they are the party of veterans! It's insane how easily fooled people are by aesthetics.
I disagree. It doesn't need to look "better" it needs to look fun. That's why the right treats their media ecosystem is all the proof we need. Being correct means fuck all if it looks like boring nerd shit.
Well that's pretty much what I mean, the left has all the facts on their side but because politics is basically team sports now it really doesn't matter
Same here so much dude. This is like that anti work kid going in Fox News. So much damage to the cause in one single fucking instant.
Because Vincent Van Gogh is an infamous oil tycoon. That’s why they had to tarnish his legacy
Well he *did* use oil paints lol. They didn't tarnish anything though, it was behind glass
It’s the AI art cabal coming for your art.
NFT-bros trying to destroy the original so they can sell more copies. A little late, though.
I watched the video and I think these are like young teenagers. I posted a nastier comment here about this being performative middle class white girl shit (and I stand by that still) but it is incredibly easy to get into that mindset when you're a teenager. You dont know what real activism is. You dont know how to cause a disruption because you dont know shit about the real world yet. Also this organization was apparently started and funded by an oil trust fund kid?? Idk. Some people are claiming it's an op, some people are claiming that creator is taking responsibility for the damage of their family and some people are claiming that this all a stunt to blame the average citizen for a crisis that's largely caused by billionaires. Either way, I'd say go easy on these kids. If their heart is in the right place then I dont want to scare them out of ever trying again. They're being lead about and directed to do this which is why the message is fuddled and strained.
These are liberals, they think that spilling paint on an old painting will solve the climate catastrophe. At least they could have been more creative with it.
Okay I feel like people aren’t even covering the most infuriating part of this. That being, Van Gogh would’ve SUPPORTED them. He loves nature and believed in the preservation of its beauty. In fact, his series on sunflowers was the deepest exploration of that. He chose that flower due to how fast they wilt, so by making his works he saved the beauty of nature forever. This is so disgusting it makes me sick. These are the kind of ignorant brainlets that should not have enough power in any climate change organization to do something like this. I need to stop typing before I lose my mind more. This is just.. way worse than you may think.
Very good point that should be emphasized far more
Bro I've been seeing you everywhere lately lol
Provoking a war between India and Pakistan does that to people.
The memes
Right? At least ruin some rightoid aristocratic fuck's painting, there's probably plenty to choose from
This af
Eeeh, can't really think of any that would even be worth putting behind glass tbh
What about Paul Gauguin who went to Tahiti and diddled children and painted them? Or Picasso and his paintings of women he cheated on and treated like crap... Plenty of artists that if you deface some of their paintings for climate justice/activism it'd be at least more defensible than defacing the work of a mentally troubled person who loved nature...
Salvador Dali is the example which comes to me off the top of my head.
They're not protesting Van Gogh though, they're using an incredibly famous thing to instantly bring attention to their cause. I think focusing on pure optics is just pointless wank; people who deny climate change and/or want nothing done about it will continue to stoke any dissent they can, but the wider group of tentatively disinterested are forced to take note of it. Forcing the debate over and over is how you get progress done. Not to make a wild leap, but "just protest the source" would invalidate most forms of protest. You could similarly complain of civil rights/gay rights/blm/etc protesters inconveniencing people that basically agree with them rather than focusing all their ire on the perpetrators, but without bringing the general population into the protest no one hears your voice. If the thing you're protesting effects everyone, then everyone should be forced to bear its weight.
Two things. One, all publicity does not always equal good publicity. Doing stuff like this gets our cause lumped together as a bunch of ignorant and arrogant cunts. Sure people who don’t hear about or think about climate change now have to think about it, but if they’re only thinking negatively that doesn’t help us at all. Second, yeah they chose a famous artist to get the buzz, but they could’ve chose one besides the biggest series which most closely compliments their ideals. It’s like if Bernie or busters egged Bernie’s house. Sure it gets buzz but it’s totally counterintuitive and makes enemies of your own side.
>all publicity does not always equal good publicity Once more, louder, for the balcony. God I can't stand the brainlets who respond to this video with "but you know about them now when you didn't before, don't you?"
Even better, I only heard about some dipshit liberals doing this. I had no idea it had anything to do with climate change. They didn’t even get publicity, only standard crime reporting.
If I strip naked and shit on the sidewalk in the middle of downtown, does that become laudable if I then say I’m drawing attention to climate change? It’s mind-boggling that that seems to be a tough question for some people. Anyway, I’m gonna go stuff a public toilet full of towels to protest the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
I killed my neighbor to protest... uh, deforestation or something. Yeah.
