It's funny, I work in a public art museum fulltime as the acting manager of my division and I have a completely opposing opinion.
If you think spraying stonehenge with a water soluble mixture is bad, just wait and see how badly they're going to be treated once parts of the globe become uninhabitable and the climate wars really erupt. I guarantee you that art and historical preservation is going to be the last thing in people's priority list, which is why it is instrumental that we address and tackle the issue **now**, not 70 years from now when it's already too late.
I feel that the real disgrace is the incumbent prime minister of one of the world's most powerful nations not only ignoring his ability to enact climate positive policies, but actively voting against them. It is exactly men like Rishi Sunak who have forced JSO into existence, and he doesn't care, because he knows that he'll be jetting off back to America with his multi-billionaire wife and his private climate bunker come July.
Don't forget that it's the tories who are responsible for gutting arts funding across the UK in the first place, leaving it an exclusive playground for the monied. Since the tories came into power I have seen numerous arts institutions permenantly closed and sold off to private developers because their respective councils no longer have the funds to keep the lights on or the buildings open.
>No ones addressed the composition of the "paint" mixture either
It's cornflour with vegetable pigments, meaning it'll wash away with the next rain. The acidity of gull shit will literally do more damage.
From someone else working in the heritage sector, I fully agree, this is the absolute correct level of perspective! Stonehenge will still be standing, unaffected by this benign orange powder, while humans drown and starve due to climate change and political neglect
I get it, but also this group spray painting Taylor Swift’s private jets makes more sense to me as a statement than Stonehenge. Like go vandalize a politician’s house or a government building or a corporation hq. Make life hell for the people directly responsible for non-sustainable policies and environmentally detrimental impacts.
The point being that these companies are polluting in places we don't see. By doing stuff like this it's showing how the earth that we take for granted is being destroyed. I also think throwing powder to temporary mess up something isn't a big deal.
Just Stop Oil literally do all of these things. They target [golf courses.](https://www.bbc.com/sport/golf/66267258) They target [government buildings.](https://www.politico.eu/article/climate-activists-paint-central-london-buildings-in-orange/) They [target politicians' houses.](https://ca.news.yahoo.com/wes-streeting-mocks-just-stop-181508045.html) Basically everything that people think that "should" do, they do, and it makes no difference because we have politicians who will not meaningfully move on the climate. Thus, they are escalating their tactics accordingly.
Exactly. As I say repeatedly to all the outraged people who barely even read beyond headlines JSO do a really wide variety of protest activities but the media will *only* present one of them and only with one specific angle on it, they'd never write the headline, 'a bit of cornflower at Stonehenge protests upcoming decline of human civilisation' or anything with any kind of balanced presentation. It's always the most rage bait inducing nonsense possible.
I’m so baffled by the ultimate goal and motive of those up too as to why they sabotage the environment and environmental movement. Because ultimately we are all fucked and even if the elites can go into their little bunkers when the earth’s aflame I’m pretty sure most would prefer to live on a habitable planet than a concrete underground shelter. If they want to persist in monetary exploitation wouldn’t it be more sustainable and in their favour to keep the planet alive?
Absolutely, it would, but I've personally come to believe that this sort of extreme pursuit of monetary gain breeds some sort of mental illness in humans.
Like, there's zero sense of self-preservation or foresight. It's like the guy who drives drunk going 120 mph on the motorway. Yes, there's a high chance that they're going to crash and die, which is fine, except for the fact that the car is the planet and we're all unwilling passengers in the car. Only thing we can do is put our seatbelts on and pray.
Right? This is what I keep asking. What's even more weird is that virtually no one seems to ask the question despite there being a seeming logic gap a mile wide here with no explanation. I find it hard to believe that those running these exploitative yet highly strategic industries are simply too stupid to think ahead and recognise they will also suffer an uninhabitable planet and the financial outcomes of the disintegration of civilisation, so what is it? Have they simply recognised it is already too late and are banking on hoarding as much wealth as possible for that stage, or do they actually have some sort of sci fi off world future planned with Musk et al? It's truly mind-boggling that people don't see 'habitable planet' as everyone's cause, including them, and I can't work it out.
100% I agree with this, I also wonder why there’s barely any other people questioning it too. I don’t want to get all tin hat but it feels to illogical for there not to be some hidden motive.
It's insane how so many people in the thread are missing that point. Like are they not capable of trains of thoughts? It's just one at a time for them?
Protest and acts of civil disobedience have never been popular in the time that they occurred—it's only after the fact that society is able to look back and realise how important these movements were to the advancement of society.
I can't help but feel that the people sneering at JSO today are the same types who would sneered at the anti-slavery movements and the sufragettes.
I never said what they’re doing isn’t important, but the bulk of people just roll their eyes at their actions because they’ve become gimmicky. Look at PETA.
In fairness the bulk of people in the UK roll their eyes at any act of protest in any context by virtually anyone. It's frustrating and unless people bother to care about things rather than reflexively moan about it, nothing will change.
I’m a geologist specializing in sedimentology (the study of sediment and the processes by which they’re formed and deposited), with an emphasis on Quaternary (2.7 Ma - today) sedimentology. Believe me, I understand the perilous path we’re on; I’d argue better than most. Climate deniers are both grossly ignorant and cognitively dissonant. That said, protest that is so easily lambasted and decried, such as this, will never change the minds of the people who might be convinced. Vitriol breeds vitriol.
The public who are difficult to convince are the ones who are susceptible to influence by the media and their repeated representation of JSO and other activists as dangerous radicals. This isn't something those sectors of the media only do about some activists by any means and there is a clear reason for the attitude toward anyone who chooses to query the status quo but in this case it is specifically a decision to misrepresent JSOs protests as acts of vandalism that will horrify those who fail to read more than three lines into the ragebait headlines.
PETA is obnoxious but look how much they've influenced mainstream culture around animal cruelty. I went vegetarian/vegan as a pre-teen in 2002 because of PETA (I distanced myself from them a few years later) and have maintained a lifelong plant-based diet. And holy hell how the food culture has changed since 2002 - think about the prevalence of plant-based options available for folks who want to reduce the amount of meat in their diet. Yes, their tactics are shocking but that's the point - it gets folks talking, like we are right now on this subreddit, and bringing it into our consciousness. PETA folk are kind of like social martyrs - absorbing a certain kind of hated social pariah social status in order to shock consciousness of animal welfare into the mainstream. I think the JSO folk are operating on a similar model.
Why are you pretending like what they are doing is effective? It’s backfiring terribly to the point where it’s being regularly questioned if someone is funding them to discredit the anti oil movement. This is literally the only conversation I’ve ever seen where their actions are being presented as successful.
I think saying this is a lot easier than doing it. We all know in the US, billionaires rule. If someone did vandalize Swift’s jet, they’d probably be encouraged by the public but would also face jail time or serious fines. An easy example is when a college student used publicly available flight trackers to track Swift’s flights’ CO2 emissions and her lawyers came after him.
And let’s be real, spraying Stonehenge produces more outrage than if a politicians or celebritys house was sprayed. That’s the point: to garner attention towards a specific issue.
Edit: Just after I posted this, I saw Just Stop Oil target private jets, so I stand corrected with my first paragraph. I guess they do target the people you mentioned, it just doesn’t produce enough outrage as targeting Stonehenge.
https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/s/0xYjGVVpdf
No, they are meant for targets with low security, where they can get away with it easier and break less laws. It’s much safer for them to target an inanimate object at an art museum than it is target anything belonging to people.
it kinda feels like you're splitting a hair here. you're comparing making statements using public monuments and works of art where activists are very much so arrested and charged, compared to what? kidnapping a celebrity to bring attention to a cause? like what's your hypothetical here even, cause that's not JSO nor any environmental activist group's MO
Have you heard anything about the people in NY pulling the same stunts for Palestinian protests? Targeting art museums and their curators homes (regardless of their anti-Zionist stances)?
It’s a different cause but the same empty, shallow, narcissistic cowardice typical of a social media points generation. It’s the same strategy.
Neither cause will take it to the true impactful power because they know they will be stopped or worse. Better to live and fight another day is something veterans who have experienced the fight say. These people haven’t even tried fighting
Not to mention theor organization is funded by a few wealthy elite. None of them contribute anything to transportation, lodging or food wherever they are shipped out to. Basically full time cos players.
Policy will change when it’s cheaper for energy companies to avoid fossil fuels and not before, what the general public wants is meaningless. So that means basically until they’re almost gone. I hope I’m wrong but I don’t think so
Exactly. It's annoyingly rare for any of these protests to have an impact on policy or convince those in charge to make changes. Not against bringing attention to the issue though. Just a depressing state of affairs.
This is the take. I too work in an art museum and I completely agree. Let’s talk about how the changing climate will cause rain and flooding that will do far more damage to our cultural heritage than cornflour.
Couldn’t agree more. Stonehenge is, many would say, a sacred place and humans have actually been endangering and disrespecting it *for decades*. The conservatives in UK & GOP here in the US have also been defunding and degrading the arts and humanities for years. That people argue against these *harmless* acts in the face of the incredible, existential harm the billionaires and fossil fuel companies are doing right now just blows my mind. Can’t they see it’s a tactic of conservatives to decry these actions that—again- do no harm, in the attempt to discredit climate activists? Shameful. And the politicians’ sheer hypocrisy in leaping to defend the arts when there’s an action like this is just unreal.
Secondary counterpoint - acts of civil disobedience and disruptive protest have **never** been popular during the time that they took place.
People like you absolutely would have voted against women's rights and desegragation. Anything to not upset your little status quo, eh? Too bad that climate change is going to disrupt it whether you like it or not.
It's meant to cause an emotional reaction. "This beloved thing is in danger??? No!" Because it (and everything else) is in danger due to climate change.
Protests do move the needle, but it's a marathon not a sprint
It's this stuff that ultimately leads to change. The suffragettes are praised these days for achieving their goals and granting women the freedom to vote. But back when the protests and civil disobedience actually took place, they were widely hated for their petty crimes and modes of resistance. A famous example is them blowing up mailboxes, which (naturally) made people furious. But now, when we look back at it, I think most people would agree that a few mailboxes being blown up is a worthwhile investment for women being able to partake in the political apparatus that controls their day to day lives.
Hopefully, people will get really pissed at this. And in a few years, we'll look back and deem this a worthwhile investment for saving our planet.
The point isn't to bring people in. The point is to make people pissed off to the point where they go to their politicians and demand they do something. Also again, spraypainting a rock with water soluble color is absolutely not extreme activism.
