A painting of Lord Balfour housed at the University of Cambridge’s Trinity College was slashed by protest group Palestine Action.
The painting of Lord Balfour was made in 1914 by Philip Alexius de László inside Trinity College. The Palestine Action group specifically targeted the Lord Balfour painting, describing his declaration as the beginning of “ethnic cleansing of Palestine by promising the land away—which the British never had the right to do.”
Probably the only type of destruction of art as protest I condone. The piece:
- Is not very old or culturally/historically important
- Directly depicts someone at the root of this conflict
- Was deliberately targeted and the reasons layed out
Trying to destroy unrelated art work is just wasteful of our shared human heritage. Attacking symbols of oppression however is perfectly valid in my opinion and is to me perfectly reasonable escalation when peaceful protests obviously do not bring the changes needed.
I put this on the same level as African Americans attacking statues of confederate generals and other proponents of slavery to hammer home their point.
Agreed, except that I would call this peaceful protest. Vandalism isn’t violence. Violence is against a person. As long as no person was relying on this painting for their meals or shelter or whatever - and they definitely weren’t - then no person was harmed.
No no no, you don’t understand. Violence is everything that disturbs those in power!
Mediocre art being damaged in one of the centers of power is violence.
Tens of thousands of people somewhere else dying is just a minor inconvenience.
so vandalism is in fact violence if you rely on the object? Like your car, your house, your bike…
Depends really, it’s all deeply contextual. A landlord kicking a family out because they can’t make rent is violence. Cops destroying an encampment of the unhoused is violence. Those people are hurt by those actions, even if not immediately.
It’s not about reliance exactly, but about harm to people. Any action that can reasonably be assumed to harm a person is violent. Pulling a lever isn’t violent, unless it’s the trigger of a gun aimed at someone. Then a series of predictable physical processes unfold that lead to serious harm.
Breaking a plank of wood isn’t violence, even if it belongs to someone else. That’s just property destruction. But if someone was standing on that plank of wood and they fall to their death, you killed them.
actually later on this will add more historical value to it.
Another important detail to consider is that these pieces are really only worthwhile for their historical value. I would argue that this response is more significant than the original production of the painting.
If anything, the value of this painting will increase due to the added historical value of this event.
Definitely. Historic or not, don’t put bad people on pedestals. E.g. there’s a reason why you don’t see statues of Hitler in Germany.
But you do have statues of Bismarck for instance. Who also “set in motion” the holocaust, as much as this guy the current situation in Gaza.
Both did things that some 50 to 100 years later ended in death of innocent people.
So did Charlemagne. Wait he actually committed genocide himself in the war against the Saxons. It’s not what they’re remembered for, though.
I just want to point out that most of the other time you hear about “attacks” on art the piece is perfectly fine. They’ll attack pieces shielded by glass. It makes a statement and does no damage (maybe a little mess to clean up). Like the recent Mona Lisa “attack” you can’t miss that it’s covered by glass as you’re spending 30m getting closer. It wasn’t a mistake that no damage was done.
I do agree in this case it’s fairly justified. This man doesn’t deserve to be remembered fondly.
Ok, ya got me.
They can burn this picture of some dead asshole for all I care.
I will say though, I doubt it’s particularly effective at drawing undecideds to the cause.
If they made a single person google the Balfour Declaration I’m pretty sure they won the exchange. Now you’re getting to get a split of people reading just the Declaration, which seems harmless enough, and people reading what it actually did, which was anything but harmless, but you can’t control that.
It’s from the 20th century, and of the guy directly responsible for the mess in Palestine today as well as his shit in Ireland.
I’m about as outraged about this as I would be a Jew slashing a “historical” painting of Hitler.
I wonder if in a hundred years people will be upset over Trumps portrait getting ruined?
If we are going to shed tears for the loss of culture, then the loss of Roman era bath houses and early Christian churches in Gaza is quite a bit more concerning to me than this painting.
This is something I am woefully uninformed about. Can you provide additional information/resources?
Take a look at everyone clutching their pearls over this painting and think about what doesn’t upset them
Oh no, a painting! So much more important and relatable than children dying. That happens all the time.
/s
Edit: I’m agreeing with the above point, folks. Lives are more important than paintings. We need a lot more outrage about people dying and less about property damage.
Has this prevented any kids from dying? Or is it in addition to children dying? Can people be upset at two (or even… three!) things at the same time?
I agree with your point, but want to highlight that at no point did I suggest people can’t be upset about multiple things. No offense intended toward you personally (or anyone really), but your response now seems to be the standard reaction to shut down anyone pointing out the disparity in media/public reaction between things like people dying or being repressed and material goods being vandalized or destroyed. It’s getting better, but the theme of reporting tended to be that property damage is a tragic loss of irreplaceable treasure, while genocide was more akin to “some people went to sleep and didn’t wake up again, maybe they should have complied”.
Of course people can be upset by multiple things. When the magnitude of upset over precious but ultimately replaceable things being destroyed is greater than that for irreplaceable people being destroyed, then we have a problem.
At least that’s my take and I’m anything but infallible.
I get your point, but on the other hand, I understood your first comment as “There’s children dying, so you’re not allowed to be upset by anything lesser than that”, which is also used to shut down dissent.
Anyways, thanks for the Level-headed answer, have a good one!
Totally understandable, there’s always a risk that a quick, snappy comment conveys the wrong meaning. My wording definitely could have been better, but I’m leaving it for posterity so future generations might learn to do better.
