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.

  • CaptPretentious@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    9 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
      ·
      9 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
        0
        ·
        9 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.

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