this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2024
420 points (93.9% liked)

World News

38968 readers
2911 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A painting of Lord Balfour housed at the University of Cambridge’s Trinity College was slashed by protest group Palestine Action.

The painting of Lord Balfour was made in 1914 by Philip Alexius de László inside Trinity College. The Palestine Action group specifically targeted the Lord Balfour painting, describing his declaration as the beginning of “ethnic cleansing of Palestine by promising the land away—which the British never had the right to do.”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 207 points 8 months ago (8 children)

Probably the only type of destruction of art as protest I condone. The piece:

  1. Is not very old or culturally/historically important
  2. Directly depicts someone at the root of this conflict
  3. Was deliberately targeted and the reasons layed out

Trying to destroy unrelated art work is just wasteful of our shared human heritage. Attacking symbols of oppression however is perfectly valid in my opinion and is to me perfectly reasonable escalation when peaceful protests obviously do not bring the changes needed.

I put this on the same level as African Americans attacking statues of confederate generals and other proponents of slavery to hammer home their point.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Probably the only type of destruction of art as protest I condone. The piece:

Is not very old or culturally/historically important
Directly depicts someone at the root of this conflict
Was deliberately targeted and the reasons layed out

About where I'm at. Normally I get immensely irritated by 'protesters' who go and vandalize unrelated and historically important artwork, but this isn't particularly objectionable.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 8 months ago (3 children)

I mean, correct me if I’m wrong, but this is the first story I’ve seen of protestors actually destroying the painting itself, they’re usually splashing paint on the protective cover, not on the painting itself. I’ve never seen one where the actual art was destroyed before now. Is that what you’re talking about? Or am I missing a bunch of stories where unrelated artwork was destroyed by protestors (usually climate protesters)?

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 28 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Agreed, except that I would call this peaceful protest. Vandalism isn't violence. Violence is against a person. As long as no person was relying on this painting for their meals or shelter or whatever - and they definitely weren't - then no person was harmed.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 8 months ago

No no no, you don't understand. Violence is everything that disturbs those in power!

Mediocre art being damaged in one of the centers of power is violence.

Tens of thousands of people somewhere else dying is just a minor inconvenience.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 8 months ago

Another important detail to consider is that these pieces are really only worthwhile for their historical value. I would argue that this response is more significant than the original production of the painting.

If anything, the value of this painting will increase due to the added historical value of this event.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 8 months ago

actually later on this will add more historical value to it.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Definitely. Historic or not, don't put bad people on pedestals. E.g. there's a reason why you don't see statues of Hitler in Germany.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 206 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

It’s from the 20th century, and of the guy directly responsible for the mess in Palestine today as well as his shit in Ireland.

I’m about as outraged about this as I would be a Jew slashing a “historical” painting of Hitler.

I wonder if in a hundred years people will be upset over Trumps portrait getting ruined?

[–] [email protected] 104 points 8 months ago (2 children)

If we are going to shed tears for the loss of culture, then the loss of Roman era bath houses and early Christian churches in Gaza is quite a bit more concerning to me than this painting.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 76 points 8 months ago (10 children)

Based. Take those genocidal maniacs off the wall.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Or leave it: I think it's improved this way: a terrible man, a mediocre painting, in context with the ongoing genocide he put into motion. It invites the viewer to wonder what kind of legacy the rich folk who paid for these paintings have.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Hope they put it in the Genocide museum, not on the wall of a university as some hero

[–] [email protected] 13 points 8 months ago

I would say its new torn status would make it a perfect fit for said museum

[–] [email protected] 15 points 8 months ago

They can go into the same pile as all those Confederate statues and flags.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 62 points 8 months ago (15 children)

Take a look at everyone clutching their pearls over this painting and think about what doesn't upset them

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] [email protected] 58 points 8 months ago

This has the same energy as destroying confederate general statues. Good on them.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

There was a news article a day or two ago about a pensioner vandalising a statue of Thatcher. I feel the same way about this act as I did that - good on the perpetrator.

Unless a work of art is housed somewhere meant to cause reflection on all the actions a person took in their full context which includes making clear the problematic acts of the subject, they shouldn't be somewhere clearly meant to commemorate them. And if they are, then they're fair game.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 34 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Hang on a tick. Is that my old cheese? My good-time boy?! Or is he but a simple human man?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 8 months ago (5 children)

The comments are full of people who value one shitty painting more than they value human life.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›