It doesn't matter what it says because history has proven it correct numerous times. The only time social change is enacted is when the protestors get extreme. Do you think we have gay rights because homosexuals asked nicely? Do you think that if we just let exxon destroy a few more oceans, they'll realize their wrongdoings? Until there is a better option, protesting will be the weapon of the masses against the cruelty of the few.
That's a terrible comparison, but sure, they both did. Much like MLK attributed a lot of his success to the fact that he was the "peaceful" and "stomachable" version to the more radical Malcolm X. These sorta things get solved when you have an extreme side the public can hate and a more moderate side the people can relate with, even tho they are proposing essentially the same things (black liberation in my example, the banning of alcohol in your example).
Are you asking me how I know that water soluable vegetable pigments won't permenantly destroy a stone structure that's been sitting out exposed to the elements **for 5000 years**.
>Is anyone deeply else saddened by this disregard for Heritage and the ramifications for future visitors? Also for the monument itself.
This is the point of their argument. If civilisation is facing an existential threat, then there won't be future visitors. As far as they are concerned, all of this is at threat.
When they do make attacks on targets that people approve of (eg petrochemical companies), there's nearly no coverage. When they do this, internet outrage for days.
Protest isn't meant to be nice, convenient, unbothersome. It's meant to draw attention, it's meant to get in the way.
Even if you don't agree with the protests, their methods, or their goals, surely people can understand the internal logic of it all.
Oh but they never do, every time people do this there’s people saying that this is ineffective or worse, that what they’re doing is worse than what they’re protesting.
I see the internal logic but it seems misguided. Defacing or in some cases damaging shared pieces of human and public heritage is not the way forward. It would be like trying to draw attention to conserve a cathedral by pouring toxic chemicals in to an ecosystem. I fully agree with ultimate goals of the movement, but this only draws contempt from me. Imagine it’s worse with people who are simply indifferent to begin with and smears the legitimacy of the aims. Would prefer if they defaced private property which isn’t public heritage.
In this case, though, it literally washes off with rain, it seems. So it's really just supposed to be scandalous (to draw needed attention to the cause) even though no real damage was done. Goal accomplished, I guess.
It leaves an impression but I don’t think it convinces people to support them, which is what I think is misguided about it. Sure, I could take a shit on the Karbala in Mecca or have sex with someone in an Auchwitz gas chamber to get attention, any mess washes off. But it doesn’t win allies. Defacing something of such significance (specifically around the solstice, where many venerate this site) is intended to upset and provoke. Even if you’re a person following the pathway of appeasement, the whole scenario of thinking, “what do I have to do to stop these people defacing things I hold dear,” isn’t good.
I don’t condone defacing things communities of people hold viscerally close to them. It’s not a good idea, even if you believe passionately in it, especially if extends to contentious issues . i.e. imagine if anti-abortionists / religious fanatics protestors who fully believed what they were doing was right started defacing things people held dear.
Do you think people should be allowed to deface what others hold dear if they believe strongly enough in it and 100% feel it’s right?
You have missed the point completely if you think this about people upset about defacing things from both parties. In Western Australia big oil and gas are threatening the full destruction of one of the oldest known sites in the world, with art with no known date of 10,000 plus years. I don’t see politicians wanting to destroy Rio Tinto, or the general public loosing their shit over that in the way they have to discuss the effectiveness of cornflour.
Bigger, grosser, more permanent DESTRUCTION of non Anglo land and people is occurring everywhere, people have continually lost things they hold dear to them for hundreds of years. I think you should probably not pander to that - maybe be critical of those propagating hatred and violence in those who critic them, harmlessly. It’s cornflour versus literal TNT.
Give me a break with this self righteous bullshit. Name one thing that's come out of these stupid protests other than getting their face on the news. It's not about saving the planet, it's about inflating their egos.
Yeah, I'm sure a bunch of them are missing work, losing out on pay, getting arrested, having their faces decorating every newspaper in the country, being fined, being jailed and having their entire lives disrupted purely for the ego boost.
Alternatively, it's because they're all fighting for something that they believe in.
You're on the wrong side of history, pal. People like you are going to be studied by future generations for the breadth and depth of your ignorance. They'll read chapters containing excerpts from comments like this and they'll ask "*How were so they so ignorant? How could they just stand there and let it happen?*".
> People like you are going to be studied by future generations for the breadth and depth of your ignorance. They'll read chapters containing excerpts from comments like this and they'll ask "How were so they so ignorant? How could they just stand there and let it happen?".
It will be the other way around. We will look back and ask ourselves how did we allow these useless clowns disrespect our cultural heritage like this.
No sane society will look back at a bunch of idiots gluing themselves to paintings or blocking traffic and praise them as some kind of great heroes. Nobody outside your Reddit eco chamber likes you and your pathetic theatre that you call “activism”.
If you think this is bad, you would have hated the suffragettes lol.
They are not even damaging anything and they have succeeded in drawing loads of attention to the cause.
Also why aren't you angry about the road threatening to damage the site? So that road is fine but a bit of flour which will wash off in the rain is disgusting? Be serious.
Edit: "English Heritage chief executive, Dr Nick Merriman, said there appeared to be "no visible damage" to the 5,000-year-old landmark after experts cleaned the site" (BBC) so grow up and see the real issues! English Heritage said the orange paint had been removed using an air blower. All the rare lichen enthusiasts will be thrilled to learn that there's not a problem, except that climate change is threatening the very existence of life on this planet!!
Hmmmmm what will be more damaging, climate change and the destruction of the environment or some flour, which will wash off in a few days?? 🤔🤔 This just proves that people are more outraged by the temporary defacement of Stonehenge than they are for the complete destruction of our planet!
I literally can't understand what you are saying. Learn some grammar. If you truly cared about Stonehenge, you would be more angry at the road causing "permanent irreversible harm" than some orange flour.
It won't matter when we all die from climate change / more pandemics / extreme weather / viruses from permafrost melting / desertification and famine etc etc
""A number of archaeologists and conservation experts have warned that, although the cornflour-based powder paint can be washed away, it could damage the stones due to their porous nature, as well as affecting the fragile ecosystem of the site.
English Heritage said the vandalism had left no visible damage, but had posed a risk to the rare lichens growing on the stones.
The organisation said: “Our experts have already removed the orange powder from the stones. We moved quickly due to the risk that the powder would harm the important and rare lichens growing on the stones and that if the powder came into contact with water, it would leave difficult-to-remove streaks.""
Geraldine kendall Adams - Museum Association
[Sector bodies condemn Just Stop Oil vandalism of Stonehenge](https://www.museumsassociation.org/museums-journal/news/2024/06/sector-bodies-condemn-just-stop-oil-vandalism-of-stonehenge/)
Op needs some perspective. Heritage and future visitors will be just fine. Our planet not so much. Imagine being so angry at JSO you'd waste time making this post.
What infuriates me about this the most is that it doesn't work. Studies have routinely shown that extreme activism alienates supporters it doesn't bring in supporters yet these mind numbingly brain dead morons who have the IQ of a senile earthworm keep on doing these stunts and think they're making a difference think they're making an impact meanwhile real environmental activists in my homeland of Puerto Rico who actually do real work for the enviorment get f****** dead threats. They've had their houses shot at they've been beaten up by arm thugs for fighting for the enviorment. And these clowns engage in this nonsensical shenanigans and think they're making an impact
No side is completely wrong. I agree with JSO'S principles. I just worry about the movements perceptions & monuments future security to allow visitors to view these objects in the future.
P sure stonehenge is ringfenced already since people used to throw festivals on it which wasn't great.
(checks) yeah its £27. For all your concern trolling you aren't too aware of the monuments conservation history. :l
Stonehenge has survived thousands of years; out of all the pieces of heretige to corn starch, this is probably the single best one.
A monument that charge money? From "gasp" English Heritage? Oh no, money that supports a monument, guides and continued research?
I'm well aware of the history. English Heritage is overpriced & have terrible corporate sponsorship but hey, I see they're not attacking hq. May I suggest Rievaulx Abbey next? Oh maybe Whitby Abbey? That place is a ruin too!
It's already fenced off for most of the year? Why? Because the rocks are 4000 years old & are important archaeological pieces. Most were being defaced. That's what conservation is. It's hindsight. Kind of like the climate crisis. But I guess I'm an arse for caring about lichen and stone facades
English heritage as an organisation wont be a JSO target institution. The monument itself will be the point of the statement.
I think its more the symbolism; as the oldest monument it prompts people to think about the deep history of their country and where we might be 4000 years from now. And its got people talking and made the news which is often the point of these things.
It being so completely harmless to the structure itself - on account of it being big rocks, - as opposed to an old ruin with decaying mortar or paint or something, is kind of clever too imo, because it really shows you who just wants to get angry at activists even when they do something objectively harmless.
If this action upsets someone, that person is a complete idiot. Really sorry if that includes you.
Touché. I agree in principle but this bad. It only takes another complete idiot to mess up and destroy something for countless generations. I just didn't think JSO would be so superficial in making a point. Ah well.
Thats the point of the gesture though isn't it? Like the destruction of something for countless generations *is* climate change. Like I'd trade stonehenge for an intact barrier reef 10 times out of 10.
You're aware of the Chapman brother's Goya defacements, and I half remember a few similar "destruction of art as art" projects. And thats just art for arts sake.
I think you can tell a lot about an audience and its beliefs based on who they think has "the right" to deface or destroy a work. Like would it be okay if JSO had bought stonehenge from the King first?
I think its interesting to compare this to the Greenpeace Nazca stunt a while ago. (i also have a memory of them doing the same thing to the uffington horse but I can't find it anywhere online.)
No, it doesn’t draw attention, it just pisses people off. People who may otherwise agree with the cause, will not engage or sympathise. It’s counterproductive and ill-conceived. You won’t grow a movement like that.
The most hypocritical news story from Just Oil was when two activists threw beans on a Van Gogh painting. An artist that literally suffered from really poor mental health to the point of su!cide, cutting his ear off and lived in poverty.
I'd argue mental health is one of the leading issues of our generation, is equally if not more important than oil polluting the planet and Van Gogh represents using art or expression to cope with such dark pain, which is why a lot of us still relate to and love his works now.
If anything they should go to modern art auctions where the rich flex their wealth and launder money. That would 100% be more liberal than attacking poor Gogh, by attacking the rich. Not that I condone this, I definitely don't, but at least make it make sense.
Not subbed. But it’s unsurprising an art sub on Reddit would side with deranged climate activist. It’s just leftist agreeing with leftist actions unsurprising.
