Mona Lisa paint throwers signal what’s wrong with civilization

To the editor: I have felt for some time that a driving force in the fracturing of our society is that too many of us have ascribed to the once-abhorrent view that the ends justify the means.

I was therefore disappointed to read USC environmental studies professor Shannon Gibson’s op-ed article that attempts to justify attacks on historically important art in the name of advancing climate change goals.

Those who embrace an “ends” perspective should bear in mind that it has often been misused throughout history to justify radical actions by those who are prepared to do great harm in the name of their own “righteous” cause.

The events of Jan. 6, 2021, are a recent example that comes to mind, but there are sadly many others.

Russ Swartz, Granada Hills

..

To the editor: Leonardo da Vinci’s painting of the “Mona Lisa” has been behind bulletproof glass since the 1950s, when someone actually tried to destroy it. The recent attack — throwing soup at bulletproof glass — was meant for attention, not to damage the painting.

Leonardo da Vinci was a scientist and an engineer. If he were alive today, he would recognize the urgent need to deal with climate change. Indeed, he’d probably be working on solutions.

He might well appreciate the publicity generated by the people throwing soup at his painting.

Ann Rushton, Sherman Oaks

..

To the editor: Gibson suggests that “research into social movements shows there is strategy behind disruptive antics” such as throwing food at famous art exhibits to get the activists’ point across when they feel the world isn’t moving in the right direction. In this case, they were climate-change activists.

Maybe the civil rights, women’s rights and LGBTQ+ rights movements would have achieved their goals sooner if, along with marches and demonstrations, they had also thrown food or paint on art exhibits.

Can you imagine what Martin Luther King Jr. would have thought about this? What silliness.

Phil Hyman, Van Nuys

To the editor: I have felt for some time that a driving force in the fracturing of our society is that too many of us have ascribed to the once-abhorrent view that the ends justify the means.

I was therefore disappointed to read USC environmental studies professor Shannon Gibson’s op-ed article that attempts to justify attacks on historically important art in the name of advancing climate change goals.

Those who embrace an “ends” perspective should bear in mind that it has often been misused throughout history to justify radical actions by those who are prepared to do great harm in the name of their own “righteous” cause.

The events of Jan. 6, 2021, are a recent example that comes to mind, but there are sadly many others.

Russ Swartz, Granada Hills

..

To the editor: Leonardo da Vinci’s painting of the “Mona Lisa” has been behind bulletproof glass since the 1950s, when someone actually tried to destroy it. The recent attack — throwing soup at bulletproof glass — was meant for attention, not to damage the painting.

Leonardo da Vinci was a scientist and an engineer. If he were alive today, he would recognize the urgent need to deal with climate change. Indeed, he’d probably be working on solutions.

He might well appreciate the publicity generated by the people throwing soup at his painting.

Ann Rushton, Sherman Oaks

..

To the editor: Gibson suggests that “research into social movements shows there is strategy behind disruptive antics” such as throwing food at famous art exhibits to get the activists’ point across when they feel the world isn’t moving in the right direction. In this case, they were climate-change activists.

Maybe the civil rights, women’s rights and LGBTQ+ rights movements would have achieved their goals sooner if, along with marches and demonstrations, they had also thrown food or paint on art exhibits.

Can you imagine what Martin Luther King Jr. would have thought about this? What silliness.

Phil Hyman, Van Nuys