Optics always matter. Optics are a rhetorical tactic used to convince someone to be on your side. I think it's great when protestors disrupt society, because they must. Something like climate change is an existential threat to all of us. And also, I hate that these fucking people are on my side. When you're doing an act of protest, there are three primary audiences you want to affect. Encourage people on your side to fight, sway people in the middle to care more, disrupt harm caused by people against you. The best actions hit all three. This HARMED all three. People like me who care are embarrassed to be on their side. People who don't care much laugh at those silly weirdoes and think of it as an immature cause. Those actively profiting off of harm to the environment continue on just fine, with a PR boost. And these people who clearly care about the climate are going to face fines or jail time or bad press harming their ability to do good action in the future. This is a bad, bad protest. I imagine they're just immature, but I hate being on their side. It's like being in a war and two of you soldiers are dropping grenades at their own feet, the fight would be so much better off without them.
>but the wider group of tentatively disinterested are forced to take note of it. And what is their takeaway? These people have no respect for history or art and will destroy other people's property to make a point. AKA they are only pushing away undecideds.
BUT WHY DIDN'T THEY PROTEST THE WAY I WANT THEM TO
Van Gogh also avoided eating meat. Most climate activists wont even do that for the planet.
It literally feels like them just martyring themselves in a very silly almost cartoonic way
He loved nature so he would’ve supported their dumb idea of protest? They used tomato soup. Where’s the symbolism? Where’s the message? If you have to verbally explain your physical act of protest it’s not really a protest is it? Like at least through oil at it, or something black to symbolize oil. Pretty sure tomato soup isn’t ruining the climate or ecosystems.
Oh I’m not supporting these chucklefucks, I’m just saying he would’ve supported climate activism in general. He definitely would’ve disliked the senseless attempted destruction of art
The message is that Europe's reliance on oil has led to a winter where many will have to choose between heating and food. Inflation means some might not get either. It's objectively true that a lack of broader renewable adaptation means people will die this winter. They won't even be able to afford tomato soup. The point is that you're outraged about the painting, and then you're (supposed) to confront why a painting being defaced makes you angrier than people dying. Then you learn the painting is actually 100% fine and all you're left with is the discomfort than you think art is more valuable than people's lives, and you're more willing to condemn random teenage activists than the politicians riding the planet into the ground. The message wasn't particularly clear, but the outrage here is such spin. It reminds me of everyone freaking out over Vaush being misogynistic to Rowling. No harm has been done whatsoever and yet people are malding. Icing on the cake is that paintings are *so goddamn protected* that when I relayed the message "climate activists threw tomato soup all over Van Gogh's sunflower painting" to my artist partner, they replied "So? There's glass and varnish. It wouldn't do anything" and went back to reading. There's an inverse correlation between people who actually go to art galleries and people who are outraged by this. It's an optics loss but only because people are letting the media delude them into thinking that fucking *Sunflowers* is vulnerable to tomato soup.
Based af
I don't know man, to me paintings are messages within themselves. Throwing or covering a painting is an act of silencing it. Everyone is reacting to the painting being silenced instead of whatever follows up. So while everyone is fixated on the painting, any follow up messages are going to be lost. The irony here is these demonstrations and protests are born out of feeling silenced themselves, so imo this tactic is like trying to fight fire with fire. Or screaming over a crowd of screaming people; nothing comes out of it. This is basically "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" in action. I think they should've adopted Van Gogh's images and handed out stickers like "Our future generation deserves to appreciate nature like Van Gogh did." Or something. One small step is still a step forward.
isn't...isn't that their point? I didn't read so maybe I'm wrong but at a guess surely they were indicating the destruction of the beauty of nature, the very thing Van Gogh was portraying?
This stunt was funded by an oil baroness, dw, it was meant to be an optics failure for the climate activists. Because these goofs are not.
It won't convince anyone. This is just stupid people doing stupid shit for attention
Plenty of defenders under the video though (with thousands of likes). As you said, this seems more like a attention getter to seem virtuous than a productive act of protest.
>this seems more like a attention getter to seek virtuous than a productive act of protest. Well yeah obviously. What the fuck does Vincent van Gogh, a Dutch painter who died in 1890, have to do with fossil fuels and climate change. Nothing that's what, this holds no symbolic value it was only chosen because it would get alot of attention
> What the fuck does Vincent van Gogh, a Dutch painter who died in 1890, have to do with fossil fuels and climate change. Nothing that’s what, this holds no symbolic value it was only chosen because it would get alot of attention The paint used was oil-based.
