So protesting by destroying, damaging, or at least threatening art is definitely a thing now. For the Earth and the climate, sure. The relationship of protests to topic is rather Underpants Gnome, but there you go.
I've heard it suggested that the real purpose is to provide an excuse to pull these works of art out of public view. How surprising would this be, really? If there's one thing that unites CEOs, nonprofits, and the activist class it's the belief that regular people shouldn't have nice things. Now to do something about it.
2 comments:
The contemporary protesters who try to get attention by throwing food at paintings and then gluing themselves to walls could be quite easily dissuaded if only the authorities would take the art for whatever repairs are needed and leave the protesters glued for a day or two. Gallery visitors could be entertained by watching the misery of those who really need to use a bathroom.
I hadn't heard about removing the paintings from public view as part of a planned program, but I can't say anything would surprise me at this point. We like nice things too.
Speaking of science as we did a few days ago, Jer thought of you this morning when the latest Briggs post showed up. The second video is the one you might find interesting and enlightening.
A few of them might actually be crazy. Most of them are probably manipulative, though, and may be trying to convince themselves. So yeah, a day or two alone in an empty gallery sounds like just the thing to make them do some needed reflection.
I don't know if there are any stated plans to do it, but it wouldn't surprise me. We're talking about protesters who are, in some cases, quite clear in their intent and museums who won't take any action to prevent what they're doing.
Oh, yes, I did read this Briggs post. Well, I think I read it when you first commented, which is a few days ago now. Those two guys complement each other nicely.
Post a Comment