Protesters throw soup at Mona Lisa in Paris

I really hate the destruction or attempted destruction of art in order to bring awareness to a social cause. I get in this case the painting is highly protected, ~~but there have been plenty of other instances where this has happened to other art where that wasn't the case~~.

Not only are you a self-entitled piece of shit for tying to destroy something that is on display for public enjoyment, but you are virtually guaranteeing that anybody who didn't already agree with you won't take you seriously because you are acting like such a piece of shit.

Seriously, there are a lot of legitimate reasons for civil disobedience and public protest. This is not the way to go about that, and if you think it is then fuck you in particular.

Edit: I didn't think this was going to be such a divisive issue. After some further research I am retracting my earlier statement about other art being damaged in these protests because I don't see much evidence for that after all. It seems like these protestors are often targeting art they know will get maximum media exposure without causing lasting damage.

HOWEVER, I still think this type of action is counterproductive when you are trying to, hopefully, win over people that either do not support or are not aware of your message. Collective action is an effective means to make change in society. I am, again, not disputing that. I just think that if the goal is to gain broad support for your cause you need to choose targets that are more representative of that cause; rather than art, which does get media exposure, but which ultimately serves to obfuscate or overshadow the true purpose behind your protest. Being savvy about your target audience goes further and deeper into the social zeitgeist than simply getting headlines for being angsty.

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.
- Wasn't even about climate change.
- Blocking traffic is pretty shitty though because you're hurting working people as opposed to the people who have real power and status in society. These are people who depend on hourly wages and often have multiple jobs together with childcare scheduling commitments and the like.
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.
- Raise money and awareness through non-destructive means, start a program, work on the problem yourselves and hope more people join in. Start a fucking tik-tok challenge, I don't know, honestly.
  But throwing soup at art is just cringey and makes you look weird. No one is going to be on board with that but other soup-throwers. Then you just have a whole group of people travelling around throwing soup at monuments and nobody knows what the fuck your point is, as evidenced by this comment section.
- What is your way to go about that?
  If you aren't doing anything, what way(s) would you deem acceptable?
  They're not doing anything except ruining the day of normal people around them. And after they give themselves morale immunity from any responsibility for anything bad that happens.
  If they want to protest they should sink yatchs, ground private airplanes and drag billionaires by the hair out of their bunkers and execute them. That would actually be something. But they choose to disturb random working class peasants trying to enjoy a minute for themselves instead of being crushed by capitalism for one pretty moment.
  Useless arguments are thrown around like hot garbage here. Of course they won't do what's excpected for change because they don't want change. They want a free pass from any personal responsibility.
The Mona Lisa is behind bullet proof glass and everybody knows it. Relax.
I get in this case the painting is highly protected, but there have been plenty of other instances where this has happened to other art where that wasn't the case.
Which ones? I've heard a lot of complaining about people destroying art that was protected and not damaged. The target of this kind of thing isn't the art, it's the headlines. They don't actually want to damage the art, so they purposefully target famous art that is protected. The media will quickly try to minimize that it was protected and lead people to believe they caused actual damage though, so that often gets lost.
- Ah yes it is the media's fault for not providing free advertising for them.
No art is touched in these protests. Its like y'all never heard of glass before.
I mean, I think it's dumb how they're going about doing it, and leads a general public to dislike them more than side with them, but in cases like this, it's more of a dumb inconvenience to the artwork....and a waste of soup. Nothing damaging.
You nailed it. I've never heard of this group before, but out of principal I don't support them. You're a better ways to get attention. This is a kin to a child during a temper tantrum, destroying things to get attention.
- So now they've caused no damage and you have heard of them, yet for some reason you don't support them? What better way to gain your support should they have tried? Should they have just asked nicely?
  This was a cheap and effective way to make international news. It caused no damage and no one was hurt in the process. This is what people who complain about protesting say the ideal outcomes are, yet still they complain. If they block traffic, that's disrupting people's lives. If they damage proterty, that's bad because you aren't supposed to cause damage. If they do neither, that's bad because they aren't supposed to make you consider them. Come on. What method is the right one in your opinion?
- Seriously, there are a lot of legitimate reasons for civil disobedience and public protest. This is not the way to go about that, and if you think it is then fuck you in particular.
  They never said they ‘like every other civil rights movement except for this one.’
  You did.
- "Found the lib"? This is Lemmy. We're all libs.

The painting, which was behind bulletproof glass, appeared to be undamaged.

Wow, who would've guessed.

