Monet Painting at the Musee d'Orsay Vandalized by Climate Activist

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Last edited Tue Jun 4, 2024, 05:52 AM - Edit history (1)

Monet Painting at the Musée d’Orsay Vandalized by Climate Activist

BY FRANCESCA ATON
June 1, 2024 6:10pm


PHOTO DEAGOSTINI/GETTY IMAGES

A climate activist affixed an adhesive poster to a Monet painting at the Musée d’Orsay Saturday. The woman, who said she intended to raise awareness for climate change, was arrested.

The stunt was carried out by a member of Riposte Alimentaire (Food Response), a group of environmental activists and defenders of sustainable food production in response to the climate crisis. The group has been targeting museums across Europe for years, including most recently a protest at the Louvre last month.

Link to tweet

A video on X showed the activist sticking an adhesive barren red landscape on top of Claude Monet’s 1873 painting Coquelicots, saying, according to the Guardian, “this nightmarish image awaits us if no alternative is put in place”.

The French Impressionist’s work depicts people with umbrellas roaming through a blooming poppy field. Unlike works like Leonardo’s Mona Lisa, which has been the subject of much backlash, it was not protected by glass.

{snip}

Edited to add: see the update from "Artforum."

Tue Jun 4, 2024: June 3, 2024, update from Artforum: Climate Activist Defaces Monet at Musee D'Orsay

[applegrove]

1. We had a print of that in our kitchen growing up.

Violence or vandalism is never the answer but something has to get through to those in power and the oil corporations.

[PlutosHeart]

4. Artists works being vandalized is

a poor choice. Museums are also a bad choice.
Imagine they could think of something else as targets that would not make them look stupid.

[Paladin]

24. Yeah, I keep waiting for them to get smarter.

Sure as hell hasn't happened, yet.

[jimfields33]

76. Do they ever get real jail sentences?

I honestly believe that’s the only way to stop this. I mean it could maybe cause one to think, “this may not be a good idea unless I want to spend years in jail.” I honestly think that’s our only hope for this to stop. Nothing else seems to be working.

[Ponietz]

78. Nothing else seems to be working to curtail global warming

Memorial Day 2024 set a new record for number of travelers screened by TSA. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tsa-memorial-day-travel-record/]

[jimfields33]

79. That's a separate issue.

We’re talking about various criminals attempting to destroy historical art pieces. Even if they don’t destroy them, it takes money to clean up the mess. They should at least do some significant jail time. A year may teach them that they need a different method to get the point made. This is completely taking away from the climate change message thry fight for.

[Ponietz]

81. What different method do you suggest?

Bruce Wynn self-immolated on the Supreme Court steps on Earth day 2022, and very few gave a fuck.
The art vandals got your attention, at least.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/04/26/wynn-bruce-fire-supreme-court-climate-activist/]

[JI7]

89. None did anything to help deal with climate change

[roscoeroscoe]

95. F the Art Vandals

It takes an idiot (like Trump) to think negative publicity is a good thing.

[Torchlight]

82. Certainly an assertion.

lol

[Hekate]

94. Do you think destroying the common heritage of humanity will "get thru to those in power" ?

When the Taliban shot to pieces irreplaceable cliff- carvings of the Buddha in Afghanistan, did that make you want to be a Muslim? When ISIS did the same to archeological treasures in “the Cradle of Civilization” were you inspired to become Muslim?

Or did you think the perpetrators were the lowest form of ignorant barbarian? After all, they were sincere in their beliefs and had a terrible sense of urgency, too.

[betsuni]

106. +1

[bahboo]

2. stunt is right....dumbass.....

[Demovictory9]

3. Omg

[Major Nikon]

5. What an absolute piece of shit excuse for a human

[JoseBalow]

6. Protect the environment, by destroying our humanity?

How misguided and unfortunate

[happybird]

7. No word on if the painting was damaged

I looked around for info and the best I found was one article which said the museum has not made a statement about the condition of the painting.
This worries me.

[Think. Again.]

