4 ms·
No, vandalize an oil tycoons house or if you don’t mind going to prison shoot him or something. Much more effective and way more publicity. This is just cowardl
by bergenty 4y ago
No, vandalize an oil tycoons house or if you don’t mind going to prison shoot him or something. Much more effective and way more publicity. This is just cowardly and destroys irreplaceable works of art.
- ciupicri 4y agoA life is also irreplaceable.
- raydiatian 4y agoBut millions are a statistic.
- raydiatian 4y agoLove this too. Maybe destroying some art is just a jumping off point to something much more ambitious. Hey there, CIA! Don’t mind me, just some toothless cathartic venting.
- anigbrowl 4y agoThe art is not destroyed or even damaged, since it was behind a perspex window. But even if it had been destroyed, and even though I quite like Van Gogh, I'm not sure how much sleep I'd lose over it. There are 4 more of them, and when you get down to it it's a still life by an artist with a moving backstory rather than a peak of aesthetic achievement. The loss of a species, which now happens so often that it's not really newsworthy, troubles me far more. To be sure, some species are tiny worms or bugs whose names I can't pronounce or remember, and whose ecological role I only dimly understand, as opposed to 'charismatic megafauna.' And statistically I know there would always be some level of species extinction going on even if humans weren't around. But with so much evidence of the ecological pressure created by humanity and industry in particular, the loss or damage of a cultural artifact seems like a very minor tragedy.