Picasso splashed with pink paint
A Picasso hanging at the Museum of Fine Arts as part of the Berthe Weill exhibit was splashed with pink paint Thursday morning by environmental activists. Last Generation Canada has claimed the incident.
Here’s L’Hétaire as it was previously. La Presse says the piece, which was lent for the exhibition, was protected by glass.
Taylor C. Noakes 17:30 on 2025-06-19 Permalink
Huh… maybe gov’t should do something about climate change instead of handing Big Oil $30 billion in subsidies last year
Chris 18:29 on 2025-06-19 Permalink
I’m convinced this tactic is detrimental.
How many people, upon seeing art vandalized, decide to drive less, switch to transport, give up meat, or whatever else? And how many are convinced that environmentalists are nutters off their rocker? I’m sure the latter group is larger, and that harms the cause.
Kate 18:45 on 2025-06-19 Permalink
People are willing to face fines and/or jail time to underline how serious a situation we’re in. This has no resonance with you?
Ian 18:50 on 2025-06-19 Permalink
I mean whatever, it was under glass.
Chris, what act of protest would be beneficial, to your way of thinking?
Chris 19:00 on 2025-06-19 Permalink
>People are willing to face fines and/or jail time to underline how serious a situation we’re in. This has no resonance with you?
I’m (personally) already convinced. Do they only want to preach to the converted? You really think people unconvinced to act upon the climate emergency are swayed by these stunts?
>Chris, what act of protest would be beneficial, to your way of thinking?
Indeed, it’s not obvious. But most everything tried so far has not worked so well, has it? Shall we keep repeating the same failed tactics?
Kate 19:40 on 2025-06-19 Permalink
There are two obvious things we can all do about the environment: vote wisely and live differently.
But climate change is happening so fast that this gradual approach (which maybe a third of the population will actually undertake to do) will not work. Some people are feeling panicky about it. I find defacing a Picasso upsetting, but I can see how trivial it is, compared to the destruction of the livable biosphere of the planet.
bob 20:08 on 2025-06-19 Permalink
An “act of protest” like this is generally a performative, self-serving stunt. It generates attention, i.e., narcissistic supply, for the performers but it achieves nothing, or makes whatever cause they claim to be in service of look ridiculous.
Ian 20:15 on 2025-06-19 Permalink
OK well Chris has no ideas, how about you?
Kate 20:30 on 2025-06-19 Permalink
It makes a statement about what we value, bob. I’m not saying it’s not a bit ridiculous; it also means the museum will be less likely to be able to borrow valuable pieces for future exhibits. Probably the protesters would say this is not important.
Chris 20:36 on 2025-06-19 Permalink
Here’s a good read: The Climate Art Vandals Are Embarrassing – The Atlantic.
SMD 22:18 on 2025-06-19 Permalink
Here’s a good contrarian read on the same topic: So Long Just Stop Oil, and Thanks for All the Soup – Art Review.
maggie rose 22:47 on 2025-06-19 Permalink
It’s complicated, isn’t it, climate change? The CTV article quotes a member saying they are asking for a climate disaster protection agency, to help folk after disaster strikes. A fuller reading of their request is to fund this agency by taxing the super-rich and “as well as fossil fuel executives and bank CEOs, who are profiting from the climate crisis.”
https://www.lastgenerationcanada.ca/press-releases/57493981-2000-4f6b-9948-622cc6625577 (press release on the Picasso action today)
Just Stop Oil, international and using similar actions, ended its street campaign in 2025, but continues its resistance in the courts and prisons. I doubt their campaigning is over. Some results, so far:
This is the prize of our work. 4.4 billion barrels of oil, that under the current [UK] government, will remain untapped.
4.4 billion barrels stored safely underground.
In terms of our campaign, that’s over 1.3 million barrels of oil per arrest.
It’s 24 million barrels of oil per imprisonment.
https://juststopoil.org/2024/12/16/4-4-billion-barrels-stopped/
Just for balance (i.e. The Atlantic article or “…it does not look cool”)
https://wagingnonviolence.org/2023/12/the-method-behind-just-stop-oil-annoying-madness/
I mean, srsly, did the powerful ever concede anything without a demand? And I don’t mean asking nicely.
Joey 00:16 on 2025-06-20 Permalink
In the midst of a global fascist revival, it seems absurd to spend time and energy arguing that earnest climate activists aren’t protesting correctly, no?
su 08:11 on 2025-06-20 Permalink
These astroturf activist groups are having exactly the effect on the global growth cartel’s ecocidal system for which they are being sponsored.
Tim S. 08:18 on 2025-06-20 Permalink
@ Joey – if there’s one thing we know, it’s that voters often choose fascists over annoying protesters. I was watching the Netflix doc on Vietnam, and it was sobering to realize that the result of assassinations and protests was the election of Richard Nixon. So no, I don’t currently have a better suggestion, but it’s a very valid topic.
Chris 08:36 on 2025-06-20 Permalink
>Here’s a good contrarian read on the same topic
Interesting read, thanks for sharing. I don’t find his arguments very strong though. All his examples like “Think of the downfall of Saddam Hussein and you think of his statue being toppled […]” All those examples are people protesting against people or symbols *of the problem*. Art houses are not the problem. The object of their protest is the wrong one (as described in the Atlantic article). At least the people blocking traffic are targeting part of the problem (car culture).
>I mean, srsly, did the powerful ever concede anything without a demand?
Of course not! But it does not follow that any random protest is therefore effective.
>it seems absurd to spend time and energy arguing that earnest climate activists aren’t protesting correctly, no?
If their antics do more harm than good, then absolutely it makes sense to criticism them. (Of course we don’t know for certain either way if their antics help or hurt, but there’s a strong case.) Human psychology being what it is, the backlash against their antics could set us back.
walkerp 10:22 on 2025-06-20 Permalink
Would you prefer that they blow up oil refineries? Because those kinds of actions will be the next steps.
Attacking a work of art is exposing the contradiction of the comfort of our lives in the developed countries that allow us to appreciate fine art while not having to change any of our behaviours that are actively harming less privileged communities and destroying our planet.
Meezly 11:17 on 2025-06-20 Permalink
Clearly the stunt was successful if it sparked this discussion…?
The prairie wildfires started raging earlier than expected in May because the winter was unusually dry. People keep losing their homes to fire, floods and extreme weather events around the world. A Swiss village that was established since the 14th c. was completely buried by a collapsed glacier a few weeks ago.
I’m just glad someone’s doing something, anything, even if it seems irrational, to remind us how much destruction we’re continuing to inflict on our planet, how little we’re doing to mitigate this, our warped sense of priorities, of our impending doom and the unholy relationship between Art and Big Oil.