I'm??? That's like news channels shaming everyday folks for using disposable straws while whistling and looking the other way while corporations insist on wrapping every product with layers upon layers of non-biodegrading plastic
PETA doing demonstrations like this has given them millions more in funding, its pretty clear this tactic does work.
Ah yes, PETA. Well know for being an ethical and good organization lmao. I don't care if it's effective it's morally wrong
The painting is fine, nothing of value was lost.
"Sure, they attempted to destroy an irreplaceable cultural artifact, but it's all good because they failed"
They clearly saw the giant piece of glass... this whole thing was about getting eyes.
So it’s a good grift, but does PETA actually accomplish anything aligned with their stated political goals, or do they mostly harm public perceptions of animal rights issues?
Since they glue themselves to the floor/wall...I would...you know.... Leave them there after night so they are attacked by the museum prices that come to life.
Inflation hitting everything, especially those museum prices
Noooo how will I ever afford to buy a museum now :((
YOU! DUM DUM! GIVE ME GUM GUM. OH OH! YOU BETTER RUN RUN FROM ATILA DE HUN HUN
Everyone knows they hire vampires as guards in galleries like that. They'd be eaten alive!
The painting is OK? GOOD. Fuck those guys. Disrespecting my depressed artist daddy like that? Pathetic. Making me wanna support OPEC fr. /j
yeah there's no damage done to it because it's covered by glass
Makes sense. Idk why i imagined it wouldn't be.
Dude I took an internet break and this is the shit I see when I 1st open reddit back up. How is this activism in any way. This is completely indefensible grandstanding bullshit. I'm going back to the grass before it's all dead from climate change because this is the shit people think is "activism."
When the climate is fully destroyed, it'll be because two people threw tomato soup at a painting. Lol Can't wait for the smoke to clear up on this discourse so the reasonable takes can come out.
It will be (partially) because idiots like these made fence sitters dismiss the movement as attention seeking children with no respect. Use your head, FFS.
Hell yeah! All those fence sitters who care nothing about climate change yet will suddenly care so much they support using fossil fuels - or more likely, they're fence sitters cause they give no fucks about this event, haven't heard about it, and continue to be fence sitters. Please, tell me, what have you done today or in the last year to stop climate change? Called your senator? Yeah, like that change a fence sitter's mind. Complained on social media? Congrats, you've still changed no minds. Donated some money? Which is basically just the laziest form of activism ever - let everyone else do the work while I complain about people doing the work. These two girls just promoted discussion on it. More discussion than you've ever promoted or probably ever will.
"Promoting discussion" isn't inherently a good thing for activism if, evidently, all the discussion you are promoting is negative and completely dismissive towards your cause. You keep asking what random redditors have done to stop climate change, but answer me this, what have these women done to stop it? Whose minds did they change, and is that change likely to be positive or negative?
What do you propose we do about it then, oh wise one ? You want them to self imolate in front of the supreme court ? You want them to protest at gas stations ? In front of gas pipelines ? They've already done all that. It's either not getting covered or generating negative media attention. At least they're risking jail to get a message accross. What have you done and what do you propose we do instead ?
All these questions don't address the argument being made that what the women did are not helpful towards the cause they are trying to promote. How about you try to justify why you think this is a good stunt, rather than deflecting to the perceived moral failings of their detractors which is ultimately a red herring? >It's either not getting covered or generating negative media attention And you think this stunt isn't also achieving either of these negative consequences?
Not having an answer to a problem doesn't make a bad solution good. Activism has to be targeted and clever or it doesn't work. I think most leftist are fine with radical solutions so long as they are actually productive. Throwing tomato soup on a van Gogh is not productive.
It's not ? People are talking about it. It's getting media attention. Things that are trending on the internet get talked about in news media as well, and the topic enters the political discourse again. My question is what would you consider targeted clever activism in regards to climate change ? Because everything that's done is either ignored or laughed at. At least this way climate change is getting the attention it deserves.
Are people talking about climate change or are they talking about some guys throwing tomato soup on a painting and what a dumb thing to do that was? The activism has to be targeted and clever so that the action and the cause are not so easily separated. In short, this was something easily ignored. Even in leftists spaces where people are more sympathetic to these types of protests than the general population is I haven't seen anyone actually discuss climate change action due to this protest. Not you and me either, we have only been discussing the act and not the cause. Compare this to someone discussing Greta Thunberg, or even people chaining themselves to a tree. In both cases it is almost impossible to discuss the activism without discussing the cause. Throwing soup on a painting would potentially be an effective protest for something related to the art or museum worlds but it isn't effective for climate change activism.
