What next, petrol on a Picasso? Threatening art is no answer to the #ClimateCrisis! Attacks on art have become a headline-hogging obsession with a hideous escalating logic. The nastier the treatment of a famous masterpiece, the bigger the media coverage.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/16/klimt-climate-activists-crisis-petrol-picasso
@hermitary @AmerLiberal gets attention. Art won't matter when we're all dying due to the climate crisis.
@TrishaGreenie @hermitary - It gets the wrong kind of attention. It does not (IMHO) make people sympathize with the climate activists, but the reverse.
@AmerLiberal @hermitary it's not really meant to do that - it's meant to get people's attention and make the point that art is pointless without a livable planet to enjoy it on.
@TrishaGreenie @AmerLiberal I do truly understand that. But destroying something to make the point that something else should not be destroyed seems to be a muddled message.
@hermitary @AmerLiberal they're not destroying them though - the paintings are behind glass. At least unless something has changed with more recent "attacks".
@AmerLiberal I think somewhere these kids might have gotten the idea that destruction of something of high monetary value to the rich that is attention grabbing has more impact than a vote or a petition or even talking to their elected officials, while I may not agree with their actions, I can easily see the validity of the impetus
@EelGM - I also agree with climate activist's goals, BUT
1) Destruction is counterproductive, it turns people off and makes climate activism appear to be an antisocial movement.
2) There is collateral damage to innocent people. (I'm not thinking of Picassos, but of blocking traffic and having patients in ambulances die in the traffic backup)
@AmerLiberal I understand their intent is to draw attention and make headlines- it’s a worthy cause. But why art? I agree… what does that solve?