Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EuchreJack]

I found this protest where the activists glue themselves to works of Art to be quite interesting.

Not so much their actual goals (demanding that all Oil imports stop immediately is a stupid unrealistic goal), but their method of protest and their threat to keep gluing themselves to Art. Realistically, their group will probably run out of members before they could accomplish anything, since each member can basically only act once before they're looking at serious fines/incarceration and more importantly banned from being within 50 feet of "Art", but something about the whole thing seems quite novel. Plus, I think they can do it without damaging the Art.

[brewer bob]

Realistically, their group will probably run out of members before they could accomplish anything

That kind of action really doesn't need many people. It could be basically carried out by a single person.

But, this kind of protest is symbolical (like most protests) and I'm pretty certain they don't believe it'll stop oil imports. It's (probably) more to keep attention drawn to the issue.

[EuchreJack]

Some part of me is always going to love protesters, I hope.

It's about publicity.  The fact that people think they should not is exactly why it is effective.

[brewer bob]

The fact that people think they should not is exactly why it is effective.

You'll know you've done something right when you piss off (some) people by protesting.

[Loud Whispers]

I'm conflicted; because I do not like people endangering themselves or risking human heritage pieces to make a point. Yet sometimes these are the only ways the points can be made in a way people hear. For example the suffragettes who fatally threw themselves under carriage wheels or the Bagh protesters or Tiananmen Square protesters. In some of those cases the protests were successful, in some they were vain. In some their objectives could have been achieved through other means, in other cases their objectives failed anyways. But when you are living in the now, you can never know the future.

Still, I do not agree. One should never sacrifice heritage to make a message, least of all when raising attention is not the problem here. E.g. I can't find a single person in all the UK who supports state funded oil subsidies, so why glue yourself to a train to raise awareness for an issue everyone is aware of and already disagrees with? The problem is actually the political organs being controlled by a brain addicted to coke and money. I can understand dying for a good cause but don't die for no reason

[TD1]

Still, I do not agree. One should never sacrifice heritage to make a message

Boy-oh must BLM have done a number on you

[Loud Whispers]

Boy-oh must BLM have done a number on you

Everyday I weep because someone finds another stupid reason to destroy something irreplaceable. Not just for politics or art either, the most common and egregious one which goes unnoticed is not the effacing of a statue or the painting over of a ming vase, but the demolition of historic buildings to make way another glass office block which lies empty and barren and falls apart after 50 years of no maintenance - when the building it usurped stood that ground for 800 years

[feelotraveller]

Pfft, 800 years.  Try 48,000 and all in the name of raising greenhouse emissions corporate profits.  https://au.news.yahoo.com/indigenous-women-warn-un-of-cultural-genocide-in-australia-061200379.html  Wearing a t-shirt at the UN, now that is interesting.

[Loud Whispers]

That is appalling ; I'm reminded of the Victorians who ate mummies, people truly need the fewest of reasons to cause the most damage to our heritage

[EuchreJack]

You see, this is why threatening the valuable artistic treasures of the Government is GOOD STRATEGY.
Make the rich think they're valuables are at state, and suddenly you've got leverage.

[Loud Whispers]

Except that rich people are tasteless and don't care about things which truly are valuable, they only care about the things which are monetisable. Who do you think are the people demolishing historic buildings and sites for office blocks and mines? It isn't poor people, I'll tell you that. Destroying the heritage of mankind to protest against people who relish in the act is self-defeating

[EuchreJack]

Yes, but the original article discussed protesters putting works of art, defined as paintings, in jeopardy. They are clearly items of monetary value.

You are discussing decrepit old buildings, items presumably of less absolute monetary value. In fact, I actually disagree with your distress over demolishing old buildings. If people can not use them, they are useless. And old buildings were designed around older technology. They can't all be saved.
...which isn't to say that they should all be destroyed, either.

My point is: you jeopardize things THEY value, to force them to consider things YOU value. It's solid strategy.

[Loud Whispers]

Yes, but the original article discussed protesters putting works of art, defined as paintings, in jeopardy. They are clearly items of monetary value.

Leonardo's Last Supper is not just a bar of gold m8

You are discussing decrepit old buildings, items presumably of less absolute monetary value.
In fact, I actually disagree with your distress over demolishing old buildings. If people can not use them, they are useless. And old buildings were designed around older technology. They can't all be saved.

Ah ok yeah yeah that makes sense. Take a building which has stood for hundreds of years and is still occupied and has no problems, demolish it and replace it with a glass and steel office that can't last 50 years without maintenance, an office which'll sit empty because the rents are too high for anyone to use.

To reiterate, because you seem to think I have a fetish for populating cities with ruins, an old building is not synonymous with a derelict deathtrap. An old building is just an old building. No, the buildings I'm talking about aren't decrepit. Some are ancient, some are only old, but they show no signs of age - their destruction is completely without necessity, the cause is just that an office made of glass and steel has more sq m space to rent than a four storey ashlar building. I completely reject the matrix of pure monetary value, because you cannot place a monetary value on things which are priceless. To reduce yourself to such base materialism where the only things you are allowed to preserve or destroy are decided by the tastelessness of billionaires is to render yourself immune to any value which isn't paid by the hour.

...which isn't to say that they should all be destroyed, either.

My point is: you jeopardize things THEY value, to force them to consider things YOU value. It's solid strategy.

It's a weak strategy, because you're not destroying anything they value. They already place no value on historic buildings they can't use, they already place no value on art they cannot monetise. This is like rioting and burning your own house down to make the billionaires notice you. They see you, and they find it hilarious. The only things they value are their own capital, which is tied up in intangible things like ownership of companies or luxury shitholes on desert islands full of gold plated toilets

*EDIT
I value historic stuff. How do I get materialists to value historic stuff I value by destroying the stuff I value?

[EuchreJack]

Good points.

I guess all I can say is that several levers are at work in Government & Politics, and while money controls many of those levers, you need to pull all the levers that are available to those without money.

I would also add that while the painting is owned by the Museum, the Museum is funded by Rich People that don't want their status symbol tarnished.
So threatening artwork threatens rich people, just not directly.

As to this particular strategy, the Protesters glued themselves to the arguably replaceable frames.  Glue which comes off with solvent.  I'm not as much in favor of the more risky changes to the art pieces, and hope they have someone that actually understands the risks involved.

[Quarque]

What they're protesting against is a real problem, and while I'm glad people are standing up for it, I don't think damaging art and breaching F1 races is the way to do it.

I'd agree. I've been looking at maybe joining the local branch of Extinction Rebellion, but (in contrast to the Brits) our local division doesn't know how to weaponize humor. Actions like this don't serve to get more of the public on board.