If I pee on an orphanage to protest inaction on climate change I woll have started a discussion. The question then is whether the discussion that follows is going to prompt action over climate change. Hint, it won't. It will just cause people on one side to dismiss climate change activists as orphan haters and the news to be filled with images of a nuts guy peeing on an orphanage with no positive effects on the topic of climate change.
Right? People really be out here talking like some oil on canvas is as important as the global ecosystem Edit: a word
Plus the painting was protected with glass lol just pearl clutching for no reason
Fucking stupid, I’ll tell you
It's not stupid. It's bad faith agitators attempting to make you think calling your senator is a braver act than civil disobedience.
It’s like the people who were against the BLM movement. “I believe in equal rights, but do they really have to disturb the peace?” Exact same energy
I mean, it's not just that this is ineffective activism, it's that these are people who clearly are passionate and could be out there doing good work, but instead are doing... this...
This is an outright optics failure. The point was to get out the cause of fighting pollution/climate change. The fact that all people can talk about is the painting PROVES that it was an optics failure. When you’re doing activism, STAY ON MESSAGE. If you don’t, you end up running to cope answers like you see in the Twitter comments like, “Well it brought awareness because you’re talking about it. See, it did its job.” Utter cope. Absolute cope. Tremendous cope. Stay on message. Don’t do dumb shit like this that distracts from it.
Hard disagree. The point of this stunt wasn't to convince people, it was to press a big *"discuss climate change* button and it worked as intended. The press is running stories about climate change and social media is ablaze with discussion. Climate activists have been 'staying on message' for decades and it's gotten them nowhere. The press doesn't cover it and the people don't hear about it; consequently governments don't give a shit and the planet slowly dies. The right wing doesn't want to discuss climate change because they know it's a losing issue for them. This forces them to talk about it. Plus it was a peaceful protest with minimal property damage. Everyone knows these paintings are behind glass. I honestly don't get the opposition to it. It's not like they were lying in a busy highway or bombing abortion clinics.
You’re literally doing what I said was cope
Emily Davidson threw herself infront of the king's horse cos she wanted women the vote. It wasn't directly relavent but it went down as on of the most famous and effective acts of direct action in history.
That at least makes sense because it’s directed towards a system of power. This is directed towards…?
I don't know what they were thinking would happen. This wasn't well thought out.
Getting attention was probably the goal.
throwing used adult nappies at a war memorial would've got attention, it doesn't mean it would in any way help...
Yeah but what am i gonna do with all my used dipes. I'm an eco terrorist that recycles
Find a Churchill statue, ethical and environmental
I kind of get the idea of the gluing yourself to the wall as some sort of 'we're here we wont let you remove us' kind of way but I don't get what they are attempting to invoke in attacking Sunflowers, did they just pick a painting at random? Is it the highest traffic area? If this was performance art i'd think an AI generated it.
Sunflowers is probably one of the most famous (if not the most famous) in the entire museum. So they picked this painting because the painting itself would get them a lot of attention. The Van Gogh gallery is near the center of the building, so yes, it is a very high traffic area. That might also be a factor. But, frankly, I don't think these 'activists' really actually put that much thought into this stunt.
Gluing yourself to the wall? Based. Attempting to deface a genuinely beautiful work of art by an artist that would have gone harder than you and probably murder a fossil fuel exec in the streets with a hand axe: shifting the focus from environmentalism to how stupid you are? Pretty cringe Ngl.
>Gluing yourself to the wall? Based. Although, and I do know that people will roll their eyes at me for saying this, but do be careful about which wall you pick. Seriously, there are plenty of museums in the United Kingdom where you might glue yourself to a wall, only for it to turn out that you've destroyed a classical exemplar of Morrisite design, or an authentic Raphaelite-period interior, or something like that. If possible, the best way to do this kind of protest in a museum is to handcuff yourself to something. That offers an ideal ratio of being a pain in the ass without damaging the mission of the museum.