And thanks to you too! Good conversation.
to shut down anyone pointing out the disparity in media/public reaction between things like people dying or being repressed and material goods being vandalized or destroyed
The OP is even linking to artnet because this does not seem to be a major story outside of this. I probably would have never heard about this had I not read it on lemmy. I listen to NPR on my way to work, I regularly hear about the horrors the people in Gaza are facing. So I’m not sure this characterization is fair.
If they punched a baby, instead, which is actually better than what’s going Gaza, would it be wrong for people to be upset about them taking it out on something that has nothing to do with the criminals they are protesting?
It’s a dumb thing they did and they are a piece of shit. But what Israel is doing is Gaza is infinitely worse. It completely reasonable and easy to hold these two positions at the same time.
Uh… Balfour definitely has something to do with Israel.
Are you arguing that this painting is to blame for this?
The person it glorifies sure seems to be
I’m trying to imagine what it’s like not able comprehend what’s going on.
The Israeli army is retreating in fear. Now it’s a painting, next time they might smash a vase!
The thing is that the is plain useless. Nobody is going to have a change of heart because somebody slashed a painting. If anything I think it can have a slight effect on the opposite direction.
It’s also very interesting, some people defending this action and upset about Israels invasion seem very chill about Russia’s invasion…
You’re getting down voted, but you’re absolutely right. Zionists will use this as another excuse to ignore the movement, while it does nothing to help the Palestinian people.
Yeah. I think so many people just have this “it’s for a good reason”, and don’t consider if it’s useful if even positive for them.
Might have have a better impact to force them through social movement to remove the painting. Achieving that would have been a much stronger message.
Still I think most downvotes come from people that don’t like I’ve brought up Russia’s invasion as something negative.
No amount of destroyed paintings won’t make me care more about Palestine
This has the same energy as destroying confederate general statues. Good on them.
There was a news article a day or two ago about a pensioner vandalising a statue of Thatcher. I feel the same way about this act as I did that - good on the perpetrator.
Unless a work of art is housed somewhere meant to cause reflection on all the actions a person took in their full context which includes making clear the problematic acts of the subject, they shouldn’t be somewhere clearly meant to commemorate them. And if they are, then they’re fair game.
The comments are full of people who value one shitty painting more than they value human life.
… the artist …
Hang on a tick. Is that my old cheese? My good-time boy?! Or is he but a simple human man?
Impossible, Jackeeeee d’tonaah is not that old. He is still in the spry of youth!
Its all in the toothpick
The very same, my dear boy!
That’s how you get negative attention
If this attracts negative attention, Imagine the one commiting genocide could attract.
Billions in aid and weapons?
Sure, but also other repercussions like an old man asking you to maybe genocide a bit less, and we can’t have that.
All the while that old man will stress that we must support you fully, and that he’ll never stop supporting you.
But hey, he called you an asshole and said you need a come to Jesus moment. So that makes him cool right?
Corporate media decides whether the attention is negative or positive.
For myself, I don’t approve of vandalism but I fully understand their rage
I know right! At first it infuriates you, then you find out it was the guy who started this Palestine mess, and that it was a directly targeted attack.
Not blocking some road, gluing your hands to something, or throwing stuff at art behind glass and generally doing something that actually has any relation to your cause.
Look, you wanna protest and shit? Go ahead, but if you start vandalizing art in museums you instantly lose my sympathy.
If art of the dude responsible for the genocide makes you lose sympathy for the victims, then maybe it’s time to stop pretending you care at all and just embrace the genocide.
I should’ve worded myself better, I lose sympathy for the person doing the defacing, as in I don’t care about what they have to say and I could care less if they get in trouble for it.
No, everyone understood what you meant just fine.
It’s the sentiment that’s the problem, not the wording.
Fascism has always been primarily aesthetic
This is like taking down Confederate statues.
Why y’all worshipping assholes?
Not really the same. The public gets a say in which art pieces are displayed in public. Museums exist for the preservation of history, good or bad.
This is Britain mate, and the riff-raff have almost no say in such things.
Apparently you didn’t read the article, the guy had a direct role in the destruction of Palestine
Ugh. You insufferable robots moved over here from Reddit? At least you’re being downvoted.
It was in a college, not a museum.
Paintings and statues in public places is a fair game imo.
Sure. But I still think the destruction of art is destruction of history, regardless of how someone feels about it. If you don’t like it in public, then it’s better to take it down and store it somewhere else for preservation purposes if nothing else.
This guy’s paintings have about as much historical value as Hitler pictures and confederate general statues.
The Balfour declaration was just a letter
The British did not ‘give’ the Jews anything.
Hating Jews since the beginning of time is fairly sick. Thinking this will improve anything and being historically ignorant is just plain stupid.
i think the person who did this not hating the jews since the beginning of time and maybe the person did not hate anyone at all. how about focus on the actual eventlike the ongoing genocide by the israelimilitary instead of playing the victim card
Perhaps she hates herself for the penalty of her actions to be imposed, but let’s not be Pollyanna about this, we both know why this “demonstation” happened.
Why?
Because they both know a secret 🤫
deleted by creator
It was “just a letter” written on behalf of the British state giving their full support for the creation of Israel in what was, at the time, British-occupied Ottoman land that the British had already promised to return to the Palestinian people.
So yes, the British literally give the land - which was not theirs in any legitimate form - to a group other than the native population.
They then provided (and continue to provide) financial, political and military support for decades, while Palestine was progressively colonised.
See, climate activists? This means something. Now please stop throwing tomato soup at Van Goge and Da Vinci.
Little known fact, Van Gogh actually founded BP.
deleted by creator