11. The original Guardian article says the painting was protected by glass.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/01/climate-activist-defaces-monet-painting-in-paris

[mopinko]

8. the peta plan. stupid.

i always thought peta was performance designed to make veganism look stupid. i think their money comes from meat interests.
someone follow the money.

ps- depending on the adhesive, the painting can likely b repaired. but here’s the thing about monet-
he was extremely stingy w the paint. u can see the weave of the canvas in his works.
if this was a caravagio, it wd b a lot easier.

[Think. Again.]

12. The original Guardian article says the painting was protected by glass.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/01/climate-activist-defaces-monet-painting-in-paris

[mopinko]

20. le sigh. which is y rawstory of xitter links to articles shd b banned.

click through to og ppl. pleeeese.
and if u didnt click through to read it….

[Lonestarblue]

9. Such an action is not a protest. It is willful vandalism and needs to be punished.

Yes, the oil companies are wrong in fighting against green energy. Trying to destroy works of art is not the way to fight them.

[Think. Again.]

13. No attempt to destroy a work of art was made.

The original Guardian article says the painting was protected by glass.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/01/climate-activist-defaces-monet-painting-in-paris

[Lonestarblue]

14. Th Monet artwork in the Musee d'Orsay was not covered by glass and the protester damaged it by gluing a poster to it.

The Mona Lisa, in the Louvre, is covered by glass.

[Think. Again.]

15. From the Guardian...

"Monet’s painting, completed in 1873, shows people with umbrellas strolling in a blooming poppy field.

It was protected by glass, but the Musée d’Orsay did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the condition of the painting after the attack."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/01/climate-activist-defaces-monet-painting-in-paris

[Lonestarblue]

17. I did not read the Guardian article because I had already read about the attack.

ARTnews has a different story and shows a video of the woman sticking the poster to the painting.

https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/monet-vandalized-by-climate-activist-musee-dorsay-1234708643/

[Think. Again.]

18. Yes, I posted in this thread about...

...the descrepency in the two articles.

It should be easy enough to determine whether there is glass protecting this painting or not, except that both sides of this story reeeeaaaallly want us to believe the art was at risk to strengthen their respective positions, even if there was never any risk at all.

[Think. Again.]

10. There seems to be some discrepency in the reporting...

The excerpt in the OP above, which is from ARTNews https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/monet-vandalized-by-climate-activist-musee-dorsay-1234708643/ claims the Monet was not protected by glass, while the article in the Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/01/climate-activist-defaces-monet-painting-in-paris which is credited as the original source for the ARTNews piece says this:

"Monet’s painting, completed in 1873, shows people with umbrellas strolling in a blooming poppy field.

It was protected by glass, but the Musée d’Orsay did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the condition of the painting after the attack."

Since the vast majority of these activists only do actions that don't actually harm any art or anything else, but are intended merely to gain media coverage of their concerns, I'm assuming the reason this museum hasn't commented on any damage to painting is because there's no damage to comment on.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

16. From France 24, citing AFP:

Activist arrested for attacking Monet painting in Paris

Paris (AFP) – A climate activist was arrested on Saturday for sticking an adhesive poster on a Monet painting at the Musee d'Orsay in Paris to draw attention to global warming, a police source told AFP.

Issued on: 01/06/2024 - 13:03
Modified: 01/06/2024 - 13:02

{snip}

It was not protected by glass. The Musee d'Orsay did not immediately respond to an AFP request for comment on the condition of the painting after the attack.

{snip}

Climate activist arrested for attacking Monet painting at Paris's Orsay museum

A climate activist was arrested on Saturday for sticking an adhesive poster on a Monet painting at the Musee d'Orsay in Paris to draw attention to global warming, a police source told AFP.

Issued on: 01/06/2024 - 16:27
Modified: 01/06/2024 - 19:39

By: NEWS WIRES

{snip}

A restoration expert examined the painting which suffered no permanent damage, the Musee d'Orsay told AFP, adding that it had been put back on the wall.

"The exhibition is entirely accessible to the public again," a spokesperson said.

The museum would file a criminal complaint, the spokesperson added.

{snip}

[Think. Again.]

19. And from the Guardian...

"Monet’s painting, completed in 1873, shows people with umbrellas strolling in a blooming poppy field.

