262

Protesters throw soup at Mona Lisa in Paris (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 9 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

286 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] lightdust9745@pawb.social 31 points 9 months ago

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

[-] oatscoop@midwest.social 21 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

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.

[-] barsoap@lemm.ee 3 points 9 months ago

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.

[-] banneryear1868@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Yeah and I'm pretty sure the issue with climate change isn't a lack of awareness...

[-] oatscoop@midwest.social 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Right? Raw shock value is only useful when something isn't well known. Everyone knows about climate change and has a position.

Great, use "shock value": but make a worthwhile statement with it too. The goal is to force people to confront an issue, not effortlessly write it off as a childish tantrum and ignore it.

[-] Klear@sh.itjust.works 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

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.

[-] CeruleanRuin@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

sigh

[-] SwagGaribaldi@lemmy.zip 3 points 9 months ago

It's doing more harm than good for the climate cause.

this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2024

262 points (89.0% liked)

World News

38971 readers

2368 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.