As long as they don’t hurt the art (which they’re not), I think environmental activists throwing food stuff etc. onto priceless paintings to highlight the insanity of our priorities is a pretty glorious piece of agitprop.

Oct 24, 2022 · 10:55 AM UTC

111
55
11
631
Replying to @marwilliamson
And it did get us all talking about it.
Replying to @marwilliamson
I think nobody’s got a clue what to do and this is just useless activism. Useless and senseless. Go thrown soup and potatoes at the oil executives. Go take them to court. What did Van Gogh do to deserve this?
Replying to @marwilliamson
Except the art represents humanity’s divinity without which we are completely lost ( the planet will survive without us )
1
Replying to @marwilliamson
The people who laugh at them and mock them now will be wailing "Why did no one WARN us?" when climate change means their children are starving.
2
Replying to @marwilliamson
Here's what will happen: art will be moved out of public spaces and into the basements of billionaires who consider it to be nothing but an investment. Paintings are too valuable to let the public throw food at them. Already happening and this will speed it up.
1
Replying to @marwilliamson
Agreed! Passive non-violence will get us nothing. Aggressive non-violence is the best, and maybe only, way forward🤞
1
1
Replying to @marwilliamson
This tweet by Marianne Williamson exposes what a fraud she is, practicing the cheap art of appeasement
1
Replying to @marwilliamson
I think for the average person it seems silly or weird. People end up talking about the action not the cause. Also cynically, why is this the kind of protest being covered? Because this is how those in control want to portray climate activists.
2
3
Replying to @marwilliamson
Meh. I think it demonstrates the devolution of activism from a means of persuading the masses, into something for privileged kids to perform for each other. What was the carbon footprint of the food they just wasted?
3