It's bulletproof not soupproof.
- Fair enough.
- Also, it's not the real Mona Lisa.
I suspect the protesters knew about this.
- If it's anything like the other times, that's exactly why they targeted it instead of something unprotected. They aren't trying to destroy art, they're trying to make a statement.
Well, they never said it was soup proof glass.
- Now we know. Every article from now on has to call it bullet- and soupproof glass. It is the law.
- yet they happened to prove it
- It's actually a fair point. Bullets move in straight lines. Liquids splatter and drip. The painting might not be safe from all directions.
Almost like the spectacle is the point, and now people are talking about it
- yeah, they really advanced environmentalism with this dumb shit. 🙄
- They did studies that demonstrated this kind of thing can make political progress more difficult because politicians don't want to look like they're weak to it and voters don't want to be associated with it.
  But they, and I guess you, don't really care, it's not about actually making positive change it's about feeling like a hero and getting followers on social media.
It just appeared to be undamaged.
Who knows, there might be some soup doing quantum tunnelling and plopping itself right in-between the canvas and the paint.

I love a good protest ... But this isn't a good protest.

What’s the most important thing?” they shouted. “Art, or right to a healthy and sustainable food?”

Yeah, no. I think in a civilised world we should be able to have both and that sort of argument is weak as fuck.

Destroy all art because it is more important that we conduct research into cot death. Oxygen is more important than art and yet look at you, with your galleries.

It's infantile posturing of probably well off middle class kids who want their Rosa Parks moment for Instagram clout.

Further to that, attempting to destroy something that essentially belongs to everyone is just going to bring negative press. How about going after something owned by the head of Nestle? No? Is that too difficult and requires too much work?

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.
- I get that. And I broadly supported the stop oil protests that took a similar form. But I do take objection to the weird value judgement they are making.
  What's worth more, art or sustainable food...
  If I wanted to get complex about it I'd highlight the numerous ways in which art and sustainable agriculture have traditionally interwoven through folk practices, but I'm going to keep it simple and say that the sort of false equivalence they just used is the rhetoric of fascism.
  In the UK it is frequently used to defy art that may be oppositional to political and corporate interests.
  And that's it, art is, more than anything, a vector for public discussion and protest in its own right.
  Their protest and the reason behind it is fine. The daft shit they said during it undermines everything else and could do easily have been avoided with a small amount of thought.
- That's like saying playing with unloaded guns is completely harmless. You don't do that. All it takes is one accident or a crazed person to make it worse.
  You want to protest? Go to the buildings of oil companies or politicians who are the reason for this or have the capability to make a change. The art is entirely irrelevant to this.
  The only attention they'll get is a bad one. And from whom? The same people you are advocating for?
And what did you do this week to prevent environmental destruction, recycle some sody pop cans?
You are talking about it right now.
That means it worked, regardless of how "good" you think it is.
- We are talking about the protest, not the subject of the protest.
  That's one of the problem with protest stunts. They get attention but often the attention drowns out the intent.

I'm not usually inclined to conspiracy but I honestly think this group is planted by somebody to make environmental activists look bad.

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.
- That just shows why this isn’t an effective form of protest. I’ve seen a lot of comments about how “this gets attention” but fail to see how no one is actually talking about the “point” these protestors were trying to make. Which basically ruins anything the protestors are trying to do as no one focuses on the issues expressed.
- Shows how effective it was. People don't even know what it is about
- The first line of the Guardian article says, "Two environmental protesters..."
  Granted, I did assume that this was the same group that's been throwing paint onto artwork and corporate headquarters and yachts.
- I know it's a minor point and food security is an actual very practical concern and valid reason to protest, but I feel like one of the tenants of a successful protest is very much like advertising : make the target directly relevant to the message. "Art and historical conservation efforts aren't worth your concern as much as (blank)" feels like it's a muddy message when the whole point of art culture is that it is kind of frivolous. Quite frankly you could throw anything at a beloved historical conservation peice and make the news even if your reason was "I felt like it". People are probably gunna treat it as a bare faced stunt for attention because it's already been done and the response is predictable. Our society wide fascination with historical preservation is immediately hostile to anything that seems to be spontaneous. It's the opposite of exploiting a weak spot in people's thinking.
  I understand and am sympathetic to their cause but I am pretty sure there's some property damage or mischief stunt that could have been immediately more effective by being somehow tied more directly to food, convenience culture or contemporary targets.
You underestimate how dumb the average person is. Couple that with a good cause and a lot of drive, and you get the statistical certainty that from time to time someone is going to do something unproductively dumb, supposedly for the sake of a good cause that doesn't get promoted in any way.
No true Scotsman would throw soup on the Mona Lisa.
It's just the obvious trajectory of social media attention seeking within the disaffected aesthetic. Someone that loves to feel special and the center of attention picks a cause almost at random then throws themselves into the fray as loudly as possible.
It's always happened, you can see them in every community and aesthetic - conspiracy theories, political types, sports fans... Protest communities are especially attractive to attention seekers, it's great for social media clout to pretend that you're doing these crazy things for a bigger cause
If you got evidence present it. I tend to take people at their word. If someone tells me they are religion x or fighting for cause y I run on that assumption. There are of course shills but internet shilling or talking on media is not going to land you in jail. It would take a very very large sum of money to convince me that I should do something like this.

