Most visitors to that gallery rush to take photos/videos/selfies in front of the Sunflowers, they walk blithely past work by Gauguin, Degas, Picasso, Pissarro and Seurat.
Just to the left of it is an absolute gem, Two Crabs, gorgeous tiny brush strokes packed full of colour – largely ignored.
Whenever I visit this is one of the paintings I must see.
Right. Attacking a van Gogh is no way to catch the ear of the public.
Agreed. All they achieved was making themselves look unbearably irrational and stupid. Probably addlepated rich kids. SMH
My BF, who’s an artist, pointed out that trying to destroy something which represents the best of artistic achievement is esp evil. Destroy something that represents the worst of human achievement instead.
Magnificent.
I guess the whole thing begs the most relevant question:
BUT IS IT ART?
“We are not trying to make friends here, we are trying to make change, and unfortunately this is the way that change happens.”
“Also because oil executives have much better security, and we’d go to prison for assault. Also, we’ve somehow convinced ourselves that no one likes art.”
“Must destroy happiness unrelated to climate change! Oil companies are like the tomato soup on sunflowers! Mommy, I need money for more glue!”
Critical thinking: just one of the many social diseases I suffer from, like honesty, and being clever at lunch.*
*Saki (HH Munro) said,
“To be clever in the afternoon argues that one is dining nowhere in the evening.”
@Xtapolapocetl and @Mister44:
Thank you for that follow-up info on the glass. I’ve never seen a Van Gogh behind glass (the thickness of the brush strokes are probably why), but I’m pleased to learn that 1) they knew that before they pulled this publicity stunt and 2) they made a point to glue themselves to the wall, which is easily fixable, instead of the artwork. So, I’m inclined to think they’re wrong, but not malicious to the level it first seemed.
And it’s back on display.
Take away their cans. Leave the idiots glued to the wall.
If people find no joy in artificial things, perhaps they will be forced to seek joy in the environment. And finding that wanting, they will stare deeply into their souls and radically transform their lifestyles in a desperate attempt to find what little happiness remains.
want to quickly turn me against your group, if not your cause? do stuff like this. it’s stunts like this that turned people against Greenpeace. They started out as a good group, doing good things, and then became just laughable because they chased headlines doing really badly thought out publicity stunts like this.
Meh.
That’s my hot take. It made people talk about it. The world is fucking dying.
I would not have done this. And the world would still be dying and I would have respected something or other.
Funny; we share a similar sense of humor. I was thinking what might be in the National Gallery itself. My pick was one of their Beuckelaers. Hit the soup bowl in the center, get an extra 50 points!
a) they do pretend to care though.
b) middle class Guardian readers care and might whinge to their MPs or spouses/partners.
c) from their point of view, they’ve already tried pretty much everything else.
For the record, I don’t enjoy art getting attacked but I do consider money made off dead artists to be a more violent act. After seeing decades of billionaires buying up his work, an afterlife Picasso might even be enjoying having his sunflowers with the soup thrown on it.
I appreciate the statement about energy and oil, in particular.
Good on these kids. Keep it hot.
