Examples include Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion here in the UK.
Personally, I think some charities are groups are genuine in their outburst wanting large firms to stop strangling the natural beauty for profit, however for me there is a red line that can be crossed.
Blocking roads preventing medical care, people going to work, interview and possibly a nice vacation away. This doesn’t really help but make the public look at your group in a bad light.
The same can also be said when attempting to destroy priceless art for a cheap publicity stunt knowing it’ll get clicks on social media.
TLDR - I think some groups are genuinely good whilst others are just shouting in a speakerphone, pissing everyone else off.
What do YOU think?
But you just learned no art was vandalized. That might change your opinion.
No art was damaged because the protective meassure in place to protect against vandalism, worked. It’s still vandalism.
You basically just went from “This didn’t happen” to “It’s not vandalism” to “It shouldn’t be considered vandalism”. I don’t think I’m the one that should consider changing their opinion here.
Your original statement was
From the links you supplied, in two of the three cases (Stonehenge and Flowers) no damage was done. In the case of Stonehenge, the protestors chose a marker that wouldn’t damage the monument. For Flowers, I’d assume they knew about the glass. But that’s me giving them credit.
For the third (Warhol’s soup), damage was done but remediated.
The protestors are being unfairly accused of fucking up art without justification. Others have used that to dismiss the protests and the cause, which is bullshit.
The protestors have a good cause, they’re getting people to (at least) talk about climate change, and they’re taking the punishment for their actions.