Oil protesters throw soup on the glass protecting Van Gogh's Sunflowers painting

Tomous wrote:They're not protesting because they're bored

I wasn't being serious when i said that.

Knoyleo wrote:

Vermilion wrote:Must be annoying though for those who travelled a long way to visit the museum in the hope of seeing the painting.

Because it's normally a totally pleasant and unspoiled viewing experience otherwise.

strawberry float art museums.

The angle in that article is quite deliberately obscure, but it's quite obviously behind at least an inch of bulletproof glass.

There is zero downside to this protest besides the usual people crawling out of the woodwork to herald the basically indestructible cultural persistence of one out of literally countless pieces of art, versus the reality of what is happening that will render all of it utterly meaningless.

I speak as a fan, if Da Vinci weren't furnished with numerous patronages in his ability to navigate the aristocracy of the time, the mona lisa would be rolled up somewhere or hanging in some random person's house, or in a bin. And no, it's has comparatively little to do with whether the painting is actually good or not. It's history.

Museums display history.

What kind of soup was it?

I bet it wasn't sustainable soup!

Stop wasting food you hypocrites.

Green Gecko wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

Vermilion wrote:Must be annoying though for those who travelled a long way to visit the museum in the hope of seeing the painting.

Because it's normally a totally pleasant and unspoiled viewing experience otherwise.

strawberry float art museums.

The angle in that article is quite deliberately obscure, but it's quite obviously behind at least an inch of bulletproof glass.

There is zero downside to this protest besides the usual people crawling out of the woodwork to herald the basically indestructible cultural persistence of one out of literally countless pieces of art, versus the reality of what is happening that will render all of it utterly meaningless.

I suppose they have their reasons for putting thick glass in front of the painting, like if someone throws soup on it.

Victor Mildew wrote:What kind of soup was it?

Maybe Gazpacho? Served warm of course.

Victor Mildew wrote:What kind of soup was it?

Dunno, but the Mona Lisa is behind won ton of glass.

Vermilion wrote:

Victor Mildew wrote:What kind of soup was it?

Maybe Gazpacho? Served warm of course.

I never ate at the captain's table again.

Moggy wrote:

Victor Mildew wrote:What kind of soup was it?

Dunno, but the Mona Lisa is behind won ton of glass.

strawberry float sake

Only ever been to one art museum (Picasso museum in Barcelona) and it was pretty much that picture.

Really hated it. Not even the funny looking dogs he painted at the end made up for it.

speedboatchase wrote:

Green Gecko wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

Vermilion wrote:Must be annoying though for those who travelled a long way to visit the museum in the hope of seeing the painting.

Because it's normally a totally pleasant and unspoiled viewing experience otherwise.

strawberry float art museums.

The angle in that article is quite deliberately obscure, but it's quite obviously behind at least an inch of bulletproof glass.

There is zero downside to this protest besides the usual people crawling out of the woodwork to herald the basically indestructible cultural persistence of one out of literally countless pieces of art, versus the reality of what is happening that will render all of it utterly meaningless.

I suppose they have their reasons for putting thick glass in front of the painting, like if someone throws soup on it.

I think it more likely they are worried about someone walking off with it tbh. Which is essentially how a lot of art ended up where it is, and yet it must remain exactly where it is, because reasons.

The art market at that level goes somewhat beyond cultural asset and more into tax evasion & money laundering.

Green Gecko wrote:

speedboatchase wrote:

Green Gecko wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

Vermilion wrote:Must be annoying though for those who travelled a long way to visit the museum in the hope of seeing the painting.

Because it's normally a totally pleasant and unspoiled viewing experience otherwise.

strawberry float art museums.

The angle in that article is quite deliberately obscure, but it's quite obviously behind at least an inch of bulletproof glass.

There is zero downside to this protest besides the usual people crawling out of the woodwork to herald the basically indestructible cultural persistence of one out of literally countless pieces of art, versus the reality of what is happening that will render all of it utterly meaningless.

I suppose they have their reasons for putting thick glass in front of the painting, like if someone throws soup on it.

I think it more likely they are worried about someone walking off with it tbh. Which is essentially how a lot of art ended up where it is, and yet it must remain exactly where it is, because reasons.

The art market at that level goes somewhat beyond cultural asset and more into tax evasion & money laundering.

It's been a popular work of art to attack since the '50s.

1956: Doused in acid

The first attack on the Mona Lisa occurred while she was on display in Montauban in the south of France for an exhibition. A vandal threw acid at the painting, hitting its lower portions. While it sounds pretty intense, it’s unclear whether this resulted in any damage that had to be repaired.

December 30, 1956: Smashed with a rock

In the last days of 1956, Mona Lisa faced her second attack. A homeless Bolivian man named Ugo Unzaga Villegas threw a rock at the masterpiece, chipping some paint off of her elbow — allegedly because he wanted to go to prison so he’d have somewhere warm to sleep, sadly.
The damage to the painting was later repaired, leaving Mona Lisa intact once more — and henceforth she was protected by glass casing.

https://harpersbazaar.com.au/mona-lisa- ... incidents/

That's interesting. It is somewhat unusual for anything like a painting to be encased like that, although putting it behind glass obviously isn't, especially for older paintings subject to various damage from different light sources and atmospherics.

