Visitors at Louvre look on in shock as Leonardo da Vinci masterpiece attacked by environmental protesters
Two environmental protesters have hurled soup on to the Mona Lisa at the Louvre in Paris, calling for “healthy and sustainable food”. The painting, which was behind bulletproof glass, appeared to be undamaged.
Gallery visitors looked on in shock as two women threw the yellow-coloured soup before climbing under the barrier in front of the work and flanking the splattered painting, their right hands held up in a salute-like gesture.
One of the two activists removed her jacket to reveal a white T-shirt bearing the slogan of the environmental activist group Riposte Alimentaire (Food Response) in black letters.
They tried to destroy a cultural icon. That’s the only topic worth talking about.
No, they didn’t. They knew it was behind the bullet proof glass and would not be harmed. They did this to draw attention to a cause. It worked.
Half of the comments here don’t even know what cause it was for. You know you are supposed to learn by kindergarten that there is a difference between good attention and bad attention. Making a scene is easy but ineffective the vast majority of the time. Convincing people is difficult but it is the only way to get long term results.
You must have met people like this in your life. Someone completely unable to grasp that there are others around them and they got their own needs and wants. Does that person care? No. They didn’t get what they want so now everyone has to suffer.
That’s because the news piece deliberately omits that part, at least from the headline. If they didn’t throw soup at an important piece of bulletproof glass, there wouldn’t even be news coverage.
Shit I am so sorry that there is only one news source on earth. The article does say the reason by the way.
This is not about whether the info is available at all, but if it’s loud enough in the shitstorm of information that surrounds us. If news sites don’t report on it, then most people don’t hear about it.
The article also goes out of the way to put the protesters in a bad light, with “Footage posted on X captured the attack on Leonardo da Vinci’s masterpiece as well as the gasps of visitors and the cries of children apparently shocked by the incident.”
You are right the article should have said how noble and wonderful they were for not destroying the painting. Everyone deserves a fucking medal for not being as shitty as they could have been
Their acts physically were unable to destroy the painting. I’m just saying that the article seems biased by focusing on the cries of children as if it wasn’t just soup splattering against glass
I am sorry they didnt give you the spin you wanted for your friends.
Even if I agreed with your premise (which I don’t) I think it pretty silly to use a small niche internet comment forum as a gauge for saying this didn’t work, when it’s plastered on headlines around the world. And you’re already admitting that it did work, now you’re just debating it’s effectiveness. And that’s not the point. 
Very well. Show me the legislation it will change and tell me when it will happen. It did work right?
I didn’t make that argument. I said
but thanks for the straw man argument and moving the goal posts.
if it didn’t work, then why are you still here whining about it?
Ah thanks for admitting the goal was attention, not actual change. Say no more, I get it now. They needed some validation and they got it.
Hey I am a parent I get it. Except you know my kids are pretty young not grown ass adults.
did you really not understand that from the start? you didn’t catch me is some “gotcha”— people here have been trying to explain this to you for hours because you fail to comprehend this. The point is to draw attention their cause, as I and many others here keep trying to tell you, lmao.
What you should also understand, as a parent, is how annoying it is when you explain something simple, and the kid just keeps asking “why? why? why?” even though you explained it several times.
you’re that kid who just doesn’t get it.
You don’t have to double down on your admission. We all get it. Your buddies wanted to get into the news and they got it. Nothing will change other than security theater. Whatever cause they stood for will be forgotten.
They knew it, huh. Sounds like an admission of guilt.
They clearly didn’t accidentally spill soup so I’m sure their guilt isn’t really in question.
the Mona Lisa is behind several centimeters of glass. they have absolutely no way to date it with soup.
You know why the glass is there? Because some lunatic tried to throw pait at it. You can’t justify the act because it’s guarded against it. It’s like saying it’s OK to to launch a missle at me because you know I have an interceptor system.
Lmao no they didnt, it has been behind glass for almost 2 decades, facts dont care about your feelings.
Well we disagree. I think protests qua protests are interesting to talk about, same for climate protests, civil rights, the role of art, the role of art conservation, and even soup is pretty interesting.
Couldn’t have just used any of the socially acceptable ways to protest? This is France ffs, they are the world leaders in organizing a protest. You piss the French off and you got a march on your hands.
there are no socially acceptable ways to protest - that is the definition of protest.
Yes there is no way to protest in France. No one in France has ever taken part in a demonstration complete with signs. Everyone knows that the French people just go gently into that good night when their government does something wrong. It isn’t like they have a literal holiday celebrating the storming of a jail.
Everyone heard that? The French never protest. All the million articles you have heard about strikes and demonstrations in France never occurred.
isn’t “storming a jail” the very definition of not “socially acceptable”?
Could they vote? No? Nothing to talk about.
Now care to address the rest of the comment or the one gotcha you think you found?
I really don’t understand your point. You say that throwing soup at a glass display case because of food insecurity is reprehensible, but rioting in the street and attacking the police is socially acceptable because it concerns voting rights?
In the end, I think it’s no different than religious fanatics destroying part of their culture because they disagree with it. They prove nothing. They accomplish nothing.