Splash more soup on Van Gogh's Sunflowers?

[ernestm]

Here's your chance to say exactly what you think of climate change activists splashing soup on rare artwork:

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-63254878

First thing, it wasn't damaged. However, although the BBC article is correct in other respects, the National Gallery does not put glass over its paintings, it had a protective layer of clear acrylic varnish so the varnish could be washed off without damaging the oil. It appears the varnish did its job and did not need to be removed or replaced.

The second thing, most people don't know that there are five surviving Van Gogh sunflowers. The four on public display are actually early studies for the fifth, which was renowned for decades as the most expensive painting ever. I was graced to see it in the 1960s before it vanished into its private collection, and it was incredible--the palette strokes were inches thick, making it three-dimensional. Most people assume Van Gogh painted it only once and have heard about its huge value so they assume, as the protestors probably did, that it was the attacked painting. That is to say, it is a rare painting but not irreplaceable, in fact, Van Gogh already replaced it with a much better version himself. Even so, it is definitely still rare, and it's rather a shame all five surviving sunflowers will never be viewed together, at least in our lifetimes.

[Mercury]

There's no such thing as a climate change activist. They're all anti-capitalists and misanthropes. Every single one of them. A genuine climate change activist would demand the application of Magma Energy technology - proven viable by NASA from 1975-1982, capable of supplying virtually limitless quantities of clean energy - massively more than sufficient to meet global energy demand carbon free, plus desalinate sea water to irrigate land for agriculture and habitation, recycle all waste, and extract carbon from the atmosphere - thus providing for a sustainable future.
Instead, they want us to sit in the cold and dark eating bugs; while they form a dictatorial green government that hates human beings, and considers their very existence a blight on mother nature - as justification to impose sustainable levels of poverty forever after. Also, apparently, they hate art!

[Mercury]

* the above should read: "thus providing for a prosperous sustainable future."

[LuckyR]

Here's your chance to say exactly what you think of climate change activists splashing soup on rare artwork:

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-63254878

First thing, it wasn't damaged. However, although the BBC article is correct in other respects, the National Gallery does not put glass over its paintings, it had a protective layer of clear acrylic varnish so the varnish could be washed off without damaging the oil. It appears the varnish did its job and did not need to be removed or replaced.

The second thing, most people don't know that there are five surviving Van Gogh sunflowers. The four on public display are actually early studies for the fifth, which was renowned for decades as the most expensive painting ever. I was graced to see it in the 1960s before it vanished into its private collection, and it was incredible--the palette strokes were inches thick, making it three-dimensional. Most people assume Van Gogh painted it only once and have heard about its huge value so they assume, as the protestors probably did, that it was the attacked painting. That is to say, it is a rare painting but not irreplaceable, in fact, Van Gogh already replaced it with a much better version himself. Even so, it is definitely still rare, and it's rather a shame all five surviving sunflowers will never be viewed together, at least in our lifetimes.

Okay. I don't support activists splashing soup on artwork, just as I don't support them gluing their hands to Ferraris and spray painting them.

All this sort of thing accomplishes is the article you cited and this thread. Which just marginalize the real issue of the climate crisis.

[ernestm]

There's no such thing as a climate change activist. They're all anti-capitalists and misanthropes. Every single one of them. A genuine climate change activist would demand the application of Magma Energy technology - proven viable by NASA from 1975-1982, capable of supplying virtually limitless quantities of clean energy - massively more than sufficient to meet global energy demand carbon free, plus desalinate sea water to irrigate land for agriculture and habitation, recycle all waste, and extract carbon from the atmosphere - thus providing for a sustainable future.
Instead, they want us to sit in the cold and dark eating bugs; while they form a dictatorial green government that hates human beings, and considers their very existence a blight on mother nature - as justification to impose sustainable levels of poverty forever after. Also, apparently, they hate art!

Well I know what you're saying, lol, and I'd slip quite a few brain-damaged or drugged-up anarchists into your misanthrope category, although I wouldn't make it such a blanket statement, I really do know what you are saying, I could cite bucket lists of names.

But to be fair, in this case they were saying to stop oil, so these two at least HALF agree with you.

On magma, I remember the geothermal research from back then, if that's what you're referring to. What I remember hearing is that it seemed promising when they measured temperature differentials on some test drillings and people got very excited about it for a while. But when they tried pumping heat transfer agents down and back up again, they had problems with losing too much heat while the liquids were traveling back up to the surface, and the end conclusion, as I remember, is that they couldnt get enough heat to the surface to run a turbine, it could only provide some warming, That was dropped as not very cost effective. But that was a very long time ago. Perhaps things have improved since then?