lowhanging psyop spotted

my personal conspiracy theory is that these people are funded, if indirectly, by big oil. in the same way PETA smears the name of vegans, these mfs are designed to make you, the viewer, hate environmentalists.

the worst part? it works

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.
- That's why trade unions in France maintain their own security forces, trained to spot troublemakers or hysterical militants and reign them in. Perhaps is this what makes for successful démonstrations.
- We do that here in the US too, we might hide it better though.
Makes sense, tbh. If you can't control the opposition, you can instead try to defame them

That sure will encourage work on environmental issues. /s

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.
- They weren't doing it for the climate crisis.
- It will make the climate crisis be covered in headlines and make it harder to ignore
  No it won't
  This IS a legitimate form of protest.
  NO, it isn't
Name a better form of protest to get the people's attention.
Spoiler: They've tried that before.
- The world is making progress in climate change. This isn't going to make it go faster.
- If you aren’t aware of climate change by now then you’re an absolute moron. I don’t see how soup is going to change anything
Funnily enough this has been the most successful form of environmental activism to this day
- Successful in pissing off the general public and causing them to ignore anything of substance that you have to say, sure. Pushing people away from your cause is not a good strategy if you want to effect change.
dont put /s, it ruins the joke
- My own personal style of humor is to say absurd things with a straight face, and unfortunately I have found that on the Internet there is always going to be someone who believes me without question no matter how absurd a statement I make. Because unfortunately there's always someone on the Internet who actually believes something that absurd.

It worked. Good for them, no damage was done and the news is talking about the issue

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.
- Some of the most successful stunts of extinction rebellion over here were painting private jets orange, and my personal favourite declaring a golf course a nature reserve and planting all kinds of indigenous plants there.
  Not even the pearl-clutching "but that's property damage!" types tend to be really mad about that kind of stuff.
- Yeah and I'm pretty sure the issue with climate change isn't a lack of awareness...
Usually when this happens, the articles forget to mention the glass and the comments are all centered on how stupid the protestors are. Good to see an exception here.
Edit: Never mind. I scrolled down and it's bad as it always was on reddit.
- sigh
It's doing more harm than good for the climate cause.

THROW PIES AT THE RICH! Not art. The rich.

People have target the rich as well as buildings (banks, polluting factories) They get sued and it rarely ever hit the news.
Something like this? Plenty of witnesses jumping to record this and share on social media.
I dont think any art has gotten damaged by these stunts yet. All important pieces are behind bullet proof glass or not unlikely a copy with the orginal in a vault.
Ok ok ok, I'll set aside pies for the rich... But can I also throw soup at activists?

They are covered in glass. They do this to make a scene to bring light to their cause. The painting wasnt harmed. Meh. Either way I've kinda accepted that humanity is doomed. I've gone through the 5 stages. Too many are suck on denial.

some of us have been chilling at anger for a while. it's kinda nice.
- How do you separate your anger at the world from your regular everyday anger at morons? It's a real struggle.

...why the need of throwing food at a piece of art...?

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.
- They attacked a pane of bulletproof glass; if destroying art was their objective they wouldn’t have had to walk far.
  Are there any examples of these protests that have caused lasting damage? What I’ve seen was very visible but didn’t actually threaten anything.
  It’s a weird message for sure but they don’t seem to malicious to me.
- Whatever object was thrown, aside, i wonder if this is some kind of act attributed to their primitive parts of their brains that command the following: Monke throw poop.

Anyone else think of the Mona Lisa case from Glass Onion?

Possibly why it was chosen?
The Mona Lisa is So Hot right now

This one weird trick makes everyone in the immediate vicinity instantly despise you! Click for more info!

Why is soup the choice rather than dye, ink, or paint?

