Die smiling.
The targeting of works of art in public museums by the radical fringe must stop. Listen to reason. You damage your own cause by your actions. You draw attention to your issue but, what we want to know is, what does the targeted work of art have to do with your cause?
"What did he mean by that," we ask; "what did the Mona Lisa do to you?" Retaliation for perceived wrongs—even if against the law—is, at least, rational. As it is, your suit is forgotten, as everyone looks to the well-being of the Mona Lisa. Your bid for fame and glory is like the assassin's failed attempt on the emperor. He sits more securely for your trouble.
As of today, the name of the person escorted away by Louvre security guards for vandalizing the Mona Lisa in May, 2022, remains undisclosed. Anonymous. Was it a publicity stunt? But, to whose advantage? One might be excused for being suspicious. Nobody seems to know anything. Look the other way.
In the latest news, Louvre director Laurence des Cars suggested the Mona Lisa be relocated to its own room constructed in the museum’s basement. Build a bunker for it. Viewers will provide identification at the entrance, pass through a metal detector, and exit after 90 seconds.
The onslaught of visitors to the Louvre to see the masterpiece has finally overwhelmed resources, pleaded Louvre director des Cars. His plea, nonetheless, fell on deaf ears. As a line item of the proposed €500 million Louvre renovation, President Emmanuel Macron demurred, faced with a spending limit of €25 billion in the next annual budget.
We are concerned about the fate of our hero, the vandal, that is. If he is free, why has he not revealed his identity? He was “reported” to have been taken to a psychiatric institution. Which? The rumor, being hearsay, proves nothing. Photographs and video of the event abound. And, yet, nobody knows him?
Everything about the appearance of the attacker of the Mona Lisa bespeaks a callow, self-indulgent, rebel-without-a-cause, from the un-seasonal neck scarf worn for flair, to the “fake” neck-length wig. He's a poser. He cannot be mistaken for one of the underclass, an “oriental,” for instance, an Algerian.
His shouted motive was reported to be concern for “the Earth.” Like his undisclosed identity, the silence of environmental groups—neither for, nor against—is inexplicable. Not a trace left behind. No manifesto. Not so much as a X/Twitter handle. It's the perfect crime. Poof! He's gone.
And, after all, no damage was done. It is almost as if nothing happened. The anarchist's “bomb” was nothing but a tarte à la crème. It was instantly wiped from the masterpiece's bullet-proof glass by museum staff (as if in cue). The crowd loved it. The incident was uploaded to social media, from several points-of-view, within minutes to a publicity-hungry world.
Was he an artist? His smearing technique showed taste, if I may offer my own opinion. It so happens that I know an artist who deals with food “issues” (read: eating disorders) in her art. Real food is used as medium. The paintings are impermanent. The gallery floor must be mopped after show's end. They have a powerful effect, a visceral effect, so to speak.
What I am getting at, is that I hope the perpetrator who defaced the Mona Lisa (whoever he is) had fun. My title refers to this motive. Direct action, in the radical, political sense, has been trivialized to the point of popular amusement, a publicity stunt, a classic Happening, almost cliché. Listen; not even a murmur of money changing hands. Tell me why.