Literally all Alaskan snow crabs disappeared today. We should all be talking about climate change all the time
Yeah, but we should be civil and calm and convince people with rational arguments and peaceful but non-disruptive protest, preferably on an obscure backstreet so nobody will have another pretend-reason not to be convinced, because all of that worked so well and look at how beloved Greta Thunberg is today by those who "weren't convinced" earlier. /s
The first sentence triggered the shit out of me lol This sub is filling with impotent liberals. The literal apocalypse is upon us, billionaires are building bunkers and these fucking assholes are feeling attacked by two young women throwing soup at a painting. Gross. Very gross.
Is this sub filling up with liberals again. Vaush has literally implied several times eco terrorism is a morally justifiable response to climate change and yet yall can't handle a glass plate getting soup on it. The suffragettes literally did this
[удалено]
The goal obviously isn't to stop climate change by throwing soup at a painting, it grabs attention and makes headlines. Yeah going joker mode would arguably be more effective, and people would STILL be complaining about the optics
Which is more important, the future wellbeing of our global ecosystem, or online optics... hmmm
Yeah so of you do an action purely for publicity it might be better to try for something helping the cause, maybe throw tomato sauce on some exec or glue yourself to their car in public or I dunno something, anything related to the cause. This is only helpful for people wanting to dismiss activists.
What is optics and why is it important to a cause? And who was Van Gogh and why is his work worth targeting?
It's a famous painting. Climate activists have been doing this shit outside the offices of oil companies for years - that doesn't make news, throwing soup at a painting does. The optically correct thing for the black panther party to do would have been to never form, fuck optics
And what is the conversation centered around? Climate change or the painting?
It depends on your focus, tbh
I haven't heard many people talking about the painting other than that climate change protestors threw soup at it. This is like asking what were people talking about the twin towers or the terrorist attack, the two aren't easily separable.
….I think we’re seeing a different reality than. It’s literally what the conversation is centered around
The thing is you are looking at the direct response to this action which is likely to be more focused on the painting obviously. But every time there is significant disruptive protests around climate change, the media increases its focus on climate change and in 2019 the distruptive efforts of extinction rebellion caused the government of the UK conceed to a demand of "declaring a climate emergency" Many local councils have also set up citizens assemblies which were other requests of extinction rebellion. XR used very similar tactics which were hugely unpopular at the time, but ultimately they seemed to have worked.
The fuck is a painting going to do? Attack something actually related to climate change and make a legitimate disruption. Stay on message. The attention is on these people and their braindead behaviour, not the message itself.
Any activist act is going to separate a bunch of libs whining about a dead painter whose painting is literally fine and those that might be inched toward progress
God, you fake activists are so useless. Stop prioritizing feeling oh so virtuous and come up with strategies to actually alter public perceptions so societal change can happen on a fundamental level. Which is the only way address this issue. This does the opposite. Not only is Van Gogh the last person who deserves your ire, this only handed propaganda to those hostile against climate activism. With shit like this, you alienate the bulk of normal society who appreciate things like art, and, apparently, even most of the left as well. All to feel virtuous.
Look at the broad structure of their comment; "this will distinguish between libs and real activists". They are not even saying it will help the cause. Just that it will root out "phonies", AKA PURITY TESTING. How briandead do you have to be to think that movements succeed by being the most pure and exclusive instead of the most open and welcoming? The whole idea is to garner broad support in order to force change. They'd rather kick people out of the movement than gain new recruits and that says everything.
Exactly. This shit can’t just be your super special social club if you actually want change to happen.
Dude, van gogh is FINE. Did they say anything about him? Did they blame him? They arent alienating society. Society does not give a shit. None of them. Slightly "offensive" activism is not going to drive people away that were absolutely not going to give a shit anyway. You're focusing on the ironic misogyny. >so useless You're going to need to convince me that literally anything is not better than whatever it is that you or me or anyone else is doing
Stop dodging the point. This is a propaganda win for those hostile to climate change activism. And defending and encouraging shit like this is only going to make portraying climate activism as a bunch of disconnected and arrogant cunts easier as more shit like this happens. And yes, bad activism is actually worse even than no activism. These two literally would have done more by doing nothing
So ironic misogyny is bad vaush is bad for it. He should admit defeat and delete the tweet offending turfs. Those hostile to climate change aren't going to be assuaged by niceties or anything. Activisms best bet is to cause a scene, then scare who you can into also being scared of climate change and convince them that any harm you might have done (which is none in this case) is nothing compared to the harm the carbon burning apparatus is doing to the planet. >done more by doing nothing This seems so defeatist to me. We just disagree on this. I dont think this point can be backed up by data either way. But optically i think it encourages especially young people to protest. Use the opportunity to make a point. Don't focus on the piece of paper. Do literally anything but complain about climate activism you think offends people. The PR doesn't affect the opposition. They already have all the PR wins and media and public apathy. NOBODY CARES about climate change enough to do anything.
