Examples include Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion here in the UK.
Personally, I think some charities are groups are genuine in their outburst wanting large firms to stop strangling the natural beauty for profit, however for me there is a red line that can be crossed.
Blocking roads preventing medical care, people going to work, interview and possibly a nice vacation away. This doesn’t really help but make the public look at your group in a bad light.
The same can also be said when attempting to destroy priceless art for a cheap publicity stunt knowing it’ll get clicks on social media.
TLDR - I think some groups are genuinely good whilst others are just shouting in a speakerphone, pissing everyone else off.
What do YOU think?
So they didn’t vandalize art, they bedraggled the glas protecting the art, didn’t they? As if they didn’t really wanted to destroy the Mona Lisa and Warhols Soup Cans.
People have literally been convicted for it. You should try moving your goal posts back to reality.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c51y99yrj49o
And that is a good thing?
See my initial comment.
But you just learned no art was vandalized. That might change your opinion.
No art was damaged because the protective meassure in place to protect against vandalism, worked. It’s still vandalism.
You basically just went from “This didn’t happen” to “It’s not vandalism” to “It shouldn’t be considered vandalism”. I don’t think I’m the one that should consider changing their opinion here.
Apparently the painting was protected by glass. I don’t know the cultural significance of the frame.
Either way, I don’t approve of vandalism against random objects as a form of protest. How much damage was caused is is relevant for sentencing, not the principle.