It was protected by glass, but the Musée d’Orsay did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the condition of the painting after the attack."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/01/climate-activist-defaces-monet-painting-in-paris

[mopinko]

22. i'd b surprised if d'orsay had all the work behind glass.

some of his work is huge. the art institute had this 2 multi-panel water lily for their big impressionist show in the early 80’s. 4’ x 6’
u can buy a half-size giclee on amazon. 2 versions, before and after he had cataracts.




if it was a pre-glued poster, it’s probably like a post it note.
but monet’s painting r particularly as risk as his use of paint was soooo spare.

[Paladin]

21. EVERY PAINTING AT THE D'ORSAY SHOULD BE BEHIND GLASS!

It's not as if these vandalistic fuckheads are going away. Mandatory life sentences for every last one of them!

[mopinko]

23. it wd destroy the purpose.

having seen his work up close, i can tell u, as a painter, u wd not b able to appreciate his spare bushstrokes w ANYTHING btn u and the canvas but an itchy museum guard.

and if the purpose of the d’orsay isnt to allow other artist’s to study his work, then it has no purpose.

they just need to upgrade their security, which they r no doubt doing right this minute.

[Paladin]

28. Those fucking vandals won't be happy...

...until they reduce Monet's masterpieces to puddles on the floor. I'll give up my up-close appreciation of his spare brushstrokes for the time being, to prevent something like that from happening...

[mopinko]

32. i wont. neither will any good painter.

not just students. masters. studying from an undisputed master.
sorry. my bfa+ will never support it.

[mopinko]

33. ps- no painter wd dare touch the work.

art gawkers, otoh. and some students. a young women in a dwg class w me reached out and rubbed her finger on a picasso etching we were being shown in the ryerson library. we didnt have gloves on, cuz we were NOT TOUCHING THE WORK.

their security shd drop a containment cage on anyone who comes close.
and yes, i have been netflixing art heist shows.

[Think. Again.]

37. The Guardian says this one was behind glass.

That's probably why the activist chose it.

[lark]

25. Lock her up for life! This is a travesty!

OK, she didn't hurt it and it's hanging again, so tragedy narrowly avoided!

This Monet is so gorgeous! I couldn't stop staring at it when we went to Musee D'Orsay 12 years ago. The colors just glowed, you could almost see the clouds moving!

[mopinko]

34. i saw them both in the art institute when i went to school there.

went w my fave painting teacher.
do they have the later 1, too? after the cataracts?

he’s not my fave. not that huge an impressionist fan. expect mary cassat & lautrec. but he was, w/o doubt, a master painter and a master gardener. on that score, i salute him.

[bucolic_frolic]

26. The punishment should fit the crime

deface the perp. This is art!

[Think. Again.]

38. As long as the "perp" is safe behind glass...

...just as the painting she chose is.

[Voltaire2]

62. Ok we will put a sticker on the sleeve of her shirt.

Then take the sticker off.

[LeonidPlanck]

27. Independent activists, maybe?

Remember the days when two jerks poured red paint on people in the name of PETA? or when Bill Gates got the cream pie in the face? There was no real message in any of those things. In my mind those “activists” were simply proto-influencers looking for attention.

If you have a message, say it! I highly doubt that either climate or activism has anything to do with this. Think about Bankse: they creat intriguing art that engages an important social commentary, gets us to think, which doesn’t destroy anything - and we want them tokeep doing it.

Edited to maintain gender neutrality in the face of an anonymous street artist, because who knows?

[betsuni]

85. Proto-influencers, good point.

[JustAnotherGen]

29. What an

Asshole

[Irish_Dem]

30. Who is funding these violent protestors?

There seems to be a common thread here. Protestors getting violent and acting out.

They hurt their cause more than they help it.

[mopinko]

35. yup. smells a bit like the tea party to me.

i hope they check the perp’s bank accounts.

[mopinko]

36. and phones.

[Irish_Dem]

65. Yes they are all getting the same marching orders from somewhere.

[mopinko]

67. clearly.

what’s the currency in iran?
do we keep track of foreign currency coming in?

[Irish_Dem]

69. It is probably laundered before it hits US shores.

Plenty of banks and phony corporations willing to be washing machines.

[Irish_Dem]

64. Look for ruble and yuan deposits.

[mopinko]

66. yup.

maybe check their homes for gold bars.
turkey has been meddling for a long, long time. anyone else remember the whistleblower from the turkish embassy in the w yrs? dont recall her name, but something edwards, i think.

