5 ms·

I think it's worth mentioning that the painting wasn't damaged, they knew the painting itself was covered with glass. This was a statement, not wanton vandalism

• legitster 4y ago
  Glazed != in glass. The glaze is a thin shellac coating. You still have to strip it and re-glaze, and it's kind of lucky it didn't do more damage than it did.
  • xyzzy123 4y ago
    The statement from the national gallery is a bit ambiguous (glazed could mean either thing). The protesters state it was "behind glass".
  • stuaxo 4y ago
    Pretty sure they mean behind glass: glass as in glazing.
• anikom15 4y ago
  It’s still vandalism. The glaze has to be cleaned, removed, and reapplied, all done by a skilled person. It can’t just be thrown in the dishwasher.
  • Nullabillity 4y ago
    So the artwork itself is preserved, while it's annoying and expensive for the museum (arguably coming out of the oil companies' sponsorship budget). Sounds like the mission was accomplished?
    • WaitWaitWha 4y ago
      >Sounds like the mission was accomplished? Did it? Is the general public concentrating on the topics they intended on bringing to the forefront or that vandalized art? Is the general public's sentiment that their act makes sense, or that it was petulant, privileged behavior? In my opinion, they did harm to their cause.
      • Nullabillity 4y ago
        That's not the question though. Is the museum going to think twice before taking more oil company sponsorships if this kind of stuff keeps happening?
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • anikom15 4y ago
      That would be for the missionaries to decide. Regardless of the mission, it’s still vandalism.