One might ask whether the defacement of artworks is a form of political art. While the political aspect of the actions of climate activists is obvious, the artistic value is not immediately apparent. In any case, the activists themselves do not cite artistic expression as the reason for their actions. Rather, they are interested in maximum attention, which they generate by pointing out as forcefully as possible that art will perish along with the planet ("no art on a dead planet").

It should be noted that in most cases, the works chosen for defacement were protected by a pane of glass. Damage to paintings was therefore the exception rather than the rule. These actions must therefore be distinguished from the systematic destruction of art, which can take various forms. On the one hand, destruction itself can be an artistic concept, as was the case with Banksy's shredded "Love is in the Bin" (2018) or the Swiss sculptor Bernhard Luginbühl, who regularly set his wooden constructions ablaze. On the other hand, destruction and vandalism can be directed against art that is seen as problematic or harmful and is attacked for political or religious reasons. Examples from history are well known.

Regardless of the activists' intentions, however, their actions have already been recognised by others as art or treated as such. The climate activists were included in the art magazine Monopol's list of the 100 most influential personalities in the art world. An important US art critic also saw the actions as art, albeit only as "unconvincing performance art". The Alte Nationalgalerie in Berlin, on the other hand, integrated an attack with paint into the exhibition by taking down the stained painting for restoration, but leaving the splashes of paint around the picture and adding a plaque. They then became a valued and frequently photographed work of art in their own right.

As with all forms of disruptive protest, the actions of climate activists raise the question of whether the attention generated is high enough to justify the disturbance to other people and whether all PR is indeed good PR. Many may have been disturbed by the fact that art was chosen as the object of the action, when the connection between global warming and for example oil platforms or parliament buildings seems to be much closer. Museums in their best form can precisely be a symbol of sustainability and careful handling of cultural heritage.

However, the fact that cooperation with museums would therefore be a promising way forward for climate activists must be rejected, at least from the activists' point of view. Their aim is not to steadily increase their influence on existing institutions in order to exert their influence on politics and legislation from within the system at some point. Rather, their form of civil disobedience expresses that they do not trust existing institutions to respond to global warming and that change must be more disruptive and aggressive. In view of the massive power imbalance, cooperation between climate activists and museums would also run the risk of resulting in appropriation rather than cooperation.

Whether the type of climate protest described above will survive at all is questionable. Now that attacks on art have been very rare for some time, the "Last Generation" also wants to stop its famous “gluing campaign” and instead focus on "protests at the sites of destruction and confrontation with politicians".