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.
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
About where I’m at. Normally I get immensely irritated by ‘protesters’ who go and vandalize unrelated and historically important artwork, but this isn’t particularly objectionable.
I mean, correct me if I’m wrong, but this is the first story I’ve seen of protestors actually destroying the painting itself, they’re usually splashing paint on the protective cover, not on the painting itself. I’ve never seen one where the actual art was destroyed before now. Is that what you’re talking about? Or am I missing a bunch of stories where unrelated artwork was destroyed by protestors (usually climate protesters)?
My youngest son tore up one of his brothers drawings because he had to get a bath first last night but it doesn’t seem to be reported on anywhere so I can’t fault you for not knowing about it.
I so wanted to be annoyed yet again by annoying people, but …. Huh, the artwork they destroyed is relevant to their cause, as is destroying it. I’m still not ok with destruction as a form of protest, but there’s a reasonable line of logic
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.
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.
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.
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?
Based. Take those genocidal maniacs off the wall.
Or leave it: I think it’s improved this way: a terrible man, a mediocre painting, in context with the ongoing genocide he put into motion. It invites the viewer to wonder what kind of legacy the rich folk who paid for these paintings have.
Hope they put it in the Genocide museum, not on the wall of a university as some hero
He was the one who promised the Zionist movement their own state in Palestine (which at the time was in the hands of the Ottomans).
On top of that he was a racist and antisemite.
Also don’t forget how the Brits promised to the Arabs, just a bit earlier, how they would support the funding of independent states if the Arabs were to rebel against the Ottomans.
I think a statue should be erected to him, but a tarred and feathered one.
He specifically created the problems we are dealing with in the Middle East. He figured that you could displace a group of people and let the heat stay away from Europe. Basically modern Israel was created as a terrorism target so that western powers didn’t have to deal with it. Also notable that he was a territorial governor is the area as part of the former British empire.
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.
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.
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.
This has the same energy as destroying confederate general statues. Good on them.
