Protesters throw soup at Mona Lisa in Paris
theguardian.com
Visitors at Louvre look on in shock as Leonardo da Vinci masterpiece attacked by environmental protesters
Two environmental protesters have hurled soup on to the Mona Lisa at the Louvre in Paris, calling for “healthy and sustainable food”. The painting, which was behind bulletproof glass, appeared to be undamaged.
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.
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.
You are viewing a single comment
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.
I recently saw someone on Lemmy point out that the UK has an emergency plan to move precious artwork to bunkers in the event of a nuclear attack, but no such plans exist for the people. Paintings can be replaced or remade. People cannot. The planet cannot. There are many things in this world far more valuable than art, in part because life is the source of art.
I'd actually say the reverse.
Our collective learning, as captured in our literature and art, is unique. It's the result of countless human lives. It is what would allow us to rebuild a society after a nuclear war.
Populations are replaceable. As long as enough people survive, the population will recover. On an individual level, of course, each person is unique but most are unremarkable.
You may find what I'm saying abhorrent, but for the potential success of any post-nuclear society I think it's more important that knowledge and culture survive than individuals.
I think an important consideration is who gets to decide what knowledge and culture get preserved. For example, I would say that medicine, agriculture, and human language would be much more important to preserve than computer science or economics, but I'm sure someone would disagree.
In general, I think art is very valuable and should be protected when possible (and not just European art), but if the choice is between a painting or a human life... the painting goes every time.
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?