Protesters hurl soup at the Mona Lisa painting in Paris | Hacker News Reader

Protesters hurl soup at the Mona Lisa painting in Paris

edition.cnn.com

18 pointssaikatsg74 comments

This link has loads more information than the CNN article, including videos of the soup-throwing, and an explanation of what the protestors are protesting.

https://www.sportskeeda.com/pop-culture/news-who-the-riposte...

*edit also kind of interesting the first visible response by the museum is to block the painting (and protestors) from view.

Direct link to the goods: https://youtu.be/8hANE6qCldo?t=55

Impressive how quickly security responded with the barricades within 30 seconds. I wonder what other props are in their secret nearby closet.

@dahart, re: also kind of interesting the first visible response by the museum is to block the painting (and protestors) from view.

Security seemed to be trying to block the protesters from view, rather than hiding the defaced painting. It makes sense to set the goal at minimizing impact to the museum by taking away the forum spectacle the protestors wanted to create. This yields better optics compared to immediately resorting to physical force against the vandals, since that could lead to a more sympathetic interpretation by third parties (e.g. the public). This way, the protestors appear to me as more of unreasonable jerks who may have mental problems.

p.s. Thank you for the way, way better link!

It may be a disincentive for future potential protesters see that they won't be able to get lots of attention and the MSM will refuse to even explain their protest. It's probably intended to avoid copycats.

I am still not entirely sure what they are protesting.

So I am going to assume the usual: climate. And lots of yelling about the rich, of course. Because that is easy. Providing actual working solutions are much harder, so you can't get yourself a profile based on those.

Meanwhile there are actual companies (like Helion) working on building actual solutions (fusion energy), and places like Ukraine that is going to start building new nuclear power plants[1].

These protestors likely hate Elon Musk, but they have done a lot less than him to come up with actual solutions.

[0]: https://www.helionenergy.com/ [1]: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/ukraine-start-buildi...

These people are idiots who do nothing but hurt their own cause

While this may be true, it's also something that eventually gets said about all protesters.

I get the feeling that you read the headline without even clicking through to see the picture of the bulletproof glass, but I'm not sure if I would call them idiots. They simply tricked you into engaging with their cause, along with a flood of global viral reposts just like this one, about it for just the price of a can of pumpkin soup and a misdemeanor mischief charge. No court in their right mind would try to conclude that they intended any harm, since it would be impossible, based on the photo alone. It sounds like the opposite of idiots to me. There are idiots in this scenario, but it's us, creating engagement on the viral reposts.

> These people are idiots who do nothing but hurt their own cause

Maybe.

Why do you think activists trying to raise awareness about food safety are idiots?

How does barely having any time before barriers surrounded them and the MSM not explaining who they are or what they're about hurt their cause? I can see those things not helping, but lack of attention can't hurt, can it?

There's no damage done to the painting, there's a glass protecting it, how exactly sending a non-destructive message hurts their own cause?

The same way any out of context attention seeking hurts your cause; by showing arrogance, and a disregard for others. People generally stop listening to whatever you have to say when you treat them with disregard.

When a law doesn't work, you don't go around breaking it, you work with the system we have to change it. Similarly, when people aren't listening to your message, you work within the system to get it heard.

> When a law doesn't work, you don't go around breaking it, you work with the system we have to change it. Similarly, when people aren't listening to your message, you work within the system to get it heard.

These don't seem comparable. Breaking the law shouldn't be your first option, but it absolutely sometimes becomes a necessary option. Conversely, I agree that essentially yelling louder at people doesn't make them "hear" your message any better, therefore I don't think the two things make a good comparison with each other.

> When a law doesn't work, you don't go around breaking it, you work with the system we have to change it.

In this world there wouldn't be a USA, nor Gandhi, and Mandela; segregation in the USA would still exist, and labour laws would have never been discussed.

That's never how bigger changes have been made.