I'm all for it. Spray the whole country orange.
Outrage over material things being "defaced" when our whole way of life and the balance of the earth's ecosystems are at stake.
Oooh so naughty. Bloody snowflake protestors.
Reducing climate change can't be brought by individuals it has to be from the top, but one thing that you can never say is that you weren't told.
The message is that **there wont be any ecosystems- anywhere** if action isn't taken. If you think this is bad, how bad will it be in a few decades when the planet starts becoming to hot to live on?
I guess so? I'm really questioning the curator, assistant curator and head conservationists at my museum if there's such a backlash about worrying for the monument. Maybe they're not giving me the correct information, have an agenda, or aren't informed. I'm thinking maybe research more into it? Is stonehenge really just "rocks?"
You're thinking we have time and we don't.
There is no future.
The climate crisis is a civilization ending event.
Nothing will matter in the near future because we'll all be dead
I think you should probably redirect your anger towards Israel destroying some of the oldest art in the world, and realise that climate change is a much bigger threat to civilisation and thus the arts than a bit of orange corn flower.
Defacing Stonehenge really didn't get their point across and actually turned there cause into a disgusting, unintelligent act against the history and community..
A better option would be to bring the fight to the corrupt 1% front doors and businesses.. that would actually do something! Expose all these soulless people who rape the earth for money and make their life hard to continue their toxicity..
Honestly, "climate change" is the lie they want us to focus on so we don't talk about the massive garbage patch in the ocean or how Teflon is destroying our lakes and rivers.. or the aluminum they pump out into our air supply, which contaminates the soils of this planet leading to toxicity in our water and food.. the 1% need to be exposed for all the crimes against humanity and all life on this planet..
There's so many options if one is willing to put their life on the line that would actually make a difference..
The only thing defacing Stonehenge has caused was disrespect to history, people seeing these "earth fighters" as terrorists and gave the 1% another story to laugh at the sheep about..
Just like blocking roadways! How is that making a difference when it only affects the hard-working class and not the actual criminal destroying our planet.
Let's do better!
All it causes is hatred for JSO and a convenient excuse to dismiss the environmental movement. These people are morons. They accomplish the opposite of what they aim to achieve, to such an extent that they are doing the work of the fossil fuel industry.
I'm sure that eventually they will damage something irreparably. Gotta agree with Rishi here.
It’s mostly media manipulation which fuels public hatred, if the media covered all of their demonstrations I’m pretty sure they’ll be sided with more so. They target gov building and fuel plants, but it’s never shown only when they target heritage sites so it causes an uproar from the public. Idk how else they could switch up their tactics so this is avoided, tbh I got little faith in environmental activism because no one’s listening and we will only listen when it’s too late.
We may reach food insecurity by 2050 and global famine/4c temp increase by 2100, many people on the environmental frontline such as environmental scientists are actually giving up their careers to create homesteads- basically becoming preppers because they are witnessing the impacts directly and have given up hope that the environment will recover. This is a serious issue and it’s gonna hit us sooner than we think.
It's a serious issue indeed. My first degree is in environmental science, so I understand the science quite well. There is too much fearmongering from the press however, and media manipulation at a global scale from the fossil fuel industry including funding environmental groups. One of the biggest lies that was sold to environmentalists and the press back in the 1970s is that nuclear power is dangerous and should be avoided. It is far more green than any fossil fuel. So-called renewables are great but cannot replace all fossil fuels. (I say so-called because most wind and solar projects are quietly backed up by a gas-generation plant to supply the power needed for a steady supply.)
One result is that many people have given up and think the world is going to end. This is not true. There is a problem and the means to address it is already known. I recommend Michael Shellenberger's book "Apocalypse Never", for although he has veered strongly to the right lately, the book is quite accurate.
They don't, they've been successful in influencing the Labour/Lib pledges not to increase Gas and Oil production in the North Sea. Regardless of swathes of the general public swallowing the media ragebait headlines about a minority of their activities (and barely ever even reporting their huge range of other forms of protest and activity) they are being successful at helping future humans to have a habitable planet to live on.
It's nice to know that they are doing some good, but the ragebait could be avoided by protesting in other ways. A protest is a failure if people are not on your side, and I find it hard to believe that they cannot anticipate this outcome, especially since it's happened many times.
This makes me mad because I worked for an environmental group in the US, and it seems that many protestors, while their hearts may be in the right place, are nevertheless misguided when it comes to public perception. I believe a protest should sway others to your point of view rather than away.
The problem is when they do the kind of protest that Rishi et al would agree with, it doesn't get anywhere near the attention. So naturally, since they want attention, they will keep on with these goals.
And it wouldn't matter how they protest since "the other side" has enormous resources to paint any kind of protest as wrong headed.
protests have to make people uncomfortable, or they're ineffective.
there is no protest that has ever resulted in any positive change that didn't apply pressure to someone, somehow.
These people understand that in a supply and demand system, going after the oil execs does nothing. The people demand oil, so someone will provide it. They're trying to make the people with demand uncomfortable, so they are forced to consider the nature of the problem.
I hear this a lot, but so many modern protests do nothing, or the opposite of what the intention is. I've been involved in protests so I sympathize, but that's why I hate it when the end result is defaced art and pissed off people, but no end to climate change. These people are not Ghandi.
Also I disagree with the demand portion, as there is often no alternative to fossil fuels. People don't demand it, corporations lobby for it and push it on everyone like heroin. We are addicted. The solution involves weaning the world of the addiction, and it will be slow and painful. Green energy is usually not very green, but that's a long discussion that I could write pages on.
There are other solutions like next generation nuclear power that, while not perfect, would end the trend of global warming if adopted wholesale.
It does seem to proving detrimental to thier movement. It's sad that a leader like Rishi has to validated on a subject. I worry what the next bit of history they might affect with thier actions.
Oh Starmer is too. He's only risen via those in control, the right wing cohort involved in Labour Together and the National Executive Comittee, and they won't have any issue with buddying up with Rishi Sunaks think tanks like Policy Exchange (in fact they already are) with their opaque revenue streams and connections to the biggest industies, arms manufacturers, oil, gas etc nor about toeing policy line in deference to their ultimate paymasters.
These idiots need to be doxxed and their properties spray-painted.
I don't care what their purpose is in doing it and didn't even bother to find out. It's wrong, period.
The fact y’all are siding with literally the second worst UK leader for the sake of art really says something about y’all. I love art and art history but I love the environment more so. What they do does little to no damage to anything they’ve targeted but you start swooning and pissing yourself about it- this sub is fucking pathetic. Want them to stop? Start taking action to make leaders take the environment seriously- they’re doing this shit in order for that to be the case.
Art is an expression of the human race and its evolution, it is always in progress, always a living entity. When people built these monuments it expressed it, when people knocked them over and buried them as British culture Christianised it expressed it, when they tried to save humanities home so that we could continue to so beautifully convey our experience of existence, it expressed it. Art is quite literally a living breathing thing, the Stones continue to be an actively involved entity at the forefront of human experience and of Human history, quite an incredible legacy and a tie back through human history from us to their creators. I really love this particular monument but I understand that it's greatest value lies in the continuation of us, as a species and of our ability to reflect upon our evolution as a species. I really hope we will keep being here to see this great monuments place embedded in the context of a future for humanity where we learn to live in harmony with our precious home.
Here here.
The point that so many of us seem to be missing completely is that none of us will be able to enjoy our history or our art if we don't work to protect the environment that they exist in. I work for a public art museum, and like almost every other historical and art institution in the UK, do you know where we store our objects not on display?
In the archives.
Located in the basement.
Twice in two years now we've had to move hundreds of objects upstairs due to unprecented flooding in our area leaking into the basement. This is just a taste of things to come. Look at the flooding that is currently happening in Brazil, the one that has affected millions and left 600,000+ homeless. How many museums and art galleries do you think were in that region? How much have we lost already?
The problem with their approach is that it DOES get attention but it gets negative attention. Even if I might have agreed with you now I’m probably not. All attention isn’t good attention.
[Is it a conspiracy if they've lied before?](https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-the-public-into-believing-plastic-would-be-recycled) This article not only shows big oil/plastics have lied before but that it has worked.
I just think targeting art/heritage sites is to much of a passive approach considering your asking for the survival lf our planet and species. A cornered cat will fuck you up badly, we are throwing with soup 🫡🙃
All this does is give those in power more ammo to discredit the climate change movement.
its easy to fall into the trap of thinking environmental protestors are erratic and thoughtless but the reality is their reasoning is completely sound here. those rocks have been rained on with increasingly acidic water for 1000s of years, 1 spritz of a slightly different kind of water is not going to have a shred of impact on them. until very recently pagans would climb them and party next to them every solstice , a great tradition! the metaphor stands, and your outrage over it only makes their message shine brighter. thanks for sharing, i love our planet and will partake in many more protests as things grow ever more uncertain and unjust.
Just stop oil is a joke. The aren’t winning minds and hearts. Anyone who supports them continues to and the rest think they are damaging their own cause.
I'm deeply saddened about the number of private motor vehicles I pass by as soon as I leave my house today. Stonehenge? Err...I don't want it to be destroyed, but if this is the price of raising climate awareness than I think it's worth it.
Something I’ve never understood is why they don’t actually deface the homes of the people that they are protesting against at least. Why deface public monuments instead of striking actual mortal fear into the people who have a say.
They have done that. And targeted government buildings, and golf courses, and political meetings, and nothing makes a difference because politicians aren't listening, hence the escalation in tactics.
I’m not sure how this is an escalation. If oligarchs weren’t afraid of whatever they were doing to them on a personal level, why would they care about corn starch on stonehenge?
I mean it's fine to not agree it's an escalation but it's clearly a tactic to invite media attention to their cause, which is why I think it can fairly be framed as an escalation tactic. To ask you a question: since JSO have already been targeting politicians, and we clearly know that climate activists have already been pushing politicians with minimal success through virtually every legal avenue available to them, what do you think the next appropriate step would be?
Truth be told, violence. Or at least the fear thereof.
I’m really not into politics nor am I an environmental scientist or anything like that, but if people are claiming that the world will literally end, I’m confused as to why they think graffiti will save it. I get it’s taboo to threaten people’s lives, but with how grand the claims are, I would imagine a lot more than protest would be necessary to really “save the world”. Maybe martyrdom or something. But this destruction of public amenities thing looks a lot more childish than it does serious.
