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.

  • Cethin@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    10 months ago

    So now they’ve caused no damage and you have heard of them, yet for some reason you don’t support them? What better way to gain your support should they have tried? Should they have just asked nicely?

    This was a cheap and effective way to make international news. It caused no damage and no one was hurt in the process. This is what people who complain about protesting say the ideal outcomes are, yet still they complain. If they block traffic, that’s disrupting people’s lives. If they damage proterty, that’s bad because you aren’t supposed to cause damage. If they do neither, that’s bad because they aren’t supposed to make you consider them. Come on. What method is the right one in your opinion?

    • CaptPretentious@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      10 months ago

      You can think of a single way to get a message out there outside of this act… Really…

      Gosh if there was only a method to communicate with people all across the world… Perhaps social platforms or mediums of which to put forth an idea that could just naturally get shared with everybody else… Terrible shame nothing like that exists.

      Saying that the painting wasn’t damaged is very shortsighted. What if these places determine that the risk just isn’t worth it. Sure it’s behind bulletproof Glass but not everything is. I really hate it when people assume that the repercussions for their actions are either immediate or they won’t exist.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Saying that the painting wasn’t damaged is very shortsighted. What if these places determine that the risk just isn’t worth it. Sure it’s behind bulletproof Glass but not everything is. I really hate it when people assume that the repercussions for their actions are either immediate or they won’t exist.

        They specifically target painting that are behind glass. It wasn’t a mistake that they didn’t damage the painting. It was by design. If it weren’t protected by glass they almost certainly would choose one that is. The point isn’t to cause damage. It’s to get articles written about them. Social media posts won’t get anyone’s attention.

        • CaptPretentious@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          You have no proof of the claim that this was by design.

          You have no way to prevent future idiots from targeting any random thing.

          You think articles are going to be the big thing but social media is not. So they are at the behest of whatever is written about them instead of controlling the narrative and that somehow the appropriate route. Going to think group through soup on the Mona Lisa is probably not going to win you a lot of favors. Two years ago a different group of idiots tried the exact same thing. I don’t remember a single positive thing being said about them. And I haven’t seen a single positive thing about this group either. I feel like they’re hurting their message not helping their message.

          I foresee these places putting up a replica of the paintings and not the paintings anymore. Because there’s far too much risk.

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            You have no proof of the claim that this was by design.

            The proof is they hit the fucking Mona Lisa. Everyone knows there’s glass in front. Even if they somehow didn’t know, they would by the time the get up to it and could have changed plans. It wasn’t an accident that glass was “in the way” of the painting. How could anyone think it was?

            You think articles are going to be the big thing but social media is not.

            Everyone writes social media posts, and they go no where. I’m not saying this will cause anything to happen, but it got a lot more eyeballs on it than some tweet would, which would at best be seen by the people looking for that anyway.

            I foresee these places putting up a replica of the paintings and not the paintings anymore. Because there’s far too much risk.

            Lol. What would be the point of going then. The pictures are public domain and viewable online. They only exist to display the real thing, and again nothing was damaged. Hell, the Mona Lisa has been stolen before and it’s still on public display. Why would a little soup on the glass case make them change?

            You seem to not have thought about this at all. Your thinking with emotion or something and not reason. Social media posts don’t get anyone’s attention outside the group that already agrees, these people caused no damage, and museums don’t exist for replicas. Calm down.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        10 months ago

        Wasting our fucking time. These shits keep breaking stuff and wonder why no one is treating their ideas worth of respect.

            • Cethin@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              I don’t see where my argument has anything contingent on damage not being done. Your argument was contingent on damage being done however, and none (besides a little cleanup) was done. If I said protest was only valid if it doesn’t do damage, then I’d need to consider your argument, but it isn’t. I’m perfectly OK with some amount of damage and never said otherwise.

              You’re the one that has to reconsider their position as it was based on damage where there was none. Has your argument changed?

            • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              Charitable interpretation. Assume your interlocutor is logically consistent. If they support this on the grounds that nothing was damaged, it stands to reason that they would not support it if something was damaged.

              • Cethin@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                No, I do not really consider the value of protest based on damage. The person who was saying this protest was bad did however. It is not me saying they’re arguing from a false premise who is not logically consistent. I just stated damage wasn’t done, but my position doesn’t really give that much weight.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      10 months ago

      What better way to gain your support should they have tried? Should they have just asked nicely?

      Yes.

      If they block traffic, that’s disrupting people’s lives.

