If you're upset by art not being damaged in protest against climate change, I can only imagine how furious you'll be at the actual damage to art caused by climate change.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
pearl clutching about art vandalism protests is all the rage now, but yeah, the best ways to preserve art for future generations is eliminating poverty, destroying fascism, and protecting the environment. oh and not selling off important public cultural pieces to private buyers.
We watch art in the form of a building get bulldozed. The community supported it because condos went up and gentrification is in. Art is being destroyed by the pearl clutchers.
While I have seen evidence some are at least partially motivated by status, I have yet to see any evidence of a fossil fuel plant; most of these activists are facing real prison terms.
The reason I added that last bit is because I’m from detroit, where the detroit institute of the arts almost sold a lot of their culturally-important works to private investors, because the city starves the institution. Detroit is incredibly corrupt and being devoured by corporate privatization.
Yes, many potential patrons now are all too pleased to let public structures erode so they can ‘rescue’ works by putting them into private collections.
Part of the problem is, they don’t have a meaningful choice in the matter: both major political parties auction the city off to the highest bidder, with one more explicitly fascist.
The notion that art is in danger from a few saboteur activists is a distraction from the real creeping threats. Museums are flooding, burning, and being starved by right-wing governments.
art is, right now, not safe precisely because of climate collapse, creeping fascism, and poverty. Murals I’ve helped create have been threatened by local fascists and flooding. Artist poverty has utterly decimated my local art scene.
So much concern for art, I can't wait until Bush, Rumsfeld, Netanyahu and the rest of them get life sentences for dropping bombs on priceless artifacts (since the human lives destroyed are obviously of no concern).
That chapel is one of the most perfect, beautiful places in the world. (The paintings are in not great shape because Rothko used like, random house paint and stuff, so they're apparently a conservation nightmare.)
If you’re upset by the mistaken thought that art lovers don’t care about the planet, imagine how furious you’ll be to learn that many artists maintain carbon footprints smaller than yours.
Let’s be good curators of *everything* of value. Future generations should be able to have nice things.
Protecting art is a huge job. It takes skilled hands, discerning eyes, and advanced training in chemistry to keep artworks available to all of us rather than locked away in the penthouses of the wealthy. People dedicate their lives to it.
Here, something went awry with architectural maintenance.
It’s almost like world leaders (on average) are guarded more heavily and depending on what country someone lives in such an action could lead to potentially fatal repercussions 🤔
Indeed but that's kind of only hitting soft targets or going for the low-hanging fruit. Or vegetable, more like... It's not exceptionally brave to ruin a master's painting. I respect the fight, not the method.
How does protective glass getting coated in something “ruin a painting”. The painting itself is protected from harm, so unless you’re saying there are commonly bought foodstuffs that can phase through glass that I’m unaware of, it sounds like you’re just making up bullshit
And I think you're getting all worked up over nothing, "General"... The idea of going after priceless works of art because you're not brave enough to, say smash a cream pie in the face of a politician ruins it. How can Van Gogh or one of his paintings be held responsible for climate change again? 🤔🧐
Only because so many on the supposed left are pearl clutching apologists instead of righteously outraged and outspoken in condemning the sheer stupidity of business as usual.
No, it's because it's an easily mockable strategy, it has a tenuous and poorly stated connection to the problem, and they're not making any specific policy demands.
Not that I expect someone who uses the phrase "pearl clutching" to think seriously about it.
Comments
Most are doing it to discredit actual activists and protestors in the public eye.
🖼️ 🎨🖌️
Yes, many potential patrons now are all too pleased to let public structures erode so they can ‘rescue’ works by putting them into private collections.
Some moneyed people today are all too happy to let the structure erode. Philanthropy doesn’t enjoy the same status it did in Mr Carnegie’s day.
/sarc
Let’s be good curators of *everything* of value. Future generations should be able to have nice things.
Here, something went awry with architectural maintenance.
If one is not doing anything to push the gov then they really have nothing to complain about.
Not that I expect someone who uses the phrase "pearl clutching" to think seriously about it.