8 ms·
I agree with you, but I think that when we are talking about extremely wealthy people, it changes things. An oil heiress knows people in the oil industry. A ken
by colpabar 4y ago
I agree with you, but I think that when we are talking about extremely wealthy people, it changes things. An oil heiress knows people in the oil industry. A kennedy knows people in politics. These people paying randos to throw soup and glue themselves to paintings is already ridiculous, but to hear that they're doing it because their mansions (which contribute much more carbon than wherever the randos live btw) almost burned down is just stupid and will not help anything. They could try to pressure the oil people they know. They could try to pressure the politicians they know. But they don't! Instead they are paying to destroy art that millions (billions?) of people from all over the world enjoy.
Someone who smokes cigarettes whose partner dies of lung cancer from a lifetime of smoking who then decides to quit smoking and become an anti-tobacco activist should not be written off just because they're "only doing it" because it directly affected them via someone they love. Someone who is extremely rich because their ancestors made a killing selling oil who decides to become an "activist" after their mansion almost burned down due to wildfires should be mocked. Anyone can throw soup at a painting. Only the super rich can influence politicians (in america at least).
- rowanG077 4y ago> They could try to pressure the politicians they know. But they don't! How do you know this? It's not exactly and either situation here.
- kevinventullo 4y agoOn the other hand, maybe destroying priceless art is a more effective way of sending their powerful relatives a message than, I dunno, reaming them out over Thanksgiving dinner.
- ben_w 4y agoI think you may be right. Most people don't get to experience fine art except in reproductions, so for most people the physical destruction of all the originals takes nothing from their experiences. People who do love and adore fine art are not limited to the super-rich (this was after all on public display), but I bet it cuts the super rich who can afford to hang originals on their bedroom walls a little deeper than most. That said, I do know I'm not normal in many ways, perhaps more people than I assume care about originals.
- weaksauce 4y agoThey aren't destroying priceless art... unless you consider the glass that protects the actual paintings priceless art.
- AlmostAnyone 4y agoWhat about the damaged original wooden frame in the previous attack?
- weaksauce 4y agothat's unfortunate of course. it's almost certainly going to be able to be restored though. I wouldn't put the frame of a piece of artwork into the "priceless" category though.
- Gud 4y agoSo far. These items are extremely sensitive and no one but a trained specialist should go near them. If the human race goes extinct due to global warming or whatever reason, at least we left these artifacts behind.
- hulitu 4y ago> but to hear that they're doing it because their mansions (which contribute much more carbon than wherever the randos live btw) almost burned down is just stupid and will not help anything. They are not doing it "because their mansions ... almost burned down". They are doing it because they know that this will distract people from their real actions. And they look like philantropists now which is far from reality.
- datavirtue 4y agoNo one destroyed any art.