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.”

  • ninjan@lemmy.mildgrim.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Probably the only type of destruction of art as protest I condone. The piece:

    1. Is not very old or culturally/historically important
    2. Directly depicts someone at the root of this conflict
    3. 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.

    • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.

      • avater@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        so vandalism is in fact violence if you rely on the object? Like your car, your house, your bike…

        • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          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.