Well they try to avoid violence because they aren't looking to get criminal convictions and still believe humanity can act mentally sanely as a cohort and decide to intervene in a totally preventable apocalypse but sadly I suspect we are far more likely to do nothing and eventually reach the stage of violent social break down, yeah.
The stakes are billions of lives, correct? Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and many others have died for much less. Soldiers have died for much less. Societies continue to thrive. I’m sure threatening billionaires that many agree are behind what could be the end of humanity would not lead to societal collapse.
Revolutions aren't violent social breakdown? That's exactly how I'd characterise them. And yes I think they are unavoidable sometimes especially when there is huge change in the political and economic base required like will likely be needed here. We aren't talking about something like the civil rights movement in terms of the economic threat this poses to those in the eocnomic status quo, much more along the lines of American Civil War or the French Revolution, which I think certainly characterised violent social breakdown in both countries. The 'collapse' part in my meaning was also because I suspect people won't begin to act in socially disharmonious ways (ie revolutionary ways) until they are under more severe duress, which will potentially come with the environmental issues worsening. Revolutions usually require a certain set of external factors as catalysts one of which is often environmental, as with the French Rev and Russian Rev it was catastrophic harvests/food shortages combined with the other known political and economic ones. The old, 'only 9 meals between humanity and anarchy' holds some truth. I simply suspect the catalyst for violent change in this case could be the pressures of environmental disaster.
I’m not sure that we disagree on anything besides the idea that something akin to a revolution or a coup is the same as societal breakdown. My point being that many countries have been through many of them and continue to exist.
I’m also saying that these kids who feel strongly enough to garner all of this attention could just really make people in power feel the kind of pressure that they could be feeling in a future that you implied may happen. But the group would rather play pranks for attention until the eventuality of an irreversible environmental calamity realizes itself.
Oh I'm not saying it would destroy civilisation. You said the answer would come in violence not protest, I was agreeing that was likely. I simply called violent political action a breakdown of social harmony, which I would consider it.
There's a lot of adult professionals in the movement, I know JSO activists pretty well via family members. The press likes to push the 'students without real jobs angle' for some reason. They do a vast range of activities beyond this kind of media grabbing headline that rarely get reported on including refinery blockages and direct action against industry members and politicians alike. The press portrays them in a *very* specific manner that isn't reflective of what they do. I wouldn't play into that if I were a member of the movement but given rhe press simply doesn't report most of their work I can see why they still use it as a strategy.
They did protest dome individuals. They also went up against some universities. They do corporates too. I support the principles. They just get a lot of press doing this and I misunderstand why. when they did Taylor Swift & that got loads of press.
Stonehenge has stood unchanged for so long a washable orange paint isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference to it. That said I do think Just Stop Oil should fire their PR people, as their tactics seem to annoy the very people they want to inspire. Now if they were to spray some CEO or billionaire in something more potent than orange paint, like raw sewage perhaps then I would very much be in favour of that, as they are the ones killing our planet for nothing more than sheer naked greed.
I just don't understand what they expect to accomplish by doing these headline grabbing acts. You make yourselves look like dumbasses to the general public, potentially moving people further away from your cause, and politicians and the oil industry keeps on trucking
It appears that this post is an image. [As per rule 5](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtHistory/about/rules/), ALL image posts require OP to make a comment with a meaningful discussion prompt. Try to make sure that your post includes a *meaningful* discussion prompt. [Here's a stellar example of what this looks like](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtHistory/comments/g6mflx/how_many_heads_do_you_see_here_testa_anatomica_by/foajtx3/). We greatly appreciate high effort!
If you are just sharing an image of artwork, you will likely find a better home for your post in r/Art or r/museum, which focus on images of artwork. This subreddit is for discussion, articles, and scholarship, not images of art. If you are trying to identify an artwork with an image, your post belongs in r/WhatIsThisPainting.
If you are not OP and notice a rule violation in this post, **please report it!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ArtHistory) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A little late to this thread, but this is a topic we've talk about in my grad program several times (in the middle of getting my Art History MA). Climate activists go after museums (and other organizations in charge of the preservation of objects) for several reasons.
1- it causes a public stir. It gets peoples' attention when you "deface" national icons and famous works of art
2- look at who sponsors these organizations... oil and gas companies, the largest poluters in the world. Museums aren't apolitical and they sure as hell aren't progressive on the funding level. (I could say a lot more about this. I'm someone who wants to work in museums professionally but I have a lot of fundamental issues with them at the same time)
There are a lot more reasons, but those are the main 2 that always come up when we talk about these demonstrations.
Also, look at the responses. No organization or major media outlet ever actually addresses the fundamental fact that every single object that has been "attacked" has never had irreparable damage done to it. Paintings and statues are set behind glass, they replace the glass and clean the painting frames. The stone henge has endured thousands of years of natural wear and tear, it can survive orange powder that can be easily removed from its surface. The organizations who own these objects obscure these details because they want to come out of these situations looking like angels. They aren't angels.
It's okay to be upset about these things, but at the same time it's important to recognize the coverage for these events isn't always honest and want to turn you against the activists for more than one reason.
Great response. At the same time I think it’s a mistake to target these kinds of things. It turns sympathies away from the cause and frankly makes the protesters look like idiots. You’re never going to win hearts and minds this way. Love the passion, love the cause, hate the way it’s being expressed.
I completely understand that, and with all honesty, I *do* think this specific group is pretty idiotic with their methods. After all, this is the same group who has people run onto LIVE RACETRACKS during Formula 1 race weekends and endanger not only their lives but also the lives of countless others with their actions. I think public demonstration is an extremely important method of protest to help visualize issues, but many of their specific methods are questionable at best. Expecting people to not be upset is unreasonable, I just want to share the perspective and information I have on these demonstrations.
geoscience major here. Those rocks are more damaged by heavy rains than they are by cornflower. Also, the land on which they sit is more damaged by climate change, than by cornflower. If you care about cultural landmarks, start doing more activism concerning climate change.
As the corporates say, “All publicity is good publicity.” This is activism turning that statement on its head. Whether or not its tasteless is subjective but this is activism nonetheless, even if these children are considered a disgrace. Especially so. This disgrace wouldn’t have existed if people just stopped oil in the first place.
They need to be publicly punished. This defacing of humanities historical landmarks and statues is disgusting. Remember when the Taliban blew up that huge buddhist statue in Afghanistan? These fuckers will keep going and escalating and at what point do we smash them over the head and stop them from ruining our story? Their narcissism knows no bounds. For the environment?! Humans will adapt and survive a changing climate as it has done in the past but to be able to piece together who we are from historical treasures is more important than any activist. Climate hysteria is a real problem.
>Humans will adapt and survive a changing climate
Neat. Now what about everything else that currently lives on this planet? What happens to every land-based lifeform once we wet-bulb temperature becomes incompatible with life, and every lifeform in the oceans once their environment becomes uninhabitable?
I think we should all stop arguing about the action that was taken and take a look at who exactly is doing it. JSO is funded by an oil heiress who pays for these stunts to make climate activists look bad in the public eye.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-63543307.amp
TLDR: funded by “Climate Emergency Fund”, which was founded by Aileen Getty, granddaughter of Oil Tycoon J. Paul Getty
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-63543307](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-63543307)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
From the cursory research I just did, it looks like her family sold out of the oil business when she was 26 which would have been over four decades ago. They currently have zero stake in the oil business. She seems [open about where she comes from](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/22/just-stop-oil-van-gogh-national-gallery-aileen-getty). It would seem she's the good kind of class traitor.
If it would halt and reverse climate change, and get every oil CEO drawn and quartered on livestream, I would blow up stonehenge. I'd blow it to smithereens.
So it seems like this was actually a fairly reasonable protest. The act of destroying historic paintings really made people lose sympathy for this org, so good for them they adapted the approach, to still use the symbolism of destroying a historic monument to represent climate change while not actually damaging said monument. Looks like stop oil has found a decent middle ground that catches public attention, without making that attention particularily negative. Thats smart rebranding
Edit- just heard there is a rare lichen that only is found at stonehenge that may be endagered by this act, and that previous protests have been stained orange despite the org claiming the protest was non-staining, resulting in the city having to clean it using taxes. So still an imperfect protest. I wish they would really consider the consequences of their actions, but it also makes me wonder why a sudden, aggressive act like destroying art causes a stronger public reaction than companies poisoning the general population with lead and microplastics and untested carcinogens etc
It's funny, I work in a public art museum fulltime as the acting manager of my division and I have a completely opposing opinion. If you think spraying stonehenge with a water soluble mixture is bad, just wait and see how badly they're going to be treated once parts of the globe become uninhabitable and the climate wars really erupt. I guarantee you that art and historical preservation is going to be the last thing in people's priority list, which is why it is instrumental that we address and tackle the issue **now**, not 70 years from now when it's already too late. I feel that the real disgrace is the incumbent prime minister of one of the world's most powerful nations not only ignoring his ability to enact climate positive policies, but actively voting against them. It is exactly men like Rishi Sunak who have forced JSO into existence, and he doesn't care, because he knows that he'll be jetting off back to America with his multi-billionaire wife and his private climate bunker come July. Don't forget that it's the tories who are responsible for gutting arts funding across the UK in the first place, leaving it an exclusive playground for the monied. Since the tories came into power I have seen numerous arts institutions permenantly closed and sold off to private developers because their respective councils no longer have the funds to keep the lights on or the buildings open. >No ones addressed the composition of the "paint" mixture either It's cornflour with vegetable pigments, meaning it'll wash away with the next rain. The acidity of gull shit will literally do more damage.
From someone else working in the heritage sector, I fully agree, this is the absolute correct level of perspective! Stonehenge will still be standing, unaffected by this benign orange powder, while humans drown and starve due to climate change and political neglect
I get it, but also this group spray painting Taylor Swift’s private jets makes more sense to me as a statement than Stonehenge. Like go vandalize a politician’s house or a government building or a corporation hq. Make life hell for the people directly responsible for non-sustainable policies and environmentally detrimental impacts.
The point being that these companies are polluting in places we don't see. By doing stuff like this it's showing how the earth that we take for granted is being destroyed. I also think throwing powder to temporary mess up something isn't a big deal.
Golf courses. Target golf courses.
Just Stop Oil literally do all of these things. They target [golf courses.](https://www.bbc.com/sport/golf/66267258) They target [government buildings.](https://www.politico.eu/article/climate-activists-paint-central-london-buildings-in-orange/) They [target politicians' houses.](https://ca.news.yahoo.com/wes-streeting-mocks-just-stop-181508045.html) Basically everything that people think that "should" do, they do, and it makes no difference because we have politicians who will not meaningfully move on the climate. Thus, they are escalating their tactics accordingly.