Gandhi and Mandela are interesting cases, that I think serve my point. Both highlighted the injustice of current laws with _relative_ civil disobedience. Think how differently their message would have been taken were they to conduct unrelated civil disobedience, such as throwing soup on a work of art.

I actually find it a little offensive to compare these people to Gandhi and Mandela.

Environmentalists seem to have a penchant for terrorism. Look at the Weather Underground for example.

Also worth remembering that Mandela seems to have been big on "necklacing" which is the practice of throwing people (one of the first victims being a woman) in a stack of tires and lighting the tires on fire, suffocating them in the process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing

Because it’s an implicit admission by the protestors that people don’t care about their message/cause. So the destruction is now the message because will people will focus on that instead of the original cause.

This is not a value judgment on reason why they are protesting. I can understand their frustration at yelling at the top of their lungs and no one cares. It would feel like you’re taking crazy pills.

Most people either don't know there's glass or would assume the protesters don't know. And yet, even assuming universal knowledge of the glass, it's still easy to understand why people would consider this act disgusting/hateable. The message of the protesters requires digging, and even if you do the digging, the connection seems tenuous. Meanwhile, the act itself stands on its own as easily observed, and appears juvenile and pointless on its face. Regardless of opinion, it seems unrealistic to argue that people in general should feel differently about it.

As explained in the article, the protesters don't actually harm the painting.

There should be severe consequences for attempting to damage valuable cultural artifacts. Even if they weren’t successful.

They are not attempting to damage cultural artifacts. There have been several of these attacks in Europe by environmentalists and they always select target with protective class.

It's a great way to demonstrate and get attention.

I don’t care what excuses you make. I’m absolutely tired of these spoiled kids doing shit like this and continuing to getting away with it. No one can do anything nice without some group of jackass thugs showing up to ruin it by waving pro-hamas flags or screaming about the environment.

she looks old. like 40s

Not mentally 40 I suppose

"I’m absolutely tired of these spoiled kids doing shit like this"

I do not support this style of protest, but their reason is something like:

"They are absolutey tired of the spoiled rich (old) people, who continue to fuck up the planet like before and continue to get away with it, with no serious action being done about climate change."

Right, and I’m in neither group. That’s where I get confused, I’m on nobody’s team at the moment, and when I read a story like this I always, always, end up on the side of Louvre, or whatever.

If that is truly the case, then perhaps you need to reassess whether you are genuinely in neither group.

I'm not kidding. This is an asymmetric conflict of the powerless against the powerful. Obviously their methods are going to have to be asymmetric. If you end up siding with the powerful, well, you are taking a side whether you like it or not.

I understand all of that, I really do. I still stand by what I said, partially because I'm describing a reaction that I can only partially control.

I know, that is why I do not support this style of protest. It is venting of frustration, activism for the sake of it - getting the feeling that at least something was done (and being too blind to realize that it is not helping the cause).

I’m absolutely tired of being accused of being the source of all problems, including “fucking up the planet”.

Just look at the world. Look. Only heavy indoctrination may make you interpret the world as I be fucking up the planet. I feel like a German guy who was born during WWI and who is accused of being the source of all problems in the world, squeezed between having to reimburse France for war damages done by my parents (which Germany did until 1991) AND squeezed with the economic recession of 1932 in Germany.

Just leave those paintings alone.

"Just look at the world. Look."

I think I did. And I see many different people, in many different countries, making many creative, but similar excuses to not actually do anything different, if it is only slightly inconvenient.

"Just leave those paintings alone."

And it seems you directed this at me, well did you read the part, where I said I do not support this protest?

Also, where did I or anyone else here directly accuse you of anything?

Or do you consider yourself to be a "spoiled rich old guy"?

You are claiming to not support this while making excuses for them which isn’t much different.

I can also explain to you, why Hitler went down the road he did. Does that make me a Nazi?

I can also explain to you, when a angry dog will bite, does that me make a dog?

My stand is, to make progress and overcome conflicts, one has to understand the other side at least a little.