They knew they couldn't (probably didn't want to) damage the painting itself. The Mona Lisa has been behind bullet proof glass since the mid 90s, so it wasnt a secret. So they chose something that was relevant to their cause and they probably (rightly) guessed that soup would make a headline when paint or dye has been done so many times before that it might not.
Real reason: They’re demanding that France make assurances for access to food.
Fake reason: They’re Warhol fans.
- Now I want to know if DeVinci had any rivalries with other artists that we could bring back.
They’re bringing attention to food insecurity, so their method is… wasting food. Yea that checks out
- Yeah that one can of soup in Paris would make such a massive difference to worldwide food insecurity lmao
- There's three types of protestors in the world:
  Cause minimal, non serious disruption. Spread the message without pissing people off, because that'll make people more receptive to joining you.
  Cause serious disruptions, even if it pisses people off, because it brings attention to the issue makes it impossible to ignore.
  Bring attention to an issue at all costs by any means necessary, even if it makes the issue worse or has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. Be an asshole to make people listen.
  There's a valid argument that without 2, people won't take something seriously, and mild inconveniences are the whole point of nonviolent protest. It gets a bit morally grey when it would do something like prevent an ambulance from operating though. I don't think anyone who normally waves that away would feel the same if it resulted in the death of a loved one.
  And 3 is just clout chasers imo, like in this situation. I can't take someone protesting food insecurity seriously if they're wasting food to do so.
Or one of those laser “pointers” with crazy high power, 1 watt or higher?
- Because they didn't want to cause damage. The target was glass, not the painting.

Protesters did shit attention grabbing thing and no one even knows what it was for.

So I guess now regular people will have to put up with security theater

One of the two activists removed her jacket to reveal a white T-shirt bearing the slogan of the environmental activist group Riposte Alimentaire (Food Response) in black letters.
If only there was some incredibly easy and simple way to find out what it was for
- Why would I care it's probably stupid, all these groups have childishly stupid goals like 'why don't we just not use oil, I'm sure no one ever though of that, right?' and 'force everyone to live the lifestyle I personally happen to prefer'
  Their plan always overlooks the fact that total chaos would ensue if anyone ever tried what they're demanding, if they had anything worthwhile to say they'd be saying it in the relevant places and people would be listening.

Again?!

Didn't another group do this exact same thing last year? I believe it was Stop Oil last time.

You'd think they just stop anyone with a thermos or other vessel capable of holding soup.

I believe that they did it to a Van Gogh painting which actually was more note worthy as that was not behind bullet proof glass
- Im almost positive this is either the same exact story being posted a year later, either way I distinctly remember the same argument of "it's behind glass, dumbasses" being mentioned last time.
Unless they get to the point of doing full strip and cavity searches, there's no way to prevent someone from bringing in a Ziploc baggie full of soup.

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Gallery visitors looked on in shock as two women threw the yellow-coloured soup before climbing under the barrier in front of the work and flanking the splattered painting, their right hands held up in a salute-like gesture.

Footage posted on X captured the attack on Leonardo da Vinci’s masterpiece as well as the gasps of visitors and the cries of children apparently shocked by the incident.

Louvre staff scrambled quickly to erect black cloth screens around the painting and the protesters but failed to effectively block the view of the scene.

Riposte Alimentaire is part of the A22 umbrella movement of protest groups in 12 countries, which also includes Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion.

In a statement sent to AFP, it said the soup throwing marked the “start of a campaign of civil resistance with the clear demand … of the social security of sustainable food”.

Questions were being asked as to how the women managed to smuggle the soup into the Louvre, as strict bag controls at most major galleries are now normal practice due to numerous other attacks on paintings, including a 2022 mashed potato attack by Letzte Generation (Last Generation) activists on Claude Monet’s Les Meules (Haystacks) at the Barberini gallery in Potsdam, Germany.

The original article contains 485 words, the summary contains 208 words. Saved 57%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

Climate change is an issue but this is not the best way.

What way would be better?
- Actual propaganda, not this shock headline provoker
- blockading freeways 👍

I can't wait to go to my old high school's student art show and throw soup on alllllll the art! You know, because food.

What a brain-dead form of protesting. It only upsets people and makes no sense.

The painting, which was behind bulletproof glass, appeared to be undamaged.

This is why education is important.

eh idk. they probably knew about it. they wanted headlines, not damage, and they got them

God damned soup nazis

"Our farming system is sick. Our farmers are dying at work."

"... And WE are wasting the food that the farmers died for.", while at the same time, turning the world towards destruction of all testaments of technology of the previous era.

idiots

Living in one of the most expensive cities in the world and complaining about sustainability...

- You need to work on your reading comprehension, lol.
They're complaining about food security, but regardless it doesn't invalidate their message.
- I know you told us 9 times because literally no one else knows what their cause was about. Shows how effective the message was.
- Complaining by wasting food certainly invalidates the message however.
- Maybe if they weren't passing a bunch of money around at the top, food would be more accessible.

Bitch, if I flew to fucking France to see the Mona Lisa and you’re up there flinging soup on it, you’re getting a foot in your ass.

Want to raise awareness? Be aware of this. Shithead.

Yeah fuck those starving people I wanna see the tiny painting