Why do the mass killers of the fossil fuel industry walk free while the heroes trying to stop them are imprisoned? asks Guardian columnist George Monbiot
It is and I don’t agree with the sentence - way too harsh, especially considering that the art was undamaged.
That said I feel, while there should be some punishment for almost running a work of art for future generations and the ends do not justify the means - it basically feels like the cause (saving the Earth) wasn’t taken into account here. Also, the “almost” part wasn’t either - they’re treating it like these were vandals who successfully destroyed a valuable work of art forever because they were bored.
That’s … ridiculous. Especially compared two the guys who got off with a suspended sentence because they beat up a cop or two for fun.
Agreed, in the event there had been some damage (but also worth noting that it seems obvious that they knew there would have been no damage since it’s pretty obvious it was behind plexiglass).
They didn’t almost ruin it though. It’s not like they tried to destroy it and we’re lucky the defenses held. They explicitly chose a painting and an act that would not result in damage.
You said “there should be some punishment for almost running a work of art”. There was no “almost ruin” involved. You don’t say your couch was almost ruined when some bird poop hit the window next to it. The couch was never in danger.
You don’t say your couch was almost ruined when some bird poop hit the window next to it. The couch was never in danger.
I stand by my words. We just disagree on the definition of ‘almost ruin’ - you seemed to define it as ‘attempting to destroy and failing because the defenses held’ (but we both agree that t"hey explicitly chose a painting and an act that would not result in damage.") while I have a more open interpretation (they were just one mere plexiglass-breaking accident away from actually ruining it).
Your counter-example is quite different, but even there, someone has to clean the window afterwards.
In the actual incident, I think there is justification for some kind of punishment. Minor fines for causing a public scene or disturbance, reasonable cleanup fees in return for deliberately obligating the staff to mop the place afterwards (as opposed to the bird poop example which is presumably just an accident), etc.
That being said - I’d also be okay with a mere slap on the wrist for this incident - like being let off with a written or verbal warning. They were taking these risks to save the environment and the planet after all.
What part of their actions could possibly have broken the plexiglass? It’s soup. A lack of intent isn’t what made this not an “almost ruin”, it’s that there is no likely outcome where the painting is damaged. You’re acting like they took a risk and luckily nothing bad happened, but it was just never in the cards to begin with.
What part of their actions could possibly have broken the plexiglass? It’s soup.
If the plexiglass was really low quality, and the can holding the soup was particularly heavy and sturdy, it’s imaginable that the glass could have cracked under impact and soup would have leaked through to the actual painting.
Even a higher grade plexiglass could be easily scratched if the can had slipped - this wouldn’t have damaged the painting, but would have required the plexiglass cover to be replaced to see the unblemished artwork.
And - this is just about damages to the artwork, whereas I already pointed out causes for other damages (cleanup fees, public disturbance). This is something that you pointedly ignored. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that damage to the artwork is absolutely impossible. What about these other things?
but it was just never in the cards to begin with.
I will quote myself.
That’s exactly what I said!
But then…
You’re acting like they took a risk and luckily nothing bad happened,
No, that’s the exact opposite of what I said.
I’ll quote myself again,
but also worth noting that it seems obvious that they knew there would have been no damage since it’s pretty obvious it was behind plexiglass
One last thing,
A lack of intent isn’t what made this not an “almost ruin”, it’s that there is no likely outcome where the painting is damaged.
On reflection, I have decided to adopt your view as my own. You didn’t bring this up, but the constellation of super minor and nitpicky “related damages” has no bearing on whether the painting itself was damaged or not.
And (you also didn’t raise this point, but) even if the plexiglass was of such a low quality that a soup can hitting it could have damaged the painting, then so would a person holding a stout umbrella who tripped and fell on the painting - so then that’s really negligence on behalf of the institution hosting the painting for not protecting it properly from accidents.
It is and I don’t agree with the sentence - way too harsh, especially considering that the art was undamaged.
That said I feel, while there should be some punishment for almost running a work of art for future generations and the ends do not justify the means - it basically feels like the cause (saving the Earth) wasn’t taken into account here. Also, the “almost” part wasn’t either - they’re treating it like these were vandals who successfully destroyed a valuable work of art forever because they were bored.
That’s … ridiculous. Especially compared two the guys who got off with a suspended sentence because they beat up a cop or two for fun.
i expect future generations would see any damage to the art as part of its extended story and its place in stopping climate change
Agreed, in the event there had been some damage (but also worth noting that it seems obvious that they knew there would have been no damage since it’s pretty obvious it was behind plexiglass).
They didn’t almost ruin it though. It’s not like they tried to destroy it and we’re lucky the defenses held. They explicitly chose a painting and an act that would not result in damage.
That’s exactly what I said!
You said “there should be some punishment for almost running a work of art”. There was no “almost ruin” involved. You don’t say your couch was almost ruined when some bird poop hit the window next to it. The couch was never in danger.
I stand by my words. We just disagree on the definition of ‘almost ruin’ - you seemed to define it as ‘attempting to destroy and failing because the defenses held’ (but we both agree that t"hey explicitly chose a painting and an act that would not result in damage.") while I have a more open interpretation (they were just one mere plexiglass-breaking accident away from actually ruining it).
Your counter-example is quite different, but even there, someone has to clean the window afterwards.
In the actual incident, I think there is justification for some kind of punishment. Minor fines for causing a public scene or disturbance, reasonable cleanup fees in return for deliberately obligating the staff to mop the place afterwards (as opposed to the bird poop example which is presumably just an accident), etc.
That being said - I’d also be okay with a mere slap on the wrist for this incident - like being let off with a written or verbal warning. They were taking these risks to save the environment and the planet after all.
What part of their actions could possibly have broken the plexiglass? It’s soup. A lack of intent isn’t what made this not an “almost ruin”, it’s that there is no likely outcome where the painting is damaged. You’re acting like they took a risk and luckily nothing bad happened, but it was just never in the cards to begin with.
If the plexiglass was really low quality, and the can holding the soup was particularly heavy and sturdy, it’s imaginable that the glass could have cracked under impact and soup would have leaked through to the actual painting.
Even a higher grade plexiglass could be easily scratched if the can had slipped - this wouldn’t have damaged the painting, but would have required the plexiglass cover to be replaced to see the unblemished artwork.
And - this is just about damages to the artwork, whereas I already pointed out causes for other damages (cleanup fees, public disturbance). This is something that you pointedly ignored. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that damage to the artwork is absolutely impossible. What about these other things?
I will quote myself.
But then…
No, that’s the exact opposite of what I said.
I’ll quote myself again,
One last thing,
On reflection, I have decided to adopt your view as my own. You didn’t bring this up, but the constellation of super minor and nitpicky “related damages” has no bearing on whether the painting itself was damaged or not.
And (you also didn’t raise this point, but) even if the plexiglass was of such a low quality that a soup can hitting it could have damaged the painting, then so would a person holding a stout umbrella who tripped and fell on the painting - so then that’s really negligence on behalf of the institution hosting the painting for not protecting it properly from accidents.