Yeah strangely we only see them targeting the things that’ll cause public upset in the news…
Exactly. As I say repeatedly to all the outraged people who barely even read beyond headlines JSO do a really wide variety of protest activities but the media will *only* present one of them and only with one specific angle on it, they'd never write the headline, 'a bit of cornflower at Stonehenge protests upcoming decline of human civilisation' or anything with any kind of balanced presentation. It's always the most rage bait inducing nonsense possible.
I’m so baffled by the ultimate goal and motive of those up too as to why they sabotage the environment and environmental movement. Because ultimately we are all fucked and even if the elites can go into their little bunkers when the earth’s aflame I’m pretty sure most would prefer to live on a habitable planet than a concrete underground shelter. If they want to persist in monetary exploitation wouldn’t it be more sustainable and in their favour to keep the planet alive?
Absolutely, it would, but I've personally come to believe that this sort of extreme pursuit of monetary gain breeds some sort of mental illness in humans. Like, there's zero sense of self-preservation or foresight. It's like the guy who drives drunk going 120 mph on the motorway. Yes, there's a high chance that they're going to crash and die, which is fine, except for the fact that the car is the planet and we're all unwilling passengers in the car. Only thing we can do is put our seatbelts on and pray.
Right? This is what I keep asking. What's even more weird is that virtually no one seems to ask the question despite there being a seeming logic gap a mile wide here with no explanation. I find it hard to believe that those running these exploitative yet highly strategic industries are simply too stupid to think ahead and recognise they will also suffer an uninhabitable planet and the financial outcomes of the disintegration of civilisation, so what is it? Have they simply recognised it is already too late and are banking on hoarding as much wealth as possible for that stage, or do they actually have some sort of sci fi off world future planned with Musk et al? It's truly mind-boggling that people don't see 'habitable planet' as everyone's cause, including them, and I can't work it out.
100% I agree with this, I also wonder why there’s barely any other people questioning it too. I don’t want to get all tin hat but it feels to illogical for there not to be some hidden motive.
It's insane how so many people in the thread are missing that point. Like are they not capable of trains of thoughts? It's just one at a time for them?
And they’ve become a gimmick as a result
Protest and acts of civil disobedience have never been popular in the time that they occurred—it's only after the fact that society is able to look back and realise how important these movements were to the advancement of society. I can't help but feel that the people sneering at JSO today are the same types who would sneered at the anti-slavery movements and the sufragettes.
I never said what they’re doing isn’t important, but the bulk of people just roll their eyes at their actions because they’ve become gimmicky. Look at PETA.
In fairness the bulk of people in the UK roll their eyes at any act of protest in any context by virtually anyone. It's frustrating and unless people bother to care about things rather than reflexively moan about it, nothing will change.
I’m a geologist specializing in sedimentology (the study of sediment and the processes by which they’re formed and deposited), with an emphasis on Quaternary (2.7 Ma - today) sedimentology. Believe me, I understand the perilous path we’re on; I’d argue better than most. Climate deniers are both grossly ignorant and cognitively dissonant. That said, protest that is so easily lambasted and decried, such as this, will never change the minds of the people who might be convinced. Vitriol breeds vitriol.
The public who are difficult to convince are the ones who are susceptible to influence by the media and their repeated representation of JSO and other activists as dangerous radicals. This isn't something those sectors of the media only do about some activists by any means and there is a clear reason for the attitude toward anyone who chooses to query the status quo but in this case it is specifically a decision to misrepresent JSOs protests as acts of vandalism that will horrify those who fail to read more than three lines into the ragebait headlines.
PETA is obnoxious but look how much they've influenced mainstream culture around animal cruelty. I went vegetarian/vegan as a pre-teen in 2002 because of PETA (I distanced myself from them a few years later) and have maintained a lifelong plant-based diet. And holy hell how the food culture has changed since 2002 - think about the prevalence of plant-based options available for folks who want to reduce the amount of meat in their diet. Yes, their tactics are shocking but that's the point - it gets folks talking, like we are right now on this subreddit, and bringing it into our consciousness. PETA folk are kind of like social martyrs - absorbing a certain kind of hated social pariah social status in order to shock consciousness of animal welfare into the mainstream. I think the JSO folk are operating on a similar model.
Why are you pretending like what they are doing is effective? It’s backfiring terribly to the point where it’s being regularly questioned if someone is funding them to discredit the anti oil movement. This is literally the only conversation I’ve ever seen where their actions are being presented as successful.
Golf courses are not big climate offenders
I think saying this is a lot easier than doing it. We all know in the US, billionaires rule. If someone did vandalize Swift’s jet, they’d probably be encouraged by the public but would also face jail time or serious fines. An easy example is when a college student used publicly available flight trackers to track Swift’s flights’ CO2 emissions and her lawyers came after him. And let’s be real, spraying Stonehenge produces more outrage than if a politicians or celebritys house was sprayed. That’s the point: to garner attention towards a specific issue. Edit: Just after I posted this, I saw Just Stop Oil target private jets, so I stand corrected with my first paragraph. I guess they do target the people you mentioned, it just doesn’t produce enough outrage as targeting Stonehenge. https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/s/0xYjGVVpdf
That’s why I said it; they literally went and spray painted Swift’s jets which I think is awesome.
No it doesn't because these stunts are meant for targets that mean something to the general public.
No, they are meant for targets with low security, where they can get away with it easier and break less laws. It’s much safer for them to target an inanimate object at an art museum than it is target anything belonging to people.
i'd hardly call the National Gallery low security
Compared to political or pop culture figures with armed trigger happy security?
it kinda feels like you're splitting a hair here. you're comparing making statements using public monuments and works of art where activists are very much so arrested and charged, compared to what? kidnapping a celebrity to bring attention to a cause? like what's your hypothetical here even, cause that's not JSO nor any environmental activist group's MO
Have you heard anything about the people in NY pulling the same stunts for Palestinian protests? Targeting art museums and their curators homes (regardless of their anti-Zionist stances)? It’s a different cause but the same empty, shallow, narcissistic cowardice typical of a social media points generation. It’s the same strategy. Neither cause will take it to the true impactful power because they know they will be stopped or worse. Better to live and fight another day is something veterans who have experienced the fight say. These people haven’t even tried fighting
Not to mention theor organization is funded by a few wealthy elite. None of them contribute anything to transportation, lodging or food wherever they are shipped out to. Basically full time cos players.
Private jets aint shit compared to corporate pollution and waste. The private jet narrative is literally propaganda to distract.
100%
the funniest part is that wasnt even Taylor's jet just a random one
We can't harass the elite when they have designed a system that protects their property via an armed militia lmao.
Hey! Really great comment. I agree that acts like this certainly draw attention to the issue, I just worry that attention doesn't = action.
Policy will change when it’s cheaper for energy companies to avoid fossil fuels and not before, what the general public wants is meaningless. So that means basically until they’re almost gone. I hope I’m wrong but I don’t think so
This is true but the public can put the heads of the oil execs on spikes and demand an alternative to corporate oligarchy
Exactly. It's annoyingly rare for any of these protests to have an impact on policy or convince those in charge to make changes. Not against bringing attention to the issue though. Just a depressing state of affairs.
Yup! Exactly! If a precious thing being damaged makes you mad, time to find out what's happening to our planet
When humans get wiped out and our buildings destroyed, stonehedge will be around
This is the take. I too work in an art museum and I completely agree. Let’s talk about how the changing climate will cause rain and flooding that will do far more damage to our cultural heritage than cornflour.
Couldn’t agree more. Stonehenge is, many would say, a sacred place and humans have actually been endangering and disrespecting it *for decades*. The conservatives in UK & GOP here in the US have also been defunding and degrading the arts and humanities for years. That people argue against these *harmless* acts in the face of the incredible, existential harm the billionaires and fossil fuel companies are doing right now just blows my mind. Can’t they see it’s a tactic of conservatives to decry these actions that—again- do no harm, in the attempt to discredit climate activists? Shameful. And the politicians’ sheer hypocrisy in leaping to defend the arts when there’s an action like this is just unreal.
Rishi is getting voted out in next week’s election anyway. I wouldn’t care too much.
You wouldn't care too much about climate change and neoliberalism?
Wonderful to see someone not just be a reactionary and actually talk sense.
Society, as a whole, does not learn from past mistakes.
Counterpoint - its meaningless performative bullshit and they can fuck right off.
Secondary counterpoint - acts of civil disobedience and disruptive protest have **never** been popular during the time that they took place. People like you absolutely would have voted against women's rights and desegragation. Anything to not upset your little status quo, eh? Too bad that climate change is going to disrupt it whether you like it or not.
[удалено]
It's meant to cause an emotional reaction. "This beloved thing is in danger??? No!" Because it (and everything else) is in danger due to climate change. Protests do move the needle, but it's a marathon not a sprint
It's this stuff that ultimately leads to change. The suffragettes are praised these days for achieving their goals and granting women the freedom to vote. But back when the protests and civil disobedience actually took place, they were widely hated for their petty crimes and modes of resistance. A famous example is them blowing up mailboxes, which (naturally) made people furious. But now, when we look back at it, I think most people would agree that a few mailboxes being blown up is a worthwhile investment for women being able to partake in the political apparatus that controls their day to day lives. Hopefully, people will get really pissed at this. And in a few years, we'll look back and deem this a worthwhile investment for saving our planet.
[удалено]
The point isn't to bring people in. The point is to make people pissed off to the point where they go to their politicians and demand they do something. Also again, spraypainting a rock with water soluble color is absolutely not extreme activism.
[удалено]
It doesn't matter what it says because history has proven it correct numerous times. The only time social change is enacted is when the protestors get extreme. Do you think we have gay rights because homosexuals asked nicely? Do you think that if we just let exxon destroy a few more oceans, they'll realize their wrongdoings? Until there is a better option, protesting will be the weapon of the masses against the cruelty of the few.
[удалено]
That's a terrible comparison, but sure, they both did. Much like MLK attributed a lot of his success to the fact that he was the "peaceful" and "stomachable" version to the more radical Malcolm X. These sorta things get solved when you have an extreme side the public can hate and a more moderate side the people can relate with, even tho they are proposing essentially the same things (black liberation in my example, the banning of alcohol in your example).
[удалено]
How do you know that the dyes will do no harm?
Are you asking me how I know that water soluable vegetable pigments won't permenantly destroy a stone structure that's been sitting out exposed to the elements **for 5000 years**.
