Here's the Van Gogh Soup Thrower Explaining the Soup Throw. Seems Fine to Me.

[RussBLib]

After seeing the video, it seems fine to me too. (This story was found in Mother Jones)

Here’s a video of one of the two people from Just Stop Oil explaining why they threw a can of soup at “Sunflowers” by Van Gogh last Friday at London’s National Gallery.

Link to tweet

“I recognize that it looks like a slightly ridiculous action; I agree it is ridiculous,” she told the camera. “But we’re not asking the question, ‘Should everyone be throwing soup on paintings?’ What we’re doing is getting the conversation going so that we can ask the conversations that matter. Questions like: Is it OK that [Prime Minister of the United Kingdom] Liz Truss is licensing over one hundred new fossil fuels licenses?”

That seems pretty straightforward. There has been much consternation that this is not the right kind of protest—with condemnation even elevating to a proposal from the UK Home Secretary to crack down on actions in order to put the “safety and interests of the law-abiding majority first.” But as far as protests go, this one could be considered ordinary, even staid. Young people enraged about the climate crisis sought to garner media attention to fight it. Just Stop Oil wants to ensure “the government commits to ending all new licenses and consents for the exploration, development, and production of fossil fuels in the UK.” Even that demand, in the grand scheme of protests for climate action, is rather basic.

This is Dog Bites Man stuff: Activist group pulls stunt for media attention garnering mass media attention. And yet, there was the usual outrage and hand-wringing. “Merely getting publicity for a cause doesn’t automatically translate into generating support for it,” investor Paul Graham tweeted. “If you get publicity for a cause in an obnoxious way, you’ll generate opposition to it.” Even the Associated Press snuck in a note from a climate scientist that vandalism “alienates many people we need to bring into the fold.”

One could argue the opposite. That this protest could be viewed as a brilliant attempt to bring forward the problem we face: The destruction of beauty. And it’s always worth repeating the obvious thing about all protests. The spectacle is the point.

So, the more important point is probably for those who didn’t like the soup can protest: Get used to it. The world is getting hotter; the kids are getting angrier. Protests will erupt that seem cringe, annoying, and dumb. If this small episode bothers you excessively, you may need to buckle up. It will be a rough ride when it’s time to blow up a pipeline.

more at link: https://www.motherjones.com/mojo-wire/2022/10/heres-the-van-gogh-soup-thrower-explaining-the-soup-throw-seems-fine-to-me/

[Deuxcents]

1. Hmmm. I'm rethinking my rush to judgement as I believe in civil disobedience

[RussBLib]

2. Cool. Often there is "more to the story" than...

...what we have seen. At first, the protest seemed silly to me. After digging a little, I've changed my mind. And that's ok.

[OAITW r.2.0]

3. Sounds normal to me.

I, too, rushed to judgment. Minimal real damage, but a great social statement to make you think.

[CentralMass]

4. Throwing a can of soup at a $900 million dollar painting is a criminal act.

[ZZenith]

5. How about throwing a can of soup at a piece of glass?

Yes, it’s still a crime but they didn’t intend to damage a $900,000,000 painting nor did they. I am certain they were aware of the criminality. In their view, they are committing a crime in order to point out a more egregious one.

[Dysfunctional]

11. And they are scientists so they know that no damage would happen to the painting.

[70sEraVet]

6. But standing on a street corner handing out flyers won't change anything.

I actually thought the gimmick of throwing milkshakes at political leaders was an effective form of protest -- no real harm done, everybody gets a good laugh at the expense of someone's deflated ego.

[Paladin]

7. Trying to normalize the destruction of a great work of art?

Fuck that shit. And throw those vandalizing cretins in jail, for a long time.

If you're OK with the attempted destruction of one of Van Gogh's most famous works, the question becomes: What are you not OK with? What are your limits? Would the mass murder of those schoolkids in Uvalde TX be justified because "the spectacle is the point," if it was couched as a protest against some cause you find a worthy target?

Shame on Mother Jones for this.

[MurrayDelph]

8. I saw this and I'm still a no.

Someone's white privilege pretentiousness is showing.

This was a media fail. What is being discussed as a result of this stunt is:

1. The stunt.

2. Thank goodness the painting's ok.

3. What if the glass had failed? The frame was damaged, but she just blows that part off.

4 Why pick on Van Gogh? I see no correlation, just opportunity.

5 Who the fuck does think she is?

6 Then, maybe, they get around to discussing her rationale, I.e. The message


It's like "Whatsup?". Thanks to Milhouse, people remember the line, remember it's from a commercial, but what was the product?

[Chakaconcarne]

9. There's a hundred other ways to get the same kind of attention..

This was still complete bullshit.

[Beastly Boy]

10. Minimal damage? Pahleeze!

You don't have to destroy something to inflict maximum damage. The damage comes with the act of vandalism itself. It comes from "normalizing" vandalism.

I've heard this before. Some radicals call it "normalizing the language of resistance". Here's the problem with this: he language of contempt normalizes contempt. The language of vandalism normalizes vandalism. The language of violence normalizes violence. It is not the act itself, it is, in this case, the violation of the taboo against making priceless and irreplaceable works of art legitimate targets for whatever cause one chooses to advocate. The Taliban used it to blow up precious 4th century Buddhist statues to "normalize" resistance to all religions other than their own. Their act of wanton destruction is remembered all across the world, and because of its shocking cruelty their advocacy of Islam is firmly associated with barbarism. Congrats, Talibaqn, job well done.

Yeah, the kids throwing ketchup at art will get them their fifteen minutes of fame, but then they will be condemned for their act and their cause will be shunned because of it. Because a Van Gogh is far more precious than a bunch of entitled kids acting out their anger.

And I am not even getting into their stupid choice of a target here.