If a piece of art ages, it ages, in my opinion, but many successful art restorers will existentially disagree. It's a bit mesmerising to me to consider how many and what kind of resources are expended in preserving some artwork exactly as it is, forever. Whereas plenty of artists would be indifferent or even happy with just letting it rot. After all, they're usually working on something else.

I wouldn't be surprised if the actual Mona Lisa was safely locked up in a deep salt mine vault somewhere, with a replica put up on display instead.

Preezy wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if the actual Mona Lisa was safely locked up in a deep salt mine vault somewhere, with a replica put up on display instead.

It's more likely sitting pretty in some billionaire's mansion

Preezy wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if the actual Mona Lisa was safely locked up in a deep salt mine vault somewhere, with a replica put up on display instead.

It's because they are too scared to display the original version.

Tomous wrote:

Preezy wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if the actual Mona Lisa was safely locked up in a deep salt mine vault somewhere, with a replica put up on display instead.

It's more likely sitting pretty in some billionaire's mansion

Saudi’s Crown Prince keeps Salvador Mundi, the most expensive painting ever sold and a disputed Da Vinci, on his boat. A boat!

It’s a cliche to point it out but Musée d'Orsay shats on the Louvre from a great height. I could walk right up to Starry Starry Night (it was on loan) or Van Gogh’s Self-Portrait. It felt like there should’ve been some kind of barrier from sneezing at the very least. Magical stuff.

twitter.com/wesstreeting/status/1773007084801380701

Moggy wrote:

Green Gecko wrote:

speedboatchase wrote:

Green Gecko wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

Vermilion wrote:Must be annoying though for those who travelled a long way to visit the museum in the hope of seeing the painting.

Because it's normally a totally pleasant and unspoiled viewing experience otherwise.

strawberry float art museums.

The angle in that article is quite deliberately obscure, but it's quite obviously behind at least an inch of bulletproof glass.

There is zero downside to this protest besides the usual people crawling out of the woodwork to herald the basically indestructible cultural persistence of one out of literally countless pieces of art, versus the reality of what is happening that will render all of it utterly meaningless.

I suppose they have their reasons for putting thick glass in front of the painting, like if someone throws soup on it.

I think it more likely they are worried about someone walking off with it tbh. Which is essentially how a lot of art ended up where it is, and yet it must remain exactly where it is, because reasons.

The art market at that level goes somewhat beyond cultural asset and more into tax evasion & money laundering.

It's been a popular work of art to attack since the '50s.

1956: Doused in acid

The first attack on the Mona Lisa occurred while she was on display in Montauban in the south of France for an exhibition. A vandal threw acid at the painting, hitting its lower portions. While it sounds pretty intense, it’s unclear whether this resulted in any damage that had to be repaired.

December 30, 1956: Smashed with a rock

In the last days of 1956, Mona Lisa faced her second attack. A homeless Bolivian man named Ugo Unzaga Villegas threw a rock at the masterpiece, chipping some paint off of her elbow — allegedly because he wanted to go to prison so he’d have somewhere warm to sleep, sadly.
The damage to the painting was later repaired, leaving Mona Lisa intact once more — and henceforth she was protected by glass casing.

https://harpersbazaar.com.au/mona-lisa- ... incidents/

Was Neil Buchanan in the Italian version also?

kazanova_Frankenstein wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Green Gecko wrote:

speedboatchase wrote:

Green Gecko wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

Vermilion wrote:Must be annoying though for those who travelled a long way to visit the museum in the hope of seeing the painting.

Because it's normally a totally pleasant and unspoiled viewing experience otherwise.

strawberry float art museums.

The angle in that article is quite deliberately obscure, but it's quite obviously behind at least an inch of bulletproof glass.

There is zero downside to this protest besides the usual people crawling out of the woodwork to herald the basically indestructible cultural persistence of one out of literally countless pieces of art, versus the reality of what is happening that will render all of it utterly meaningless.

I suppose they have their reasons for putting thick glass in front of the painting, like if someone throws soup on it.

I think it more likely they are worried about someone walking off with it tbh. Which is essentially how a lot of art ended up where it is, and yet it must remain exactly where it is, because reasons.

The art market at that level goes somewhat beyond cultural asset and more into tax evasion & money laundering.

It's been a popular work of art to attack since the '50s.

1956: Doused in acid

The first attack on the Mona Lisa occurred while she was on display in Montauban in the south of France for an exhibition. A vandal threw acid at the painting, hitting its lower portions. While it sounds pretty intense, it’s unclear whether this resulted in any damage that had to be repaired.

December 30, 1956: Smashed with a rock

In the last days of 1956, Mona Lisa faced her second attack. A homeless Bolivian man named Ugo Unzaga Villegas threw a rock at the masterpiece, chipping some paint off of her elbow — allegedly because he wanted to go to prison so he’d have somewhere warm to sleep, sadly.
The damage to the painting was later repaired, leaving Mona Lisa intact once more — and henceforth she was protected by glass casing.

https://harpersbazaar.com.au/mona-lisa- ... incidents/

Was Neil Buchanan in the Italian version also?