      And emergency vehicles. I don’t know why no one else thinks this is a big deal. Do you really want fire trucks and ambulances and people going to the hospital to be blocked? What about regular people? I have to pick up my kids from aftercare mon-friday why would it be a good thing that my kids have to spend who knows how many hours stuck there?

      If they damage proterty, that’s bad because you aren’t supposed to cause damage.

      I agree. Please don’t damage property.

      Come on. What method is the right one in your opinion?

      Peaceful protest, dialog, websites, YouTube videos, social media posts, pamphlets, books, seminars, lectures, speeches, letter writing campaigns, change.org

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        This was a peaceful protest! No one was hurt and nothing was damaged. It also reached a lot more people than a post on social media would and way more than a picket would.

        You think they don’t do these other things because you don’t hear about them. That’s why they do this. The other methods no one hears about.

        No change has ever happened from purely peaceful protest. If that were effective it wouldn’t be legal.

      • SilentStorms@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Protestors will almost always allow emergency vehicles through their roadblocks.

        People always bring this up, but the reality is they just don’t want protests to cause the most minor of inconveniences for them.

        • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          Even so, it’s just an objective fact that blocking traffic hurts the working poor far more than it hurts the wealthy and powerful high-status people who wield real power in society. It also, at least in the US, just further alienates blue collar people from the Democratic party and the political left, a demographic that they should own, but are losing and continuing to lose precisely because they are so tone deaf. The right does not block traffic, at least not as a tactic in itself, because they are smart enough to know that it just pisses people off. This difference is diagnostic of why the Democrats are steadily losing support from non-college-educated working people of all races.

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            10 months ago

            Dude, these types of people are not working for the democratic party. The democratic party doesn’t want to change anything, which is the issue. That’s why other methods have to be used. Asking nicely and voting doesn’t cause the change that needs to happen. Sure, do it also, but don’t stop where the ruling class tells you to stop.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          10 months ago

          Protestors will almost always allow emergency vehicles through their roadblocks.

          Load of crap. That group Just Stop Oil managed to delay a woman getting her kid to the hospital. And the peices of shit who run it refuse to apologize. It doesn’t matter anyway because when the road is blocked up it still delays everything. Also who the fuck made them god? When did they get permission to just decide for the rest of us who gets to go and who doesn’t? I didn’t vote for them.

          People always bring this up

          Yes people tend to mention when you do shit that hurts people. Maybe there is a fucking reason for it?

          but the reality is they just don’t want protests to cause the most minor of inconveniences for them.

          Oh look a bloody mind-reader here! Everyone stop we got a guy here who can read the minds of thousands of people across multiple continents across decades. Hey since you are a mind reader what do you think I am thinking about your cavalier attitude towards human life right now?

          • gregorum@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Oh look a bloody mind-reader here!

            you’re the one claiming - in several comments, and without evidence - to know that:

            • “no one even knows what it is about"
            • “no one else knows what their cause was about” etc.

            and the most tone-deaf comment bordering on self-awareness: “Someone completely unable to grasp that there are others around them and they got their own needs and wants.”

            • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              10 months ago

              you’re the one claiming

              Two wrongs make a right? Kinda “logic” I should expect from someone who blocks ambulances.

              no one even knows what it is about"

              You can read the comments for yourself. That is if you aren’t too busy making sure ambulances are blocked. You don’t need ESP to read.

              without evidence -

              Literally in the comments and in the article.

              nd the most tone-deaf comment bordering on self-awareness

              Tu quoque. Logical fallacy. Ding ding ding ding. The mind reader ambulance blocker committed a logical fallacy. Ding ding ding.

              • gregorum@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                Two wrongs make a right? Kinda “logic” I should expect from someone who blocks ambulances.

                I never said this. you can’t even make your argument without inventing things I never said. or are you just lost because you keep making stuff up in so many different threads that you don’t even know who you’re talking to?

                You can read the comments for yourself.

                lmao, no. you made the claim. that means it’s your job to prove it. if you think I’m doing your work for you, you’ve go another thing coming.

                Literally in the comments and in the article.

                again, either you read other comments and article than I did, or you’re full of crap. but go ahead and prove it. I await the evidence.

                Tu quoque. Logical fallacy. Ding ding ding ding. The mind reader ambulance blocker committed a logical fallacy. Ding ding ding.

                tu quoque is only fallacious if I use it to assert that you’re wrong. I used your lack of evidence for that. the list of quotes is just calling you out as a hypocrite on top of everything else.

                you could use a course in rhetoric and debate.

              • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                In the comments I’m reading, a good half of them know what this protest is about. That’s not no one.