[Mercury]

There's no such thing as a climate change activist. They're all anti-capitalists and misanthropes. Every single one of them. A genuine climate change activist would demand the application of Magma Energy technology - proven viable by NASA from 1975-1982, capable of supplying virtually limitless quantities of clean energy - massively more than sufficient to meet global energy demand carbon free, plus desalinate sea water to irrigate land for agriculture and habitation, recycle all waste, and extract carbon from the atmosphere - thus providing for a sustainable future.
Instead, they want us to sit in the cold and dark eating bugs; while they form a dictatorial green government that hates human beings, and considers their very existence a blight on mother nature - as justification to impose sustainable levels of poverty forever after. Also, apparently, they hate art!

Well I know what you're saying, lol, and I'd slip quite a few brain-damaged or drugged-up anarchists into your misanthrope category, although I wouldn't make it such a blanket statement, I really do know what you are saying, I could cite bucket lists of names.

But to be fair, in this case they were saying to stop oil, so these two at least HALF agree with you.

On magma, I remember the geothermal research from back then, if that's what you're referring to. What I remember hearing is that it seemed promising when they measured temperature differentials on some test drillings and people got very excited about it for a while. But when they tried pumping heat transfer agents down and back up again, they had problems with losing too much heat while the liquids were traveling back up to the surface, and the end conclusion, as I remember, is that they couldnt get enough heat to the surface to run a turbine, it could only provide some warming, That was dropped as not very cost effective. But that was a very long time ago. Perhaps things have improved since then?

I'm inclined to the view the project was suppressed precisely because it could provide limitless clean energy. It would change everything. Given the depth of the climate and ecological hole we're in, it would probably take 200-300 years, but eventually, with limitless clean energy to spend capitalism would overcome itself. Limiting the energy available - or at least the price of energy is necessary to maintaining scarcity. Worse case scenario, prices of magma energy could be set artificially high to maintain scarcity; but in any case there are worse problems the future could be faced with. The sky could be on fire!

I cannot speak to the veracity of your recollections - nor indeed to the validity of the information you vaguely recall, but I have cited three NASA reports on another thread (link below) that say magma energy is entirely feasible. NASA were looking to draw energy directly from molten rock; not via the medium of an underground body of hot water. Most current, working hydro-geothermal systems draw energy from underground bodies of hot water; and already produce considerable amounts of energy in the US, New Zealand, Iceland - and other places around the world; those being the top three - in order, surprisingly!
Magma energy is massively more powerful; because the temperatures are far higher, and the source does not have a replacement rate issue. Hydro-thermal wells can become depleted - it may take years for the water to heat up again - this is the replacement rate; and perhaps this was what you heard about. Magma energy doesn't have this problem.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=18284

[ernestm]

Ah, well i didn't know about finding water next to magma. Thats very interesting. Here's what google shows me on it

https://www.science.org/content/article ... %20surface.

Somebody threw mashed potatoes at a Monet now.

[Mercury]

Ah, well i didn't know about finding water next to magma. Thats very interesting. Here's what google shows me on it

https://www.science.org/content/article ... %20surface.

Somebody threw mashed potatoes at a Monet now.

It's actually a viral ad campaign for Heinz!
They throw soup at the painting and a guy runs over and starts licking it clean.
Strap line reads:
"You don't have to be mad to love Heinz, but sometimes it helps!"

Iceland Deep Drilling Project. I don't want to come across as a conspiracy theorist, but it's very strange, despite huge advances in drilling technology over the past 40 years, suddenly, magma energy is really, really difficult. Particularly when NASA demonstrated experimentally that this technology was practical 40 years ago. The method of injecting water into the ground - like they have done in Iceland, is the worst possible approach. It causes earthquakes as the liquid expands underground in a completely uncontrolled fashion. It's not what anyone serious about developing this source of energy would do.

Your article states:

"The idea of tapping the energy of magma came from a pair of accidents."

No, it didn't. NASA ran a major research program entitled 'The Magma Energy Project' from 1975-1982. They're pretending like the deep drilling project unexpectedly came upon unusually high temperatures, and they thought: "Hey, I've got a mad idea." What did they expect to find down there? Mashed potato? It's ********.

Developing this technology correctly, you'd drill many holes - straight down; line the holes, and then fit a closed loop system; cold water in the down pipe - hot water in the up pipe, passing through a heat exchanger at the bottom. It's not that complicated. Imagine a volcano crossed with a pin cushion. There's 450 volcanoes in the Pacific Ring of Fire - and approximately 1500 worldwide.

The real difficulties are political - not practical.

[ernestm]

I really don't know anything about that, but Im 62, I can hardly find someone to answer the phone in the doctor's office. At my age Im just ignored in the USA on political issues, I just gave up on it. So...mashed potatoes huh.

Such awful aesthetic appreciation.
Mashed potato belongs on Andy Warhol.
Monet deserves at least an oyster bisque.
Have these people no artistic taste at all?

[Belindi]

If the climate is destroyed it will be permanent for the duration of humanity and most other life forms.

If every lovely work of art is destroyed including each and every evidence of high culture, men will create anew. But not if men are either dead or struggling to breath air and drink water.

