Climate saver or scribbler: Pro

Three famous paintings are quickly targeted by self-proclaimed climate activists.

Climate saver or scribbler: Pro

Three famous paintings are quickly targeted by self-proclaimed climate activists. But is it legitimate to spill tomato soup on a Van Gogh painting? Does mashed potatoes on a Monet help the climate? Or is that stupid? A Pro

A pro by Kai Stoppel

Comedian Louis C.K. asks during his stage program: Why are anti-abortion protests so "shrill and frightening"? He supplies the answer: Because babies are being murdered in their eyes. "What do you expect from them? Should you say: ok, it's not cool, but I don't want to spoil their day while they murder several babies."

It is exactly the same with the painting scribblers. Many people find the protest exaggerated, annoying and inappropriate. But from the perspective of the activists, and this can be read on the website of the British campaign "Just Stop Oil", it is a matter of life and death. In their eyes, "our survival" should be secured with the - demanded by them - renunciation of fossil fuels.

So what do you expect from the activists? That they say, "Well, the survival of all mankind is at stake, but I don't want to ruin your afternoon at the museum"? Because that's really all, since the famous paintings attacked so far were protected by glass. But even if not, what would preserving a painting be compared to saving all of humanity?

Of course, you don't have to adopt everyone's perspective. But the protest would be a good reason to ask yourself: is the point of view of these shrill protesters perhaps justified? Couldn't the very survival of humanity, or at least civilization, be at stake?

Even if most of them turn away in annoyance, there is a chance that the shrill protest will already make some people think. That would be the beginning of all change, which many wish for at the same time. And hardly anyone would want to deny that more urgently needs to be done to stop climate change.

But paintings have nothing to do with climate change, right? No, but the end justifies the means in this case. Because it's all about attracting attention. It's like, you would say, the melody of my alarm clock has nothing to do with my work - that's why I don't have to get up in the morning.

A lot of people get upset about this kind of protest. And that's good. Because they get upset without first knowing why. But at some point they will ask themselves this very question. And there is legitimate hope that they will then be able to understand the activists' point of view, at least to some extent.

Even if that doesn't happen, it was worth the try. Because how little is lost through the smeared paintings - and how much is there to gain if they contribute to a rethinking. Because in the end it's (perhaps) actually about survival.

A contra from Barbara Mauersberg

For years, self-confessed car haters of the generation before last in Berlin made fun of rubbing dog shit on the windscreens of thick SUVs, which also liked to park on the sidewalk, at night and in the fog. Often the lock of the driver's door was impregnated particularly thoroughly. Disgusting? No question. effective? Absolutely. The "activists" could also control the improved parking manners on the spot. If there was no learning success, the procedure was repeated. A report of the crime in the local press was not part of the program.

With the "climate activists" of the self-proclaimed last generation, the opposite calculation seems to prevail: a lot of attention, little effect. Big noise, lack of logic. Why should an attack on museum oil paintings from pre-industrial production be an apt symbol of protest against the sluggish climate policy of western industrialized countries? Even the well-meaning observer does not understand this. Furthermore, the fact that worldwide reporting is guaranteed with minimal personal effort raises the suspicion that pompousness is the real engine.

Unknown perpetrators, whom no one would ever call "refugee activists," carried out an arson attack on accommodation for Ukrainians in Saxony on Friday night. The Saxon interior minister didn't even wait for the investigation to name and condemn the motives: "Burning houses out of hatred because you don't want fugitives near you is deeply primitive and inhuman." Corresponding reflexes on the actions of "climate activists" are less common. Why actually? Because there is good and bad property damage, depending on the objective?

However, even the reference to good goals and legitimate concerns would not save the environment. Limiting climate change doesn't need more opinions. Certainly no unintelligent know-it-all attitude. Instead: The very personal renunciation of a car and driver's license, a no to city trips by plane or restraint in the summer sales. These recipes were already known to old activists from the very beginning. In one respect, however, the "last generation" of climate art scribblers is probably right: they created pressure, pressure on the museum cleaning teams.