There hasn't really been many instance of art getting destroyed. This is legitimate imo, it gets in the news and no real damage is done. Personally, I think it's not far enough.

If oil companies get their way, whole countries are going to be destroyed, not just paintings.

It's also plain to see that any form of protest against oil companies is quickly villainized by the media. There's an agenda at play when you can't march, stand in traffic or just throw soup at glass.

This is not the way to go about that

What is your way to go about that?

If you aren't doing anything, what way(s) would you deem acceptable? If you know acceptable ways, why aren't you following through? Honest if-questions, not meant as assumptions.

Healthy and sustainable food seems to be a decent goal. People should be able to get behind this. So if all the disagreement is about the right approach, where are the people with the right approach, and where are all the people voicing their concern about art supporting them?

Please help me out. It feels as if people are more concerned about pieces of art which they may never see, than about healthy food, the climate, or other major issues which affect everyone.

I get why it puts people off, these points exist. I just wonder what the "right" alternative to these "wrong" approaches is, and wether the critics walk the talk.

The Mona Lisa is behind bullet proof glass and everybody knows it. Relax.

It's bulletproof not soupproof.

I suspect the protesters knew about this.

Well, they never said it was soup proof glass.

Almost like the spectacle is the point, and now people are talking about it

I mostly agree but I mean it's not like they were trying to destroy art or suggesting that all art should be destroyed. There's plenty of unprotected art in the Louvre. In the same room as the Mona Lisa There's a huge painting on the opposite wall that's arguably more interesting than whatever view of the Mona Lisa you can get from 6 ft back and they didn't go after it. They're trying to get attention, like most protests.

They aren't even protesting about (necessarily) environmentalism! It's crazy the number of people outraged that soup was thrown on glass that was in front of a painting and didn't even get to the part where it says this is about food security.

In the Balkans, whenever people rise in peaceful protest against a corrupt goverment, that particular government sends 50 or so crack heads to join the protests and start demolishing stuff, so that an overwhelming police force can then disperse the legitimate protests. I've seen it play out times and times again.

It will make the climate crisis be covered in headlines and make it harder to ignore. This IS a legitimate form of protest. They didn't do any harm and brought attention to their cause.

Name a better form of protest to get the people's attention.
Spoiler: They've tried that before.

It's a dumb action, and this is from someone that supports direct action. How people are talking about an action is critical: the context matters.

The first thing people are going to ask is "why did you do this?" and the answer needs to make sense. Throwing soup on an oil exec, painting their office, etc -- something sparks a conversation in a way you can exploit to further the cause.

"Vandalizing" a famous piece of art not even tangentially related to your cause is just going to make people think you're an asshole and shuts down that potential for a productive discussion.

or paint, that's been a thing.

really pisses me off, environmentalists attacking art, of all things. random art didn't cause environmental issues, and they're undermining their own message with the sheer absurdity of it.