The 16th Century painting by Leonardo da Vinci sits behind protective glass at the Louvre in Paris.
  • GONADS125@feddit.de
    171·
    9 months ago

    Given that the painting is protected by glass, I don’t really mind this protest. But I do hate when people destroy historical pieces in protest or like some stupid tourists have done in places like Italy.

    • Candelestine@lemmy.worldEnglish
      91·
      9 months ago

      I just don’t see what its supposed to accomplish. You can’t raise awareness when people are already aware that some form of problem exists and have preemptively demonized you.

    • flathead@lemm.ee
      32·
      9 months ago

      Right but these are climate change activists, not stupid tourists. The internet is going to hate on them anyway. The Mona Lisa! Sacre bleu!

      • GONADS125@feddit.de
        3·
        9 months ago

        No, they were farming advocates. From the article:

        The French capital has seen protests by farmers in recent days, calling for an end to rising fuel costs and for regulations to be simplified - on Friday they blocked key roads in and out of Paris.

        And I was not indicating that protesters and dumb tourists destroying precious art are on the same level. But there are other ways to draw attention to crises than destroying historic artifacts.

        I don’t support that, regardless the cause.

        • flathead@lemm.ee
          3·
          9 months ago

          I stand corrected, thanks. I assumed they were climate activists, since all the previous soup throwing was about climate.

          Do you know of any instances where climate protestors have destroyed historic artifacts?

          • GONADS125@feddit.de
            6·
            9 months ago

            Just to play devils advocate, I decided to try to see if there were many instances of artwork actually being damaged. I found this article documenting the many “attacks” on artwork by climate protesters.

            It does an excellent job illustrating how unjustified the outrage is, documenting how the attacks don’t damage the artwork.

          • GONADS125@feddit.de
            4·
            9 months ago

            Yeah I assumed the same thing before reading the article.

            I believe people have done similar things to unprotected artwork. I think I remember that happened here in the US at some point in recent years.

            Just to be clear, I was saying from the beginning that I don’t really see the harm in this because the painting was protected by glass.

            My point in bringing that up was just to argue that people being outraged by this are unjustified in my opinion, as there was no damage done to the painting.

            I was acknowledging that outrage would be justified if it were to actually cause damage; I wasn’t insinuating that climate protesters were notorious for damaging artwork.