[Irish_Dem]

68. I don't remember the Turkish whistle blower. I will have to look it up.

Yes Turkey, Iran, North Korea, Saudi.
Along with Russia and China.

The autocratic bloc.

[mopinko]

70. i bet someone remembers. we talked about it a lot.

[mopinko]

71. sybil edmonds. search only turned up 1 thread.

not sure posts that old r searchable.

[Irish_Dem]

72. Oh yes I remember her.

I don't know how Cheney got away with so many crimes.

[Voltaire2]

63. Zero violence happened.

[Hekate]

96. Vandalism by its nature is an act of violence. If someone came into your home...

…or your house of worship (presuming you have one) and trashed it, would you or would you not feel — violated? Your place of safety — made to feel unsafe.

[Voltaire2]

100. It was a space open to the public.

Your false analogy is false.

[Hekate]

103. Are we then to expect that places open to the public can be trashed at will? Why?

The lowest form of ignorant barbarian rules? Proud Boys can do this? Hitler Youth can?

Or just climate “activists” ?

[Voltaire2]

107. Your analogy was false.

My original statement that no violence occurred remains accurate. There was no damage to the painting. There was no trespassing.

[liberal N proud]

31. Senseless

[Think. Again.]

39. and harmless...

...unless you care about having to clean off glass.

[thucythucy]

40. And pointless, either way.

Right now the latest news seems to be that the painting wasn't protected by glass, though this hasn't as yet been confirmed by staff at the museum.

Glass or no glass, it's difficult for me to see how this action does any good at all. Even if there was glass in place, "cleaning it off" means bringing in technicians who can do this so as not to further endanger the painting. Time--and money--that could be spent on some other project, like, for instance, restoring or preserving some other invaluable part of our cultural heritage.

Instead of this pointless behavior, why not, I don't know, go after some fossil fuel company instead? Or is there some connection between Monet and the oil cartels of which I'm not aware?

[Think. Again.]

41. The only goal was to get the media talking about it, which they are.

Success.

[thucythucy]

42. Mostly they're talking about how fucked up some "climate activists" are.

If that's the idea, then yes, success.

I doubt it'll remove a single molecule of CO2 from our atmosphere, or prevent an iota of fossil fuel use in the future.

Surely there are better ways to attract media attention.

It'll be even worse if it turns out the painting was damaged.

According to this account, the work was not protected by glass, and the video shows just how much of the painting might be damaged.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/music/pictured-climate-protester-sticks-apocalyptic-poster-to-monet-painting/ar-BB1ns2Oz?ocid=BingNewsSerp

We'll have to wait for confirmation on the glass, one way or the other.

[Think. Again.]

43. I read the Monet is already back on view and not damaged...

"A restoration expert examined the painting which suffered no permanent damage, the Musee d'Orsay told AFP, adding that it had been put back on the wall.
"The exhibition is entirely accessible to the public again," a spokesperson said."

https://archive.is/tQhJG

I guess another benefit of this is the chuckles that the activists get from watching the public's heads explode over nothing.

[thucythucy]

44. I wouldn't call an attack on our cultural heritage,

whether it results in "no permanent damage" or not, "nothing."

I'm glad though that the painting wasn't wrecked.

[Think. Again.]

45. That's very insightful...

When you consider that our cultural heritage is so deeply intertwined with our addiction to oil, you give this action an added dimension of meaningfullness.

And here I thought they were only looking for the quickest, easiest way to get the morning papers to say the words "climate change".

[thucythucy]

46. Whatever.

Actually, pretty much everything about our society is intertwined with our addiction to oil, and to a much greater extent than a long dead artist whose carbon footprint was probably a small fraction of your own.

Waiting therefore for symbolic attacks on hospitals, day care centers, libraries, and anything else that might garner a couple of hours worth of headlines. The more outrageous and seemingly pointless the better.

Come to think of it, desecrating cemeteries has always drawn lots of attention.

Just to be sure:

[Think. Again.]

48. As long as no damage is done, just like in this action.

[thucythucy]

49. Damage is done.

Perhaps not to the art itself. But I'm pretty certain actions like this have museum staff most everywhere thinking long and hard about their own exhibits, wondering if it will happen to their own collections.

