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.

    • oatscoop@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      11 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 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.

        • oatscoop@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 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.

    • SwagGaribaldi
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

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