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.”

  • PugJesus@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.

    • TheFriar@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      8 months ago

      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)?

      • Waraugh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        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.

      • DragonTypeWyvern
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Well they didn’t need to bother protecting the portrait because it wasn’t culturally relevant and no one would particularly care if it was accidentally damaged or aged.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      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

      • PugJesus@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        Mood. I’m a curmudgeon and was looking forward at shaking my cane at some vandals, but here they are putting thought into things.