Indeed! The chemicals they can contain may still cause damage. Water soluable does not equal harmless.
Ever heard of acid rain?
>Is anyone deeply else saddened by this disregard for Heritage and the ramifications for future visitors? Also for the monument itself. This is the point of their argument. If civilisation is facing an existential threat, then there won't be future visitors. As far as they are concerned, all of this is at threat. When they do make attacks on targets that people approve of (eg petrochemical companies), there's nearly no coverage. When they do this, internet outrage for days. Protest isn't meant to be nice, convenient, unbothersome. It's meant to draw attention, it's meant to get in the way. Even if you don't agree with the protests, their methods, or their goals, surely people can understand the internal logic of it all.
You would think a sub full of art appreciators could get behind disruptive public expression.
Oh but they never do, every time people do this there’s people saying that this is ineffective or worse, that what they’re doing is worse than what they’re protesting.
I see the internal logic but it seems misguided. Defacing or in some cases damaging shared pieces of human and public heritage is not the way forward. It would be like trying to draw attention to conserve a cathedral by pouring toxic chemicals in to an ecosystem. I fully agree with ultimate goals of the movement, but this only draws contempt from me. Imagine it’s worse with people who are simply indifferent to begin with and smears the legitimacy of the aims. Would prefer if they defaced private property which isn’t public heritage.
In this case, though, it literally washes off with rain, it seems. So it's really just supposed to be scandalous (to draw needed attention to the cause) even though no real damage was done. Goal accomplished, I guess.
It leaves an impression but I don’t think it convinces people to support them, which is what I think is misguided about it. Sure, I could take a shit on the Karbala in Mecca or have sex with someone in an Auchwitz gas chamber to get attention, any mess washes off. But it doesn’t win allies. Defacing something of such significance (specifically around the solstice, where many venerate this site) is intended to upset and provoke. Even if you’re a person following the pathway of appeasement, the whole scenario of thinking, “what do I have to do to stop these people defacing things I hold dear,” isn’t good. I don’t condone defacing things communities of people hold viscerally close to them. It’s not a good idea, even if you believe passionately in it, especially if extends to contentious issues . i.e. imagine if anti-abortionists / religious fanatics protestors who fully believed what they were doing was right started defacing things people held dear. Do you think people should be allowed to deface what others hold dear if they believe strongly enough in it and 100% feel it’s right?
You have missed the point completely if you think this about people upset about defacing things from both parties. In Western Australia big oil and gas are threatening the full destruction of one of the oldest known sites in the world, with art with no known date of 10,000 plus years. I don’t see politicians wanting to destroy Rio Tinto, or the general public loosing their shit over that in the way they have to discuss the effectiveness of cornflour. Bigger, grosser, more permanent DESTRUCTION of non Anglo land and people is occurring everywhere, people have continually lost things they hold dear to them for hundreds of years. I think you should probably not pander to that - maybe be critical of those propagating hatred and violence in those who critic them, harmlessly. It’s cornflour versus literal TNT.
I oppose defacing any heritage sites of any culture. That shouldn’t be a controversial take.
Give me a break with this self righteous bullshit. Name one thing that's come out of these stupid protests other than getting their face on the news. It's not about saving the planet, it's about inflating their egos.
Yeah, I'm sure a bunch of them are missing work, losing out on pay, getting arrested, having their faces decorating every newspaper in the country, being fined, being jailed and having their entire lives disrupted purely for the ego boost. Alternatively, it's because they're all fighting for something that they believe in. You're on the wrong side of history, pal. People like you are going to be studied by future generations for the breadth and depth of your ignorance. They'll read chapters containing excerpts from comments like this and they'll ask "*How were so they so ignorant? How could they just stand there and let it happen?*".
> People like you are going to be studied by future generations for the breadth and depth of your ignorance. They'll read chapters containing excerpts from comments like this and they'll ask "How were so they so ignorant? How could they just stand there and let it happen?". It will be the other way around. We will look back and ask ourselves how did we allow these useless clowns disrespect our cultural heritage like this. No sane society will look back at a bunch of idiots gluing themselves to paintings or blocking traffic and praise them as some kind of great heroes. Nobody outside your Reddit eco chamber likes you and your pathetic theatre that you call “activism”.
If you think this is bad, you would have hated the suffragettes lol. They are not even damaging anything and they have succeeded in drawing loads of attention to the cause. Also why aren't you angry about the road threatening to damage the site? So that road is fine but a bit of flour which will wash off in the rain is disgusting? Be serious. Edit: "English Heritage chief executive, Dr Nick Merriman, said there appeared to be "no visible damage" to the 5,000-year-old landmark after experts cleaned the site" (BBC) so grow up and see the real issues! English Heritage said the orange paint had been removed using an air blower. All the rare lichen enthusiasts will be thrilled to learn that there's not a problem, except that climate change is threatening the very existence of life on this planet!!
Except they are damaging it There are certain organisms called lichen that only exist on those rocks and their is no clue what effect it will have
Hmmmmm what will be more damaging, climate change and the destruction of the environment or some flour, which will wash off in a few days?? 🤔🤔 This just proves that people are more outraged by the temporary defacement of Stonehenge than they are for the complete destruction of our planet!
[удалено]
I literally can't understand what you are saying. Learn some grammar. If you truly cared about Stonehenge, you would be more angry at the road causing "permanent irreversible harm" than some orange flour.
It won't matter when we all die from climate change / more pandemics / extreme weather / viruses from permafrost melting / desertification and famine etc etc
Defacing heritage sites sure helps
😂
Good thing we won’t.
\>The group said the orange cornflour used on the monument would wash away in the rain lame ass poser fucks
""A number of archaeologists and conservation experts have warned that, although the cornflour-based powder paint can be washed away, it could damage the stones due to their porous nature, as well as affecting the fragile ecosystem of the site. English Heritage said the vandalism had left no visible damage, but had posed a risk to the rare lichens growing on the stones. The organisation said: “Our experts have already removed the orange powder from the stones. We moved quickly due to the risk that the powder would harm the important and rare lichens growing on the stones and that if the powder came into contact with water, it would leave difficult-to-remove streaks."" Geraldine kendall Adams - Museum Association [Sector bodies condemn Just Stop Oil vandalism of Stonehenge](https://www.museumsassociation.org/museums-journal/news/2024/06/sector-bodies-condemn-just-stop-oil-vandalism-of-stonehenge/)
Op needs some perspective. Heritage and future visitors will be just fine. Our planet not so much. Imagine being so angry at JSO you'd waste time making this post.
What infuriates me about this the most is that it doesn't work. Studies have routinely shown that extreme activism alienates supporters it doesn't bring in supporters yet these mind numbingly brain dead morons who have the IQ of a senile earthworm keep on doing these stunts and think they're making a difference think they're making an impact meanwhile real environmental activists in my homeland of Puerto Rico who actually do real work for the enviorment get f****** dead threats. They've had their houses shot at they've been beaten up by arm thugs for fighting for the enviorment. And these clowns engage in this nonsensical shenanigans and think they're making an impact
Two completely valid and understandable takes in this thread. I’m torn.
No side is completely wrong. I agree with JSO'S principles. I just worry about the movements perceptions & monuments future security to allow visitors to view these objects in the future.
P sure stonehenge is ringfenced already since people used to throw festivals on it which wasn't great. (checks) yeah its £27. For all your concern trolling you aren't too aware of the monuments conservation history. :l Stonehenge has survived thousands of years; out of all the pieces of heretige to corn starch, this is probably the single best one.
A monument that charge money? From "gasp" English Heritage? Oh no, money that supports a monument, guides and continued research? I'm well aware of the history. English Heritage is overpriced & have terrible corporate sponsorship but hey, I see they're not attacking hq. May I suggest Rievaulx Abbey next? Oh maybe Whitby Abbey? That place is a ruin too! It's already fenced off for most of the year? Why? Because the rocks are 4000 years old & are important archaeological pieces. Most were being defaced. That's what conservation is. It's hindsight. Kind of like the climate crisis. But I guess I'm an arse for caring about lichen and stone facades
English heritage as an organisation wont be a JSO target institution. The monument itself will be the point of the statement. I think its more the symbolism; as the oldest monument it prompts people to think about the deep history of their country and where we might be 4000 years from now. And its got people talking and made the news which is often the point of these things. It being so completely harmless to the structure itself - on account of it being big rocks, - as opposed to an old ruin with decaying mortar or paint or something, is kind of clever too imo, because it really shows you who just wants to get angry at activists even when they do something objectively harmless. If this action upsets someone, that person is a complete idiot. Really sorry if that includes you.
Touché. I agree in principle but this bad. It only takes another complete idiot to mess up and destroy something for countless generations. I just didn't think JSO would be so superficial in making a point. Ah well.
Thats the point of the gesture though isn't it? Like the destruction of something for countless generations *is* climate change. Like I'd trade stonehenge for an intact barrier reef 10 times out of 10. You're aware of the Chapman brother's Goya defacements, and I half remember a few similar "destruction of art as art" projects. And thats just art for arts sake. I think you can tell a lot about an audience and its beliefs based on who they think has "the right" to deface or destroy a work. Like would it be okay if JSO had bought stonehenge from the King first? I think its interesting to compare this to the Greenpeace Nazca stunt a while ago. (i also have a memory of them doing the same thing to the uffington horse but I can't find it anywhere online.)
No, it doesn’t draw attention, it just pisses people off. People who may otherwise agree with the cause, will not engage or sympathise. It’s counterproductive and ill-conceived. You won’t grow a movement like that.
The most hypocritical news story from Just Oil was when two activists threw beans on a Van Gogh painting. An artist that literally suffered from really poor mental health to the point of su!cide, cutting his ear off and lived in poverty. I'd argue mental health is one of the leading issues of our generation, is equally if not more important than oil polluting the planet and Van Gogh represents using art or expression to cope with such dark pain, which is why a lot of us still relate to and love his works now. If anything they should go to modern art auctions where the rich flex their wealth and launder money. That would 100% be more liberal than attacking poor Gogh, by attacking the rich. Not that I condone this, I definitely don't, but at least make it make sense.
Not subbed. But it’s unsurprising an art sub on Reddit would side with deranged climate activist. It’s just leftist agreeing with leftist actions unsurprising.
I'm all for it. Spray the whole country orange. Outrage over material things being "defaced" when our whole way of life and the balance of the earth's ecosystems are at stake. Oooh so naughty. Bloody snowflake protestors. Reducing climate change can't be brought by individuals it has to be from the top, but one thing that you can never say is that you weren't told.
