Clear as glass?
It’s a really good way to gain notoriety for the group involved and generate recruitment and funds. For the ability to actually save the environment? Less so. Extinction Rebellion has some interesting exposés regarding the cult-like environment around their chair.
There’s certainly a strategy to claiming ideological purity to hedge the edges of your org so you can claim that you’re the group that cares the most. You’re never expected to achieve anything.
3 Likes
I agree, but then that would move them closer to “real” crime. Getting caught damaging someone’s property is going to have more severe consequences than being messy and annoying in a museum, especially if you need to stick around and get credit for your work. And if you deface a coal-rollin’, mud-runnin’, pick 'em up truck in the wrong part of the U.S., it’s probably legal for the owner to shoot you.
4 Likes
I argue that extreme, shocking and seemingly destructive protest is the only way to keep the discussion going. Here we are talking about it. Eventually, the needle will move, and as a species we will do something about looming environmental disaster.
6 Likes
There are all kinds of different groups with all kinds of different strategies
We’re not talking about the moderate reasonable ones because they didn’t do anything to get the blog’s attention today
2 Likes
Very, very dumb kind of protest. They should not try this on a Jackson Pollock painting because nobody would notice the difference.
1 Like
Not.
Helping.
2 Likes
Extreme, shocking and destructive weather caused by climate change should be enough to keep the discussion going. Yes, we’re all talking about it- talking about how it’s aimless and makes the climate activists look like none-too-bright fringe kooks instead of intelligent, serious people trying to urge action on a very real and urgent problem facing all of humanity. They’re not making that needle move any faster, and may actually be slowing it down.
EDIT: You know, I don’t even disagree that extreme/destructive protest might be necessary to keep people from being complacent. I’m not trying to say all climate activists need to behave themselves and stick to easily-ignored peaceful marches with catchy signs and do nothing else. To draw a parallel, I believe the only reason Derek Chauvin is in jail right now is because his murder of George Floyd sparked massive protests that included blocking traffic, damaging property and other consequences that couldn’t be easily kettled into neat “free speech zones” where those in power could ignore them. My objection isn’t that the climate activists are too rowdy, it’s that they have no strategy and no focus. I really doubt Chauvin would have ever seen a courtroom if Black Lives Matter had decided to protest police brutality by randomly going down to the art museum with a bucket of paint.
6 Likes
No.
That’s it.
Art museum goers don’t tend to be the impulsive, violent type
1 Like
They gain exposure as vandals. The real story is that they are publicity hungry and have no idea how to defend or restore the planet. Do they really think anyone would be interested in reading their manifestos after this type of conduct?
I agree with @Brainspore on this:
This would show true commitment to their cause as personal injury if not death could be a result of that type of action. These pikers just want to get arrested so they can “pose” as matyrs without any real physical risk to themselves.
2 Likes
Just a few general points as replies to different posts in this topic:
-
Museums are notoriously underfunded. Even if the painting is protected by glass, it will need a full conservational assessment and cleaning, which takes time and money that could be spent on other tasks
-
As has been mentioned, often the frames are original and they are not protected by glass. The frame is an integral part of the artwork and some did get damaged in such stunts
-
Museum employees are notoriously left-leaning. These are the natural allies of these groups. Alienating them damages the cause more than it helps, because these are people that have cultural cachet and access to politics and business
-
As an extension to that, the people who go to these museums are the middle and upper class that can change things for the better when it comes to climate change. Admittedly, they are too complacent, so it might make sense to invade their space to jolt them into action. But really, it alienates them away from the cause.
-
The people that could really make a difference in the climate discussion don’t go to museums. They have private art collections on their superyachts and in crates in Geneva Freeport. If anything, they see these stunts as a reason to take away more art from public institutions onto the " ‘free’ market".
11 Likes
Just leave them there, they can become an art exhibit themselves.
2 Likes
Counterpoint:
The people who could make a difference may not go to museums but they do like polishing their reputations (and mitigating their inheritance tax burdens) by funding museums/donating/loaning pieces to them.
Which brings us to :
So far as I am aware most of these incidents are not people “randomly going down to the art museum with a bucket of paint”.
There tends to be a link between the venue/piece and the protest.
The coverage doesn’t always make that link clear but then that’s par for the course when protests of any kind are covered.
3 Likes
If you have any specific information on that, I’d be interested in hearing it. I do recall that one of the earlier art museum protests was of an exhibit that was sponsored by an oil company or something similar. Still extremely weak tea in my opinion considering all the other possible targets they could be going after, and if that link isn’t being made clear to the public seeing the protests, then they’re not serving their purpose very well. All the more reason to change tactics to something more relevant and deserving instead of doubling down on art museums.
4 Likes
That’s more an outcrop of American philanthropy culture. It doesn’t happen as much in Europe, where these attacks are happening. Museums tend to be state owned and funded here.
3 Likes
Owned and funded, yes, but also, as I understand it, frequently reliant on private sponsorship for new acquisitions or at the least, willing to take money for special exhibitions.
The UK at least is full of “This way to the J Sainsbury Gallery of the National Art Thingy” signs.
There is that. And, going back to the argument that European museums are state funded, one of the arguments these groups make is that states and/or companies are always arguing that action against climate change is too expensive while spending 100s of millions on paint daubed on canvas.
A valid argument to which I have no counter other than to say thatat least some of these groups say they’re willing to consider any alternative protests anyone can suggest.
2 Likes
Yeah, but the UK is halfway between (mainland) Europe and the US on this and many other issues
I’m sure the link is clearly stated in their press releases, it’s just that the media we get to read in the end doesn’t highlight it.
3 Likes
I see what they’re doing… Monet always used petroleum based acrylic paints for his body of work.
1 Like
You’re right there of course but just as a single example, swiftly googled:
2 Likes
