Shell Wildlife photo exhibition gets painted

I am glad people are taking intitiative to do this kind of actions. But can't we produce better quality documentation of the actions we do and the values we stand for?
Great to see someone is making the effort of grabbing a camera and filming the action. Wouldn't it have been perfectly feasible to have a short interview, a bit more explanatory non wobbly footage (even with non recognisable faces if this was an imperative)?. This video will not reach many people I'm afraid. Good action anyway.

I'm not a massive fan of any of the oil companies, and certainly not Shell, but, and here comes the unpopular bit, the Wildlife Photography competition is open to photographers of all ages all around the world. In my humble opinion, the competition itself raises awareness in the beauty of wildlife. The people who have damaged their (not Shells) pictures of life in its natural habitat have done nothing to battle the destruction of the environment. What they have done, again, in my humble opinion, is show some people with a keen interest and respect in the environment (the photographers and those who would visit the exhibition), what a mindless bunch of yobs can do in the name of a most worthy cause when they chose to hijack it and pass off their criminal activities as some sort direct action hitting hard at the heart of an environment destroying multinational.

So, if your intention was to further alienate those who could be convinced to stand up and be heard in the fight to save the environment, well done, you've excelled yourselves once again.

The black sticky stuff action was accompanied by flyers, banner and press coverage explaining that the exhibition was fantastic, the problem just being the sponsorship. No works of art were damaged (they were prints behind plastic, lit up).

I used to think this was mindless violence by people who just wanted to do some violence too, but given some time to think about this and to meet some of the people who do it, I've realised that most direct action is very very well thought out and conducted by intelligent, thoughtful people who use it as just one way of expressing their passion about things like the damage Shell does to the immediate and wider environment.

It's brilliant that the reasons for doing this get brought up by people like the previous poster because this view is really common and anyone doing direct action needs to remember that and think what can be done about it.

Thanks for pointing this out for me, I might have missed it or it had been ommitted from the reports, it does shed a different light on the whole affair.

If you want to take action against Shell (which I heartily support), the way to do it is not to vandalise works of art or educational centres.

Anyone who has been to that exhibition would know that the photographs are absolutely beautiful and inspiring. I have been to it for the last 4 years or so and there is nothing like it in London for depicting the fragility and awe of the natural world.

Yes, it is sponsored by Shell which is an amazing hypocrisy. In the past it has also been sponsored by BP. But by visiting the exhibition, people are not giving any money or support to Shell. In fact it costs Shell money.

If you want to raise awareness about the links between Shell and the environment, far better would be to leaflet people coming out of the exhibition, or leaving leaflets in dispensers inside. That way you are far more likely to get the message across and engage people in thinking about the issues. Or maybe removing / obscuring the Shell logo from the exhibition and materials would be more intelligent.

Damaging works of art and preventing people from seeing this amazing and positive exhibition is just shameful yobbishness, and you give all of us who care about the environment a bad name.

Considering the difficulty of filming this action I think this video is pretty good. It's managed to bring together some of the very limited footage available from the action plus the few stills that could be taken in the time and circumstances, and created a neat little video.

Photography and even use of mobile phones is banned from the gallery so it was difficult to film openly and once the action started it was all over within minutes and those attempting to film were obstructed by staff. However only about 6 seconds of usable footage was required as the footage and photographs were intended for mainstream news coverage.

Nobody was up for interviews to camera and with the limited footage available I didn't expect any video to be published on indymedia beyond a couple of short clips so it's great to see this. It could however have included the Real2Reel footage which does capture the actual initial act of sabotage.

Your comments state the obvious, you were not there. It's very easy to sit behind you computer and make snide comments about photopraphers and video camera people who took the time and risk to document this, which was bloody hard considering the action and the security whilst keeping the activists faces off the screen.

If you think you can do better, get a camera and do it yourself.

I look forward to the results.

...or a keener interest in money and the status quo James. fuck sake - you quote legality when the law is obviously an ass - resources particularly oil wars still continue whether legal or not. 'Theft' can be legal depennding on who is doing it. i could go on but I don't think you get the greenwash point - like the confortably misguided who think you can save the planet by shopping or havong a windturbine on your house. how long before you realise that capitalism and its'[ login are un-sustainable. ( nice of the greenwash lobby ( inc. construction, corporate etc. ) to hijack that word ).

Yep, I totally agree - we gave out 600 leaflets to people entering and leaving the museum and wished we had more....like i said, a thoughtful and intelligent action with many facets...