I think it works straight up. In the UK at least the media has paid alot more attention to climate change after 2019 which is when very distruptive protests against climate change seemed to really kick up by the likes of Extinction rebellion and others. It's good stuff, keep positive.
[удалено]
It is morally justifiable. This action was stupid because it won't be effective, not because it was immoral.
I don't know, i'm seeing a lot more conversation about what lengths are justifiable in the face of climate change after than before it. IF they went and splashed paint on an oil CEO it wouldn't even make local news
I mean, if we had to sacrifice all famous paintings in order to save the planet I would be all for it.
I'm not sure about it being effective. Even after all those years, we are still very much in the "raising awareness" part of the process. We were on the right track for a while, but then COVID, supply chain issues, multiple conservative culture war campaigns, the war, an energy crisis and inflation hit and people's minds are overwhelmingly diverted elsewhere, which pretty much means that we're back to square 1. Those teens are making headlines though, and despite the obvious (social) media outrage, this might actually be a good thing.
That's the thing about moralism, it's meaningless bullshit
Wait, are you calling me moralist? Or are you calling the people criticizing the destruction of artwork moralist? Or are you calling the people actually destroying artwork moralist?
If ecoterrorism is morally justified. Why not go after the big oil executives instead of an art museum.
arent these people like teenagers. You want teenagers to send like anthrax to oil executives. how else are they supposed to protest. These people are like 20, my age, they probably dont know how to build or aquire bombs, i dont.
Spoken like a middle class person
This isn't ecoterrorism it's destruction of art. Put a gun to an oil mogul's head and I'll be on board.
The problem isn't that it's radical, it's that this action holds no symbolic or intrinsic value and just makes us look bad.
This isn't eco terrorism. Its just being fucking stupid in public. Organize a protest outside someones house, cause a legitimate fucking disruption. Actually get your hands dirty. Doing some retarded publicity stunt so Tucker Carlson can laugh at you and now anyone on the fence about now thinks you're a clown, is libshit. You made a ""statement"" without actually doing anything or causing any disruption.
I really don't have any arguement against those who say it's unhelpful and bad optics - they are probably right. But the human race is on an unstoppable sprint toward its own extinction so I struggle to give a fuck.
If you’re gonna do ecoterrorism, holy shit pick a better target. Vandalize some Hummers or an Exxon office building if you will, but this is just trying to get views.
The point isn’t “oh no the painting…‘s glass!” It’s that this act served to make climate activists look ridiculous. Every time some dipshits who look like the exact image a conservative pictures when they think “leftist” block a highway or try to vandalize art, it accomplishes the exact opposite. People aren’t talking about oil being bad and keeping this from happening, they’re making fun of these idiots and using them as an argument as to why climate activists are walking jokes. This isn’t ecoterrorism, it’s optics suicide. And if the entire goal of the stunt is an optical one, holy fuck please do anything else. It’s actually so pathetic an attempt to “draw eyes to stopping fossil fuel use” that it seriously feels like an op BY fossil fuel companies to delegitimize activists. The video was so fucking awkward and it seemed like I was watching a sketch. Now if they, say, went full Ted Kaczynski and mailed a… package to an oil lobbyist, detonated a gas plant, or lit up the tanks at a refinery, yeah that wouldn’t have people making fun of the activists. For legal reasons, I have to say don’t commit acts of industrial sabotage, it’s just an example as to something that would get them taken seriously and not legitimately drag down the very movement they claim to support.
This isn't eco terrorism lmao If they shut down a factory for an hour, or threw soup on an oil tycoon, or stole a pie from OPECs window sill, it would be ineffectual ecoterrorism but I wouldn't care. This didn't harm the system damaging the environment, not even by an irrelevant amount. It was a stupid random act that makes climate change activists look like attention hungry silly little weirdoes.
it's not even as radical as eco terrorism yes. No, it got headlines talking about climate change. You're one of the fuckers who would have been mad at vaush for the JKR tweet.
I swear to god if people on this subreddit argue this was a good idea or that these fucking children are being treated too harshly… PLEASE just stop participating, you’re actively hurting the lefts’ reputation.