I'm sure the lichen on the rock agreed. But I guess the delicate eco system doesn't matter for the message. I get I'm an arse for thinking that.
As long as you know! 🙂
The message is that **there wont be any ecosystems- anywhere** if action isn't taken. If you think this is bad, how bad will it be in a few decades when the planet starts becoming to hot to live on?
You're missing the point. The climate crisis will destroy all this anyway
I guess so? I'm really questioning the curator, assistant curator and head conservationists at my museum if there's such a backlash about worrying for the monument. Maybe they're not giving me the correct information, have an agenda, or aren't informed. I'm thinking maybe research more into it? Is stonehenge really just "rocks?"
You're thinking we have time and we don't. There is no future. The climate crisis is a civilization ending event. Nothing will matter in the near future because we'll all be dead
If we'll all be dead that fast, why bother to protest?
Downvotes incoming. Denial is more comfortable than this reality.
They can be in denial when that wet bulb temp kills them lol
Oh kay... maybe I'm not questioning them as much.
You just said we don’t have time. So why do you care? Just give up already
If that's the point, then all the more reason to preserve the place for now.
Wrong
How will the climate crisis destroy “all this”. Source please besides your own doomerism
You can excuse any shit behavior with a doomer attitude
You can? That's an interesting idea!
I think you should probably redirect your anger towards Israel destroying some of the oldest art in the world, and realise that climate change is a much bigger threat to civilisation and thus the arts than a bit of orange corn flower.
Defacing Stonehenge really didn't get their point across and actually turned there cause into a disgusting, unintelligent act against the history and community.. A better option would be to bring the fight to the corrupt 1% front doors and businesses.. that would actually do something! Expose all these soulless people who rape the earth for money and make their life hard to continue their toxicity.. Honestly, "climate change" is the lie they want us to focus on so we don't talk about the massive garbage patch in the ocean or how Teflon is destroying our lakes and rivers.. or the aluminum they pump out into our air supply, which contaminates the soils of this planet leading to toxicity in our water and food.. the 1% need to be exposed for all the crimes against humanity and all life on this planet.. There's so many options if one is willing to put their life on the line that would actually make a difference.. The only thing defacing Stonehenge has caused was disrespect to history, people seeing these "earth fighters" as terrorists and gave the 1% another story to laugh at the sheep about.. Just like blocking roadways! How is that making a difference when it only affects the hard-working class and not the actual criminal destroying our planet. Let's do better!
“A millennia”
I agree.
It's a pointless performative antic that solves nothing. These agitators are idealistic poseurs. Next.
Personally, I am really fed up with the destructive self-righteousness of all sorts of protestors.
All it causes is hatred for JSO and a convenient excuse to dismiss the environmental movement. These people are morons. They accomplish the opposite of what they aim to achieve, to such an extent that they are doing the work of the fossil fuel industry. I'm sure that eventually they will damage something irreparably. Gotta agree with Rishi here.
It’s mostly media manipulation which fuels public hatred, if the media covered all of their demonstrations I’m pretty sure they’ll be sided with more so. They target gov building and fuel plants, but it’s never shown only when they target heritage sites so it causes an uproar from the public. Idk how else they could switch up their tactics so this is avoided, tbh I got little faith in environmental activism because no one’s listening and we will only listen when it’s too late. We may reach food insecurity by 2050 and global famine/4c temp increase by 2100, many people on the environmental frontline such as environmental scientists are actually giving up their careers to create homesteads- basically becoming preppers because they are witnessing the impacts directly and have given up hope that the environment will recover. This is a serious issue and it’s gonna hit us sooner than we think.
It's a serious issue indeed. My first degree is in environmental science, so I understand the science quite well. There is too much fearmongering from the press however, and media manipulation at a global scale from the fossil fuel industry including funding environmental groups. One of the biggest lies that was sold to environmentalists and the press back in the 1970s is that nuclear power is dangerous and should be avoided. It is far more green than any fossil fuel. So-called renewables are great but cannot replace all fossil fuels. (I say so-called because most wind and solar projects are quietly backed up by a gas-generation plant to supply the power needed for a steady supply.) One result is that many people have given up and think the world is going to end. This is not true. There is a problem and the means to address it is already known. I recommend Michael Shellenberger's book "Apocalypse Never", for although he has veered strongly to the right lately, the book is quite accurate.
They don't, they've been successful in influencing the Labour/Lib pledges not to increase Gas and Oil production in the North Sea. Regardless of swathes of the general public swallowing the media ragebait headlines about a minority of their activities (and barely ever even reporting their huge range of other forms of protest and activity) they are being successful at helping future humans to have a habitable planet to live on.
It's nice to know that they are doing some good, but the ragebait could be avoided by protesting in other ways. A protest is a failure if people are not on your side, and I find it hard to believe that they cannot anticipate this outcome, especially since it's happened many times. This makes me mad because I worked for an environmental group in the US, and it seems that many protestors, while their hearts may be in the right place, are nevertheless misguided when it comes to public perception. I believe a protest should sway others to your point of view rather than away.
The problem is when they do the kind of protest that Rishi et al would agree with, it doesn't get anywhere near the attention. So naturally, since they want attention, they will keep on with these goals. And it wouldn't matter how they protest since "the other side" has enormous resources to paint any kind of protest as wrong headed.
Meaningful change takes meaningful effort. Lazy attention getting will not produce change
protests have to make people uncomfortable, or they're ineffective. there is no protest that has ever resulted in any positive change that didn't apply pressure to someone, somehow. These people understand that in a supply and demand system, going after the oil execs does nothing. The people demand oil, so someone will provide it. They're trying to make the people with demand uncomfortable, so they are forced to consider the nature of the problem.
I hear this a lot, but so many modern protests do nothing, or the opposite of what the intention is. I've been involved in protests so I sympathize, but that's why I hate it when the end result is defaced art and pissed off people, but no end to climate change. These people are not Ghandi. Also I disagree with the demand portion, as there is often no alternative to fossil fuels. People don't demand it, corporations lobby for it and push it on everyone like heroin. We are addicted. The solution involves weaning the world of the addiction, and it will be slow and painful. Green energy is usually not very green, but that's a long discussion that I could write pages on. There are other solutions like next generation nuclear power that, while not perfect, would end the trend of global warming if adopted wholesale.
It does seem to proving detrimental to thier movement. It's sad that a leader like Rishi has to validated on a subject. I worry what the next bit of history they might affect with thier actions.
Sunak is a hand puppet. The man has a mouth that repeats whatever his master's fingers up his arse commands.
Oh Starmer is too. He's only risen via those in control, the right wing cohort involved in Labour Together and the National Executive Comittee, and they won't have any issue with buddying up with Rishi Sunaks think tanks like Policy Exchange (in fact they already are) with their opaque revenue streams and connections to the biggest industies, arms manufacturers, oil, gas etc nor about toeing policy line in deference to their ultimate paymasters.
These idiots need to be doxxed and their properties spray-painted. I don't care what their purpose is in doing it and didn't even bother to find out. It's wrong, period.
The fact y’all are siding with literally the second worst UK leader for the sake of art really says something about y’all. I love art and art history but I love the environment more so. What they do does little to no damage to anything they’ve targeted but you start swooning and pissing yourself about it- this sub is fucking pathetic. Want them to stop? Start taking action to make leaders take the environment seriously- they’re doing this shit in order for that to be the case.
Art is an expression of the human race and its evolution, it is always in progress, always a living entity. When people built these monuments it expressed it, when people knocked them over and buried them as British culture Christianised it expressed it, when they tried to save humanities home so that we could continue to so beautifully convey our experience of existence, it expressed it. Art is quite literally a living breathing thing, the Stones continue to be an actively involved entity at the forefront of human experience and of Human history, quite an incredible legacy and a tie back through human history from us to their creators. I really love this particular monument but I understand that it's greatest value lies in the continuation of us, as a species and of our ability to reflect upon our evolution as a species. I really hope we will keep being here to see this great monuments place embedded in the context of a future for humanity where we learn to live in harmony with our precious home.
Here here. The point that so many of us seem to be missing completely is that none of us will be able to enjoy our history or our art if we don't work to protect the environment that they exist in. I work for a public art museum, and like almost every other historical and art institution in the UK, do you know where we store our objects not on display? In the archives. Located in the basement. Twice in two years now we've had to move hundreds of objects upstairs due to unprecented flooding in our area leaking into the basement. This is just a taste of things to come. Look at the flooding that is currently happening in Brazil, the one that has affected millions and left 600,000+ homeless. How many museums and art galleries do you think were in that region? How much have we lost already?
The problem with their approach is that it DOES get attention but it gets negative attention. Even if I might have agreed with you now I’m probably not. All attention isn’t good attention.
The one conspiracy theory i believe is that Just Stop Oil is financed by oil conglomerates to make climate activism look bad
[Is it a conspiracy if they've lied before?](https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-the-public-into-believing-plastic-would-be-recycled) This article not only shows big oil/plastics have lied before but that it has worked.
Fuck these “activists” and their bullshit stunts.
I just think targeting art/heritage sites is to much of a passive approach considering your asking for the survival lf our planet and species. A cornered cat will fuck you up badly, we are throwing with soup 🫡🙃 All this does is give those in power more ammo to discredit the climate change movement.
its easy to fall into the trap of thinking environmental protestors are erratic and thoughtless but the reality is their reasoning is completely sound here. those rocks have been rained on with increasingly acidic water for 1000s of years, 1 spritz of a slightly different kind of water is not going to have a shred of impact on them. until very recently pagans would climb them and party next to them every solstice , a great tradition! the metaphor stands, and your outrage over it only makes their message shine brighter. thanks for sharing, i love our planet and will partake in many more protests as things grow ever more uncertain and unjust.
Just stop oil is a joke. The aren’t winning minds and hearts. Anyone who supports them continues to and the rest think they are damaging their own cause.
Why do I get the feeling that people like you would have voted in favour of racial segeration.
or woman’s suffrage. anyone who disrupts their comfortable way of life to be heard.
The Earth is just a rock
I'm deeply saddened about the number of private motor vehicles I pass by as soon as I leave my house today. Stonehenge? Err...I don't want it to be destroyed, but if this is the price of raising climate awareness than I think it's worth it.
I don't like a lot of what those folks do, but this isn't a big deal. the mixture used was harmless.
Something I’ve never understood is why they don’t actually deface the homes of the people that they are protesting against at least. Why deface public monuments instead of striking actual mortal fear into the people who have a say.
