Visitors at Louvre look on in shock as Leonardo da Vinci masterpiece attacked by environmental protesters

Two environmental protesters have hurled soup on to the Mona Lisa at the Louvre in Paris, calling for “healthy and sustainable food”. The painting, which was behind bulletproof glass, appeared to be undamaged.

Gallery visitors looked on in shock as two women threw the yellow-coloured soup before climbing under the barrier in front of the work and flanking the splattered painting, their right hands held up in a salute-like gesture.

One of the two activists removed her jacket to reveal a white T-shirt bearing the slogan of the environmental activist group Riposte Alimentaire (Food Response) in black letters.

  • gregorum@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    No, they didn’t. They knew it was behind the bullet proof glass and would not be harmed. They did this to draw attention to a cause. It worked.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      Half of the comments here don’t even know what cause it was for. You know you are supposed to learn by kindergarten that there is a difference between good attention and bad attention. Making a scene is easy but ineffective the vast majority of the time. Convincing people is difficult but it is the only way to get long term results.

      You must have met people like this in your life. Someone completely unable to grasp that there are others around them and they got their own needs and wants. Does that person care? No. They didn’t get what they want so now everyone has to suffer.

      • maynarkh@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Half of the comments here don’t even know what cause it was for.

        That’s because the news piece deliberately omits that part, at least from the headline. If they didn’t throw soup at an important piece of bulletproof glass, there wouldn’t even be news coverage.

          • maynarkh@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            This is not about whether the info is available at all, but if it’s loud enough in the shitstorm of information that surrounds us. If news sites don’t report on it, then most people don’t hear about it.

            The article also goes out of the way to put the protesters in a bad light, with “Footage posted on X captured the attack on Leonardo da Vinci’s masterpiece as well as the gasps of visitors and the cries of children apparently shocked by the incident.”

            • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              You are right the article should have said how noble and wonderful they were for not destroying the painting. Everyone deserves a fucking medal for not being as shitty as they could have been

              • maynarkh@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                Their acts physically were unable to destroy the painting. I’m just saying that the article seems biased by focusing on the cries of children as if it wasn’t just soup splattering against glass

      • gregorum@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Even if I agreed with your premise (which I don’t) I think it pretty silly to use a small niche internet comment forum as a gauge for saying this didn’t work, when it’s plastered on headlines around the world. And you’re already admitting that it did work, now you’re just debating it’s effectiveness. And that’s not the point. 

          • gregorum@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Show me the legislation it will change and tell me when it will happen

            I didn’t make that argument. I said

            They did this to draw attention to a cause. It worked.

            but thanks for the straw man argument and moving the goal posts.

            if it didn’t work, then why are you still here whining about it?

            • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              Ah thanks for admitting the goal was attention, not actual change. Say no more, I get it now. They needed some validation and they got it.

              Hey I am a parent I get it. Except you know my kids are pretty young not grown ass adults.

              • gregorum@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                Ah thanks for admitting the goal was attention,

                did you really not understand that from the start? you didn’t catch me is some “gotcha”— people here have been trying to explain this to you for hours because you fail to comprehend this. The point is to draw attention their cause, as I and many others here keep trying to tell you, lmao.

                What you should also understand, as a parent, is how annoying it is when you explain something simple, and the kid just keeps asking “why? why? why?” even though you explained it several times.

                you’re that kid who just doesn’t get it.

                • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  You don’t have to double down on your admission. We all get it. Your buddies wanted to get into the news and they got it. Nothing will change other than security theater. Whatever cause they stood for will be forgotten.

                  • gregorum@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    You don’t have to double down on your admission.

                    nobody admitted anything. it’s in the article.

                    Your buddies

                    oh, so your psychic power are telling you that we’re “buddies” now? fascinating

                    Your buddies wanted to get into the news and they got it.

                    so, you admit that it worked.

      • norbert@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        5 months ago

        They clearly didn’t accidentally spill soup so I’m sure their guilt isn’t really in question.