> Dwyer claims Granger’s act was akin to slashing someone’s tires to protest the oil industry.

Granger's protest was properly executed as you slash the tires of the oil trucks and oil execs - you strike the people peddling what you are protesting. So of course Dwyer is trying to downplay the significance.

“No, I didn't know about the exhibit before that day. And then I saw the Al piece and it was just—as an artist myself, it was insulting to see something of such little effort alongside all these beautiful pieces in the gallery. It shouldn't be acceptable for this "art," if you will, to be put alongside these real great pieces.”

What an impulsive fellow.

Really goes to say something about starving artists

Finally, a proper example of direct action.

Slightly tangential:

> He initially wanted to press charges because Granger’s act “violates the sanctity of the gallery,” but changed his mind

> Left: Graham Granger after his arraignment outside the court building

I was beginning to think "pressing charges" was a myth (popularised by TV shows like Law & Order) and this article didn't exactly change my mind about that.

Do US state attorneys actually give two shits about what the victim wants? Is it someone's job to read an email inbox and systematically approve/reject citizens' pressed charges? Do they even pretend to?

A performance artist criticizing an AI artist for low effort. Hmm