And in this case, no I am not a climate activist. I do not see much point in activism. But I do see a point, in trying to get people to work together to solve the common problems, like climate change.

I just said I don’t care about your excuses. The world has always been fucked up and had problems and bad people in it. Things like being able to light a Christmas tree as a community are things we do to unite and not have to worry about how shitty the place is for 10 minutes.

"I just said I don’t care about your excuses."

Wrong adress, I am not an activist of any kind.

"Things like being able to light a Christmas tree as a community are things we do to unite and not have to worry about how shitty the place is for 10 minutes."

Did I told you, you may not do this anymore?

"The world has always been fucked up"

I disagree to this. But yes, the human world always had problems. But the problems usually did not go away by themself, but by people working together on solutions.

Well Dylan, you certainly are living up to your ‘edgy’ claim.

No I’m just a normal personal. That you think normal is edgy is proof you’ve been indoctrinated

I seem to have stuck a nerve so I am sorry about that. Hopefully your days gets better man.

It’s a great way to turn off regular people from whatever movement they’re pitching.

I've never seen these people be able to explain why they do what they do in any way that makes sense or is logically consistent so...

They may label themselves as environmentalists etc - because they have to label themselves as something if they don't want to just be considered vandals - but I think the answer that's most likely is some type of personality disorder.

Is it in the news? Mission accomplished.

Kinda feels like the underpants gnomes thing then

1. Get in the news

2. ???

3. Environment is saved!

Sure and a few years back some Dutchie protesters got in the news because they were gluing themselves to things. It was hilarious and I have 0 genuine recollection of what they were trying to accomplish, because most of this is ineffective flash-in-the-pan stuff.

That’s possibly because their fundamental objective is narcissism, not a benevolent ideology.

not really actually, it works and it's called the "radical flank" theory

You claim it works.

Allegedly, they did this to reduce the burning of fossil fuels, not (as seems more likely to me and others) to act like a bunch of poorly-socialized three-year-olds throwing a tantrum.

How many fewer barrels of oil would you estimate will be burned over the course of the coming year as a direct result of this "protest"? Say, to the nearest million. Be sure to show your work.

Any? No? Then it didn't actually "work", did it?

Only with a trivial definition of "works".

Attention is not what the climate crisis lacks. It hasn't lost salience in a decade, people are simultaneously fatigued and concerned, so stunts are redundant. Notwithstanding, negative attention is not necessarily helpful. If it were, PETA or Greenpeace would be seen in a more favorable light and data would suggest that their PR approach makes a net positive difference. There are organizations that take a more data-driven approach, and consequently are both effective and not off-putting to prospective supporters, but they don't get the same media attention. In the internet age, it should be possible to boost without stupid antics.

At this point most are sticking to the same outlook they had 10-20 years ago.

> and get attention

Attention is what is needed in attention (political) economy, sure, but I do wonder why they've chosen (classical) art specifically? I kind of miss the big witty stunts done by the Yes Men and alike.

Do you think we’d be discussing this on HN if this was an unheard painting/artist? I’m not commenting on whether or not their actions were correct, but if they wanted publicity it certainly was successful. (Unless I misunderstood your comment)

> Do you think we’d be discussing this on HN if this was an unheard painting/artist?

Probably not, but one might think that there would be better "targets", artificial as they may still be? Remember the scene in Fight Club?

But also the focus now isn't their environmental demands, or their political stance, or whatever, but that they potentially damaged a work of art.

I don't know how that furthers their cause.

> but that they potentially damaged a work of art.

How do people not know the Mona Lisa is protected by a sheet of glass, and has been for years?

I know it is, but it's not the only work of art in that room.

I am fairly sure that most works are (now) protected by glass.

You mean attempting to damage valuable cultural artifacts like the environment?

I totally agree, we should put Exxon and Total CEOs in jail!

Or you could just put your money where your mouth is and stop using anything made, transported, or grown with fossil fuels.