Do they put everything under glass? Hire more security? Remove their most precious and delicate exhibits out of reach of the public?

The damage done by attacks on our cultural heritage go beyond whether or not a particular work is damaged.

Good thing though that nothing connected to the fossil fuel industry was damaged or threatened in any way.

That'll show 'em!

Once again:

[Think. Again.]

50. After all these actions...

...you still don't see that the activists are specifically choosing targets that will not be damaged by stickers, or paint, or soup...

[thucythucy]

52. After all these actions

you still don't see that this does absolutely nothing to mitigate or prevent actual damage to the environment? And worse than nothing in terms of swaying public opinion?

At some point one of these wannabee cultural commandos will mess up and cause serious damage to someone or something.

Or they may inspire some of our lesser hinged consumers of media to act out on their own.

It's a dumb tactic, and fosters far more hostility than awareness of the climate crisis.

DU doesn't tolerate climate change denialists. I would assume most everyone on DU wants serious action taken to save our environment.
So look at the responses on this thread. Even a group as sympathetic as DU is mostly outraged at the stupidity of this tactic.

I don't expect the general public to be more sympathetic, in fact probably less.

But then it's so much easier to do the occasional grand stand performative "protest" than to do the hard work of actual political change.

[Think. Again.]

54. You should let the activist group know about your concerns.

[thucythucy]

74. I expect that others have already done so

and that their concerns have thus far been ignored.

But since you're such an eloquent advocate for the efficacy of this tactic, when can we expect you to start splashing paint or gluing posters onto art at the nearest museum?

Assuming of course you haven't already done so.

[Think. Again.]

75. I'm just an internet rando voicing my opinions.

Or am I?

[betsuni]

87. When art, museums, hospitals, universities, small businesses, ordinary people become The Establishment.

The enemy. Complicit or something-adjacent.

[Voltaire2]

51. After civilizational collapse there will likely

be very little left from the cultural artifacts of the ancient civilization. Perhaps shocking people through symbolic acts of protest is a reasonable strategy for action.

[thucythucy]

53. Perhaps if there was some evidence that tactics like this work

you might have a point.

For the most part what I see--even here on DU where you'd expect people to be sympathetic to this cause--is people being outraged at the stupidity of these attacks, and the potential they have for discrediting the mainstream of climate change activism.

I rather doubt people who either deny or ignore the dangers of climate change will see this and go, "Oh my God! They're attacking museums! For sure I'm going to lessen my carbon footprint and pressure elected officials and carbon industry moguls to change their evil ways!"

I don't doubt however that there are oil executives and PR flaks who see this, chuckle, and say, "See, we told you they're all loonies."

[Ponietz]

56. Suffragettes in England took axes and meat cleavers to art at the National gallery in 1914

Worked for them it seems.
https://artuk.org/discover/stories/fighting-for-representation-suffragettes-and-art-vandalism

[thucythucy]

73. The link doesn't work for me,

in both senses.

That is, the link you provide won't load.

And also, co-incidence is not necessarily causation. That is to say, the fact that this or other acts of cultural vandalism occurred before women's voting rights were secured isn't proof that the one led directly to the other.

The vandalism you cite happened in 1914. The first suffrage act wasn't passed until 1918, but only for women over 30 who owned property. Voting rights for British women equal to those for British men didn't happen for another ten years after that.

What happened in the meantime of course was the Great War, when millions of women contributed to the war effort, including risking their lives in munitions factories and as nurses close to the front. Not only did these contributions argue for the justice of suffrage equality, but more importantly it also emboldened an entire generation of younger women. For the first time in British history masses of women earned their own money, lived apart from their families and made decisions about their lives with far less male oversight and control. They proved to society and to themselves that they could make their own way in the world without male supervision, undermining the central justification for denying them the vote.

It's difficult to tell someone who has spent time assembling artillery shells, to mention just one example, that she is too "emotional" or otherwise limited by her gender to make rational decisions about voting. It's also hard to say that mixing in politics will sully their "feminine innocence" when they've spent time with men coughing their lungs out after being gassed, bandaging wounds, or otherwise dealing face to face with the more horrid aspects of industrialized warfare and its aftermath.