[Pattern-chaser]

There's no such thing as a climate change activist. They're all anti-capitalists and misanthropes. Every single one of them. Instead, they want us to sit in the cold and dark eating bugs; while they form a dictatorial green government that hates human beings, and considers their very existence a blight on mother nature - as justification to impose sustainable levels of poverty forever after. Also, apparently, they hate art!

This is a list of straw man attacks, nothing more.

[Mercury]

There's no such thing as a climate change activist. They're all anti-capitalists and misanthropes. Every single one of them. Instead, they want us to sit in the cold and dark eating bugs; while they form a dictatorial green government that hates human beings, and considers their very existence a blight on mother nature - as justification to impose sustainable levels of poverty forever after. Also, apparently, they hate art!

This is a list of straw man attacks, nothing more.

You're right. However, these are no mere raggedy moppets that would fail to scare a crow, but carefully crafted straw men - accurate representations of the real life consequences of following in the course of an anti-capitalist approach to sustainability, based on the false assumption of 'Limits to Growth' - and it's not much better than dying of climate change. Thus I charge them, with the charge their position lays them open to - that they are anti-capitalists and misanthropes - to make the point that there is a better way: an approach that affords a prosperous sustainable future.

[ernestm]

There's no such thing as a climate change activist. They're all anti-capitalists and misanthropes. Every single one of them. Instead, they want us to sit in the cold and dark eating bugs; while they form a dictatorial green government that hates human beings, and considers their very existence a blight on mother nature - as justification to impose sustainable levels of poverty forever after. Also, apparently, they hate art!

This is a list of straw man attacks, nothing more.

You're right. However, these are no mere raggedy moppets that would fail to scare a crow, but carefully crafted straw men - accurate representations of the real life consequences of following in the course of an anti-capitalist approach to sustainability, based on the false assumption of 'Limits to Growth' - and it's not much better than dying of climate change. Thus I charge them, with the charge their position lays them open to - that they are anti-capitalists and misanthropes - to make the point that there is a better way: an approach that affords a prosperous sustainable future.

Well again I appreciate your sentiment, and had any significant damage been done, I would share your condemnation. And your criticism is correct.

I've been foillowing the debate on salmon farming in Canada for some time, and there is a documentary 'salmon confidential' in which the activists hover in boats around open-net river farms complaining they aren't allowed in to test the farmed fish for viruses. I had to think the salmon farmers have very good reason to think the activists would deliberately contaminate the farm with some lethal virus that is killing the wild salmon population in order to get it closed down. I could talk quite alot about that, but the point is, activists have created an anatagonistic situation that is not helpful, however much one agrees with their concerns.

I had expected to hear from some anarchists on this, I used to be on philsophyforum.com and anarchists have rather taken over there, and they got me banned for expressing such sentiments. I did think about it quite a bit and I try to express my point of view in a properly tempered way, or really I am guilty of the same extremism I criticize.

[Sy Borg]

There are ever more extremists on both the left and the right. Is it overpopulation or social media algorithms, or both?

We have certainly seen the kind of violent and corrupt stupidity that the far right can manage, with multiple shooting, not to mention their murders, assaults and vandalism at the Capitol. Now we see the stupidity of the far left, whose vandalism likewise is indefensible.

Each group of extremists does nothing but undermine their cause, making people reflexively hostile to them, as seen on this thread. All it does is induce hatred and completely fails to highlight our serious environmental issues. If anything, it distracts.

Lock 'em up.

[ernestm]

There are ever more extremists on both the left and the right. Is it overpopulation or social media algorithms, or both?

We have certainly seen the kind of violent and corrupt stupidity that the far right can manage, with multiple shooting, not to mention their murders, assaults and vandalism at the Capitol. Now we see the stupidity of the far left, whose vandalism likewise is indefensible.

Each group of extremists does nothing but undermine their cause, making people reflexively hostile to them, as seen on this thread. All it does is induce hatred and completely fails to highlight our serious environmental issues. If anything, it distracts.

Lock 'em up.

Well I totaly agree about the extremists on both left and right, but I attribute it to a different cause.

When Jefferson defined natural rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, he was drawing on Locke's Essay on Human Understanding, chapter 21, which says, (1) Human free will should not terminate human life, in order that a benign God may judge us in the best way possible in the afterlife; (2) liberty is necessary not just to enable choice of pleasures, but choice between good and evil, and (3) pursuit of happiness enables some to act for the greater good, which creates a proactive and progressive society.

In the last century, rights have become solely about personal material advancement. This inevitably results in an enormous amount of conflict in a capitolist system, and due to the USA's predominantly two-party system, the conflicts have all turned into purely partisan debates, as each party chooses its battle lines to procure greater support, extremists on any issue are enlisted as allies.

Personally I have been rather shocked how many have spoken in defense of environmental extremists just because it supports their position. The way things are progessing, a great work of art is about to be destroyed because of it. It's tragic.