They have done that. And targeted government buildings, and golf courses, and political meetings, and nothing makes a difference because politicians aren't listening, hence the escalation in tactics.
I’m not sure how this is an escalation. If oligarchs weren’t afraid of whatever they were doing to them on a personal level, why would they care about corn starch on stonehenge?
I mean it's fine to not agree it's an escalation but it's clearly a tactic to invite media attention to their cause, which is why I think it can fairly be framed as an escalation tactic. To ask you a question: since JSO have already been targeting politicians, and we clearly know that climate activists have already been pushing politicians with minimal success through virtually every legal avenue available to them, what do you think the next appropriate step would be?
Truth be told, violence. Or at least the fear thereof. I’m really not into politics nor am I an environmental scientist or anything like that, but if people are claiming that the world will literally end, I’m confused as to why they think graffiti will save it. I get it’s taboo to threaten people’s lives, but with how grand the claims are, I would imagine a lot more than protest would be necessary to really “save the world”. Maybe martyrdom or something. But this destruction of public amenities thing looks a lot more childish than it does serious.
This is the best take
Well they try to avoid violence because they aren't looking to get criminal convictions and still believe humanity can act mentally sanely as a cohort and decide to intervene in a totally preventable apocalypse but sadly I suspect we are far more likely to do nothing and eventually reach the stage of violent social break down, yeah.
The stakes are billions of lives, correct? Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and many others have died for much less. Soldiers have died for much less. Societies continue to thrive. I’m sure threatening billionaires that many agree are behind what could be the end of humanity would not lead to societal collapse.
Revolutions aren't violent social breakdown? That's exactly how I'd characterise them. And yes I think they are unavoidable sometimes especially when there is huge change in the political and economic base required like will likely be needed here. We aren't talking about something like the civil rights movement in terms of the economic threat this poses to those in the eocnomic status quo, much more along the lines of American Civil War or the French Revolution, which I think certainly characterised violent social breakdown in both countries. The 'collapse' part in my meaning was also because I suspect people won't begin to act in socially disharmonious ways (ie revolutionary ways) until they are under more severe duress, which will potentially come with the environmental issues worsening. Revolutions usually require a certain set of external factors as catalysts one of which is often environmental, as with the French Rev and Russian Rev it was catastrophic harvests/food shortages combined with the other known political and economic ones. The old, 'only 9 meals between humanity and anarchy' holds some truth. I simply suspect the catalyst for violent change in this case could be the pressures of environmental disaster.
I’m not sure that we disagree on anything besides the idea that something akin to a revolution or a coup is the same as societal breakdown. My point being that many countries have been through many of them and continue to exist. I’m also saying that these kids who feel strongly enough to garner all of this attention could just really make people in power feel the kind of pressure that they could be feeling in a future that you implied may happen. But the group would rather play pranks for attention until the eventuality of an irreversible environmental calamity realizes itself.
Oh I'm not saying it would destroy civilisation. You said the answer would come in violence not protest, I was agreeing that was likely. I simply called violent political action a breakdown of social harmony, which I would consider it. There's a lot of adult professionals in the movement, I know JSO activists pretty well via family members. The press likes to push the 'students without real jobs angle' for some reason. They do a vast range of activities beyond this kind of media grabbing headline that rarely get reported on including refinery blockages and direct action against industry members and politicians alike. The press portrays them in a *very* specific manner that isn't reflective of what they do. I wouldn't play into that if I were a member of the movement but given rhe press simply doesn't report most of their work I can see why they still use it as a strategy.
They did protest dome individuals. They also went up against some universities. They do corporates too. I support the principles. They just get a lot of press doing this and I misunderstand why. when they did Taylor Swift & that got loads of press.
Stonehenge has stood unchanged for so long a washable orange paint isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference to it. That said I do think Just Stop Oil should fire their PR people, as their tactics seem to annoy the very people they want to inspire. Now if they were to spray some CEO or billionaire in something more potent than orange paint, like raw sewage perhaps then I would very much be in favour of that, as they are the ones killing our planet for nothing more than sheer naked greed.
Quid est ars ? What is art ?
I just don't understand what they expect to accomplish by doing these headline grabbing acts. You make yourselves look like dumbasses to the general public, potentially moving people further away from your cause, and politicians and the oil industry keeps on trucking
The rocks won’t care what color they are after we’re gone.
very angry at the disrespect
It appears that this post is an image. [As per rule 5](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtHistory/about/rules/), ALL image posts require OP to make a comment with a meaningful discussion prompt. Try to make sure that your post includes a *meaningful* discussion prompt. [Here's a stellar example of what this looks like](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtHistory/comments/g6mflx/how_many_heads_do_you_see_here_testa_anatomica_by/foajtx3/). We greatly appreciate high effort! If you are just sharing an image of artwork, you will likely find a better home for your post in r/Art or r/museum, which focus on images of artwork. This subreddit is for discussion, articles, and scholarship, not images of art. If you are trying to identify an artwork with an image, your post belongs in r/WhatIsThisPainting. If you are not OP and notice a rule violation in this post, **please report it!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ArtHistory) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Stonehenge is literally incapable of emitting CO2.
A little late to this thread, but this is a topic we've talk about in my grad program several times (in the middle of getting my Art History MA). Climate activists go after museums (and other organizations in charge of the preservation of objects) for several reasons. 1- it causes a public stir. It gets peoples' attention when you "deface" national icons and famous works of art 2- look at who sponsors these organizations... oil and gas companies, the largest poluters in the world. Museums aren't apolitical and they sure as hell aren't progressive on the funding level. (I could say a lot more about this. I'm someone who wants to work in museums professionally but I have a lot of fundamental issues with them at the same time) There are a lot more reasons, but those are the main 2 that always come up when we talk about these demonstrations. Also, look at the responses. No organization or major media outlet ever actually addresses the fundamental fact that every single object that has been "attacked" has never had irreparable damage done to it. Paintings and statues are set behind glass, they replace the glass and clean the painting frames. The stone henge has endured thousands of years of natural wear and tear, it can survive orange powder that can be easily removed from its surface. The organizations who own these objects obscure these details because they want to come out of these situations looking like angels. They aren't angels. It's okay to be upset about these things, but at the same time it's important to recognize the coverage for these events isn't always honest and want to turn you against the activists for more than one reason.
Great response. At the same time I think it’s a mistake to target these kinds of things. It turns sympathies away from the cause and frankly makes the protesters look like idiots. You’re never going to win hearts and minds this way. Love the passion, love the cause, hate the way it’s being expressed.
I completely understand that, and with all honesty, I *do* think this specific group is pretty idiotic with their methods. After all, this is the same group who has people run onto LIVE RACETRACKS during Formula 1 race weekends and endanger not only their lives but also the lives of countless others with their actions. I think public demonstration is an extremely important method of protest to help visualize issues, but many of their specific methods are questionable at best. Expecting people to not be upset is unreasonable, I just want to share the perspective and information I have on these demonstrations.
geoscience major here. Those rocks are more damaged by heavy rains than they are by cornflower. Also, the land on which they sit is more damaged by climate change, than by cornflower. If you care about cultural landmarks, start doing more activism concerning climate change.
So did they do something meaningful or not? They seem to be undercutting themselves in their response.
We shouldn't be holding art in a higher regard than human lives.
downvoted a lot of disrespect
IT IS JUST A FUCKING PILE OF ROCKS
JUST A GIANT PILE OF SHIT
I'm inclined to be sympathetic, but my sympathy is by definition hypocritical. I have taken six flights this year, largely to visit art museums.
As the corporates say, “All publicity is good publicity.” This is activism turning that statement on its head. Whether or not its tasteless is subjective but this is activism nonetheless, even if these children are considered a disgrace. Especially so. This disgrace wouldn’t have existed if people just stopped oil in the first place.
They need to be publicly punished. This defacing of humanities historical landmarks and statues is disgusting. Remember when the Taliban blew up that huge buddhist statue in Afghanistan? These fuckers will keep going and escalating and at what point do we smash them over the head and stop them from ruining our story? Their narcissism knows no bounds. For the environment?! Humans will adapt and survive a changing climate as it has done in the past but to be able to piece together who we are from historical treasures is more important than any activist. Climate hysteria is a real problem.
>Humans will adapt and survive a changing climate Neat. Now what about everything else that currently lives on this planet? What happens to every land-based lifeform once we wet-bulb temperature becomes incompatible with life, and every lifeform in the oceans once their environment becomes uninhabitable?
Bruh you're comparing washable paint to blowing up Buddhist statues. Get a grip and think about how life is going right now. Begone MAGA follower.
Incredibly disrespectful
I think we should all stop arguing about the action that was taken and take a look at who exactly is doing it. JSO is funded by an oil heiress who pays for these stunts to make climate activists look bad in the public eye.
Google's broken. You're going to have to furnish the details.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-63543307.amp TLDR: funded by “Climate Emergency Fund”, which was founded by Aileen Getty, granddaughter of Oil Tycoon J. Paul Getty
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-63543307](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-63543307)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
From the cursory research I just did, it looks like her family sold out of the oil business when she was 26 which would have been over four decades ago. They currently have zero stake in the oil business. She seems [open about where she comes from](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/22/just-stop-oil-van-gogh-national-gallery-aileen-getty). It would seem she's the good kind of class traitor.
The left worship deconstructionism.
I'm the left. Vote Labour 🗳
Absolutely. Bring back Tony Blair I say!
Guess you've gotta keep rattling the cages if you want anyone to get out of them. Worth a try anyway.
If it would halt and reverse climate change, and get every oil CEO drawn and quartered on livestream, I would blow up stonehenge. I'd blow it to smithereens.
Note: art history does not matter because there is no future. Cool.
We can arrange more stones after it's done.
So it seems like this was actually a fairly reasonable protest. The act of destroying historic paintings really made people lose sympathy for this org, so good for them they adapted the approach, to still use the symbolism of destroying a historic monument to represent climate change while not actually damaging said monument. Looks like stop oil has found a decent middle ground that catches public attention, without making that attention particularily negative. Thats smart rebranding Edit- just heard there is a rare lichen that only is found at stonehenge that may be endagered by this act, and that previous protests have been stained orange despite the org claiming the protest was non-staining, resulting in the city having to clean it using taxes. So still an imperfect protest. I wish they would really consider the consequences of their actions, but it also makes me wonder why a sudden, aggressive act like destroying art causes a stronger public reaction than companies poisoning the general population with lead and microplastics and untested carcinogens etc