I suspect that all this was far more important than individual acts of vandalism at the National Gallery, which may have helped the effort, or may have even hindered it.

[Ponietz]

77. Thanks for the reply

If this one won’t work [link:https://artuk.org/discover/stories/fighting-for-representation-suffragettes-and-art-vandalism] look for this: Fighting for representation: suffragettes and art vandalism at www.artuk.org.

I fear some recent toxic train derailments and wildfires are caused by vandals.

[thucythucy]

84. Thank you for this link.

This one works. I've skimmed through the article but will have to get back to it.

I was however immediately struck by two things.

The first has to do with language. I always thought "Suffragette" was generally used as a pejorative. From my reading the women in the movement preferred "suffragist," which was seen as less demeaning. "Suffragette" was a term used usually by men, meant to be infantalizing. Kind of like how the original Beats were labeled "Beatniks" by the mass media. Allen Ginsberg and Gary Snyder would never have referred to themselves as "Beatniks."

So it makes me wonder about the quote attributed to Richardson. I'm thinking maybe she said, "Yes, I am a suffragist" but it was reported by the male run outlets as "suffragette?"

The second is how all the attacks seem to be on eroticised depictions of women. I doubt that "the male gaze" was a term back then, but that's what these works of targeted art seem to have in common, and it looks like the article discusses this at some length.

I'm looking forward to giving this more attention when I get the chance. But thank you for providing the link, it looks fascinating.

Best wishes.

[Voltaire2]

61. At least we are talking about it.

It was odd that the initial report erroneously claimed permanent damage. Wonder how that happened.

[thucythucy]

90. Actually, we seem mostly to be talking about the stupidity of these tactics.

and I suspect that has been the overwhelming reaction. Even on a liberal forum like DU, the reaction seems to be mostly negative. I certainly haven't seen anyone--here or anywhere--saying anything like, "Oh, now I get it! Climate change bad! Hallelujah, I see the light!"

As for how the reporting was flawed, one possibility is the simple confusion and error that often accompany late breaking news.

The other, which you seem to be hinting at, is deliberate misrepresentation to make climate activists look like unbalanced idiots.

The fact that actions like these are so easy to misrepresent in just such a way is another reason why they are so misguided and even counterproductive.

[betsuni]

86. Exactly.

[Kaleva]

109. We are past the stage of talking. It's time to prepare for what's coming.

And for millions, it might already be to late for that

[Think. Again.]

110. I believe you may be right about that.

[Kaleva]

111. I hope that I'm wrong but I'm preparing in case I'm right

[Hekate]

97. You are very sure of that. If it was "harmless," why do it? Why not have a puppy play-date in some prominent place?

[Voltaire2]

47. In other news 33 poll workers in India died yesterday from the heat.

[Ponietz]

57. You can make another picture but you can't make another earth

I’m with the vandals on this one. They’re following the early 20th century suffragette template.
https://artuk.org/discover/stories/fighting-for-representation-suffragettes-and-art-vandalism

The crack and smash of breaking glass was the first indication that anything unusual was happening during a quiet lunchtime at The National Gallery in early 1914. The attendant on duty initially thought that a skylight undergoing repairs had shattered under pressure. As he threw aside his newspaper and peered up at the ceiling, the real damage was done. While the attendant was distracted, Mary Richardson, suffragette and member of the WSPU (Women's Social and Political Union) hacked six times at the prized oil painting by Velázquez, The Toilet of Venus.

This was the highest profile, but not the first, attack on paintings displayed in public by members of the women's suffrage movement. A year earlier three women armed with hammers smashed the glass protecting thirteen paintings by Pre-Raphaelite and Victorian masters in the Manchester Museum of Art. Like Richardson, this attack was nominally committed in protest against the incarceration of the founder of the WSPU, Emmeline Pankhurst.

[Cha]

58. No, the Vandals are Stupid.. there are Smart Peaceful Ways

to Campaign for Mother Earth.

[Ponietz]

59. Every day we dawdle hastens an authoritarian regime

Democracy is dying with the planet.