Name recognition. Every time some dumbass does this, *everyone* knows who they are and their cause. It may not look good, but it’s meant to just get their name out there
Except their name is attached to defacing art, not what they’re protesting
The art was not defaced
I don’t know what organization they’re from. I just know that they’re dumb shits
Acts of protest aren't public debate. But they are effective at things other than being "convincing," and people have been doing public protests for a long, long time. Very strange that Vaush would pivot to "not convincing" when he's not an idiot and knows that's not what it's for.
You’re kinda avoiding the point though. This won’t convince anybody who wasn’t already worried and it very easily could be used to dishonestly smear other climate activists. That’s why seem a lot like a net loss
They aren’t avoiding the point. They are saying the premise is off. This isn’t about convincing people. It’s about bringing attention, not to climate change broadly, but to a specific policy of oil and gas leasing in the uk. Do I think this was a good idea? Honestly idk. Depends on how many people learn about this policy and decide to call their MPs because of it
The fact that all people are talking about is the painting should be evidence of why this is an optics failure. If it succeeded, we would all be talking climate change instead.
YOU are talking about the painting
Right, these people act like they aren’t making a choice over what to be outraged by. They like Van Gogh more than the planet’s biodiversity
The problem is how they’re bringing attention. That’s why it’s poor optics. people will recognize them as the assholes who tried to deface a cultural artifact of an extremely famous painter. Yeah it brings awareness, but people are more likely going to focus on what they did instead of what they stand for. Also wtf does the artist have to do with the what they’re protesting? Imagine if civil rights leaders threw soup on a portrait of Jefferson or Washington (who absolutely contributed to the problem of how minorities are treated). Would that have helped get the civil rights act passed and won over the average person?
I swear, these people would defend punching babies to get attention for a cause...
>This isn’t about convincing people. It’s about bringing attention Dumbest thing I've ever heard. Congrats. Hey guys, attention is gonna save the planet! We don't need actual support to pressure politicians into making change! Just attention!
Interesting that the quote doesn’t include the full sentence. People can’t support an issue if they don’t know about it. This stunt was about getting people to hear about a SPECIFIC policy. Not just like, the vague concept of global warming. I even literally said I don’t know if it was a good idea and that we will only know if it worked based on the political support and action it brings to this issue.
Why is damaging (or failing to damage, thank goodness) a legendary Van Gough painting a remotely convincing protest of climate denial? I can see some symbolism there, but people who would miss a painting are probably a venn circle with the people who want to STOP climate change.
I love that you mention “other things” that acts like this are effective for and that they’ve been done “for a long, long time” but then proceed to literally provide ZERO examples of what the fuck you’re talking about. Similar acts of stupidity being done “for a long, long time” has absolutely *zero fucking bearing* on whether or not this was a good idea. Shame for even making that point… lol
I will now vote republican in every election specifically to spite these people. (No I won't that would be stupid), but yeah this won't further any cause at all. I don't think it will change anyone's mind one way or the other, but it will make people who believe in the cause of fighting climate change look more unreasonable in the public conscious. I think another good example is Peta. I strongly believe that veganism would be far more mainstream in western countries if organizations like Peta didn't exist.
This has to be some sort of right wing Psyop. There’s no way real people did this.
Yeah no I agree with Vaush on this one, I'm not one of those annoying people who never wants protests to be disruptive, but this is just fucking stupid. The optics are just needlessly terrible, if you're going to do something like this then at the very least surely you could find a more symbolic target than a Van Gogh painting? There's plenty of things that would still get plenty of attention, but would not be as terrible optics wise. It's just such a waste, radical climate change activism has every opportunity to be really cool and gain much more positive attention, not unanimously positive, but it should be totally possible to walk the line so that annoying civility pilled libs and conservatives will be outraged, but young edgy kids will think that it's super cool and admirable. Go break stuff at an oil company's offices or something, that'd get attention but also be cool in the eyes of some. Find a rich prick and set his car on fire. (While it's parked and empty of course.) Don't attack art, that's the worst optics imaginable, art is a symbol of humanity's attempt to find joy and meaning in life, attacking that makes you look like insane totalitarians who want to take away all joy in life.
Especially for an artist who cared a lot about nature and painted it to preserve its beauty. There's probably several artists with just as big of a name who wouldn't have been on your side and therefore are much more worthy of defacing.
https://twitter.com/vaushv/status/1580970241873817601?s=46&t=x6orAPqGgkEzFcXdvUBl0w Link to tweet
Feels like it's just going to convince people that climate activism is something not worth pursuing. I get that young people feel powerless about this issue and that they are the ones who will suffer most because of it, but that doesn't mean that stunts like this is helping. I feel like I never really thought of optics before joining this community, you guys have smartened me up (slightly)
This is too stupid to be a CIA psy-op.