Those CEOs are only in business because people like you (and me) burn a fuckton of fossil fuels.

What? These attempts to shoehorn the opposite point into the conversation is rhetorically embarrassing. Both can be bad.

This is the point of the protesters, though. It's not the "opposite point", it's THE point to this story.

The Mona Lisa is fine and was always doing to be fine. This is literally just a publicity stunt, nothing more. The environment, however, and the way we farm and how it affects it (and how it affects us), well, the protesters have a point. It's sick and getting sicker every day.

It's actually the first association for me, when I hear "damage valuable cultural artefacts", so I personally find it quite fitting. And I agree with you, both actions can be (and IMHO are) bad.

In what way this the environment a "cultural artifact"? Especially when compared to a famous painting.

I'm sorry but I don't think I can possibly believe that your first association with "valuable cultural artifact" is the environment, assuming English is your first language. The environment influences culture, sure, but environment is not culture.

> assuming English is your first language

You're wrongly assuming. It's German, and we have the word "Kulturlandschaft" (cultural landscape). Today, 60% of Europe's landscape is "Kulturlandschaft".

Objectively there was no attempt to damage. They threw soup at glass. When was the last time you heard soup shattering glass? I’m not even sure why you’re so upset when the Mona Lisa is mid anyway

I doubt they were actually attempting that, everyone knows about the glass; their goal was to perform a viral stunt.

Even if they didn't think doing this would harm the painting, they should still face stiff consequences. Lest we incentivize more groups to do this kind of thing.

I’ll ask the obvious question that must be on everyone’s mind: Why was it pumpkin soup? Why not a lobster bisque or a nice corn chowder or something? Or at least some acrylic paint that'll be a little harder to clean off?

Not to take away from your humor by answering seriously, and this is pure speculation, but the choice might be a deliberate attempt to minimize the risk of any damage, since pumpkin soup is low acidity and very easy to clean.

What they are really throwing soup at is the bulletproof glass in front of the painting.

There’s a world of difference between knowing you’ll destroy the painting and making a statement by smearing something icky on glass.

Apparently in both cases you go viral, I guess that was their goal.

Also, they chose to protest in a way that isn’t as destructive to the environment - quite consistent with their message.

The Mona Lisa has been behind bulletproof glass for a long time. Any rational person can see that the protestors did not intend any harm. They only intended to make a mild mess that will annoy the janitor for half an hour. The true intention was to trick people into posting this headline and bring attention to whatever they want to highlight. By posting this, we have just fallen hook, line, and sinker into their trick.

Agree with this. In the Louvre, there are many pieces of art not protected from potential damage that people who didn’t care could have protested at. Given that it was the Mona Lisa, I’m sure the thought that the protest would make a statement but not cause damage was considered.

https://lite.cnn.com/2024/01/28/europe/soup-thrown-mona-lisa...

I almost feel like it'd be better to protest food insecurity by helping providing the food to people who need it in public demonstrations and gatherings, not trying to feed an inanimate painting to "make a statement". The bulletproof glass is there for a reason, it's almost as if trying to throw things at it is old and boring and half-expected at this point.

They got their cause/group media attention. I learned about them today. They achieved what they wanted. Sounds like a good protest to me.

> helping providing the food to people who need it in public demonstrations and gatherings

That does not get attention and attention is needed to help fuel a cause and affect political change. What food people eat and how affordable food becomes is entirely a political choice driven by lobbying and subsidies.

> I learned about them today. They achieved what they wanted

You might as well say every single stunt of this nature is a "victory".

You learned about yet-another-environmental-group (the article only mentions their name), but you knew about the climate crisis already.

> attention is needed

The climate crisis does not lack attention. So much so people are fatigued and jaded.

Awareness campaigns are redundant. People are sick of it. You have a small demo that might be interested in reading about pragmatic solutions, some that drink the kool-aid for x/y/z ideology, and the majority that have tuned out of the conversation.

Wasting food doesn’t seem like a rational choice for an environment protest.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com