[Cha]

60. Well I Hope they VOTE.

[Hekate]

98. Some art is irreplaceable. You can make all the Hallmark cards you want, but Monet was unique.

[greatauntoftriplets]

80. The Water Lilies panels in the Musee de l'Orangerie need to be protected.

This is the most impressive display of the Water Lilies ever. Monet himself donated the panels to the museum. You can literally touch these (I didn't, of course). But they're unprotected.

https://www.musee-orangerie.fr/en/node/197502

The Mona Lisa looks fine under glass. The only problem with its display was that the area it was in was too small. They've since moved it to a place that looks to be more open.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

83. Another idiot

How does vandalism increase climate change awareness?

[mahatmakanejeeves]

88. June 3, 2024, update from Artforum: Climate Activist Defaces Monet at Musee D'Orsay

CLIMATE ACTIVIST DEFACES MONET AT MUSÉE D’ORSAY

By News Desk
June 3, 2024 7:16 pm


Claude Monet, Coquelicots (Poppies), 1873, oil on canvas, 20 x 24". Photo: VCG Wilson/Corbis/Getty Images.

A climate activist with Riposte Alimentaire (Food Response) on June 1 stuck an adhesive poster to the glass protecting Claude Monet’s 1873 Coquelicots (Poppies) at the Musée d’Orsay in Paris. Depicting a blood-red and barren landscape that contrasted sharply with Monet’s bucolic image of a woman and child strolling through a lushly blooming field, the poster was meant to show what the young demonstrator described as the “nightmarish image [that] awaits us if no alternative is put in place.” Speaking to those present in the gallery, with one hand raised and the other glued to the wall behind her, the protester asserted, “At four more degrees, hell awaits us.”

{snip}

Multiple sources reported that the protester was arrested; French news agency AFP has said that the museum intends to file criminal charges against her. The institution confirmed that the painting was undamaged by the action and is already back on view.

{snip}

[anilcnair]

91. Monet Painting at the Musee d'Orsay Vandalized by Climate Activist

there was a notable incident where a painting by Claude Monet was vandalized by climate activists. On September 16, 2024, two activists from the group Last Generation threw a black substance over Monet's "Meules" (Haystacks) at the Musée d'Orsay in Paris. The painting was protected by glass, so the work itself wasn’t damaged, but the act caused quite a stir.

The activists’ aim was to draw attention to climate change issues, and such dramatic actions are intended to spark conversation and action on the climate crisis. While the painting's physical safety was ensured by the protective glass, the incident generated significant media coverage and public debate about the most effective ways to protest and address climate change.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

92. You found me again, huh?

Last edited Thu Sep 19, 2024, 08:07 AM - Edit history (2)

there was a notable incident where a painting by Claude Monet was vandalized by climate activists. On September 16, 2024, two activists from the group Last Generation threw a black substance over Monet's "Meules" (Haystacks) at the Musée d'Orsay in Paris. The painting was protected by glass, so the work itself wasn’t damaged, but the act caused quite a stir.

By the way, you're a crappy bot. The vandalism occurred on June 1, 2024.

[Hekate]

99. They need to be introduced to MIRT, it seems

[CTyankee]

93. This seems to be one of the WORST ways to promote your cause.

I truly do not understand why promoters of this tactic think this advances their cause. At worst, it is destructive of great art, at best it looks like a stunt. This stuff just won't get you where you want to be....

[Think. Again.]

101. Well, no art was damaged and this is STILL a topic of discussion, at least here...

...months later.

Success!

[Hekate]

104. What are you inspired to do that will involve throwing your body into the gears of The Machine & make it stop?

Because we can all tell you are really, really invested in this method of protest — but as with PETA, nothing really changes and no progress is made toward what they and you claim is the goal.

So being all inspired and all, how are you spending your spare time?

[Think. Again.]

105. Don't be silly...

...I'm just trying to bring anyone who has been manipulated by the press coverage on this, back into reality.

If you really want the activists to stop, stop making such a big fuss over it....

"The institution confirmed that the painting was undamaged by the action and is already back on view." -from the article update in post #88.

[CTyankee]

108. Really?

Let's all invade art museums and see where that "discussion" takes us! The cause has not been moved forward, just backward. The "success" is hardly helpful to the cause. If anything, it damages it. Good lord

[Charlie Chapulin]

102. That's going gain their group a whole lot of support