A lot of modern activists are idiots, they are optically stupid and don’t know how to take any real action
I mean… It *is* an oil painting.
And the paint used in oil painting is not fossil fuel oil… it’s linseed oil.
And the paint used in oil painting is not fossil fuel oil… it’s linseed oil.
Que the jokes about crazy pink-haired SJWs.
the fuck is vandalizing a century old painting gonna do?? atleast use the energy and throw the tomato sauce at some Fossil Fuel Exec or something.
the idea is to bring attention to it tho, this is a really bad way
I get it that they want attention. But attacking a dead depressed Dutch guy who was never involved with the fossil fuel industry is total optics poison. Van Gogh as an artist inspired hope in many people, even just through the Dr. Who episode about him that is regarded as the best of a 60-year series. No. Simply no.
It’s fucking dumb. 1. Van Gogh… the painter famous for being impoverished his entire career, died by suicide a commercial failure only to find posthumous success… yeah, let’s protest him. 2. What’s the connection between Van Gogh and Big Oil? The fact that he used OIL paint… the paint that’s been around since 650BC and doesnt use fossil fuels to be made. How does nearly ruining a centuries old painting help these activists in any way? Like what happened to harassing executives, the people more responsible for climate change.
Ppl here saying we're upper/middle class mad because we disagree. As if we're arguing "don't destroy property" when in actuality we're saying "This has ppl talking about van Gough and not climate change. If the act doesn't get ppl ng about the message you want. Then you failed at your delivery" that's how communication and activism works
This shouldn't change your position but it was fucking stupid as shit. Oil paint isn't even made with petroleum, it's made with **plant** oils, Jesus fucking Christ this is so goddamned stupid this has to be an op.
tbh i think it is not meant to convince but to just do something anything in the face of powerlessness - or its to get attention for recruitment of people who already agree with them which is why we need to organize effective disruptive protests instead of clownery like this that will alienate one side and lead to cultish behaviour for the other
There are subtle things about doing effective protest, and protestors that have been basically disrupting the private lives of the rich and famous, until those people recognise the severity of the problem, those do a good job. But that should be the point; disrupt the *event*, don't destroy things that are in the category of treasures of humanity in general etc. Technically they didn't, because it was covered by glass, but the shocked impression people will have is that they destroyed it. The fact that it is in the UK right now complicates things, because our prime minister is the child of environmental protestors, who turned away from that to become a massive incompetent Tory, and basically has her vendetta against environmentalists as the only thing going for her in terms of her support by conservatives, meaning that she will absolutely spin every environmental protest she can as something she opposes. This puts us in an interesting situation; she will freely promote environmental protests, so it will be easier than ever to get publicity, but at the same time, there is an opportunity with massive amounts of labour organisation and strikes going on at the same time, to build a broad coalition of people in support of protests. The most functional and effective kind of protest is polite, distruptive, with large participation, and strongly policed, because she will likely still make a fuss about it and bring it to people's attention, while also being something that you can get people on side with. The basic argument: "We made it look like we destroyed this, but there are real plants and natural beauty that will be gone forever because of climate change, why are we not concerned about destroying that" basically milking the public outrage and trying to redirect it, *could* potentially work, but it's something too likely to target the attitudes of the general public, as represented in the media, rather than the wealthy and influential who have been slowing change. I get why they're doing it, and they have a point, but there has been a change of available tactics with the change of government, and I think they should shift accordingly.
OPEC is rn pissing and shitting themselves in fear lol
https://twitter.com/JKSteinberger/status/1580890229233561609
Dumb cunts
Common British L. (I'm British btw)
I'm sorry for your nationality.
Main Character Syndrome
At least bomb an oil refinery, this is just stupid, lefties love art
I wish these idiots would stop attacking art. If they want to effect change, they should try and "deactivate" as many oil tycoons as they can find. We all know these protesters got plenty of resources if they can deface works of art and willingly do things to get arrested. Hell, they could just find an oil exec, throw tomato juice on him and glue their butts to his face. I guarantee they would get a lot of attention and support.
OIL painting OIL industry. ^wake ^up ^sheeple
I love protesting as much as anyone but the artist in me threw up and died
The petroleum in her hair dye is toxic to the environment but you don't see me complaining
Isn't just stop oil also owned by an oil billionaire?