Two years ago, on October 14th 2022, two climate activists entered the National Gallery in London and threw the contents of a can of soup across the painting Sunflowers (1889) by Vincent Van Gogh.
The image of the two activists, Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland, with their hands glued to the wall next to the artwork, became one of the most hotly debated moments in the art world that year – and with similar protests continuing around the world in the years since, the debate has not stopped. And, with the recent conviction of Plummer and Holland, arguments over the motivations and effectiveness of these forms of protests are louder than ever.
Shock Value
The easy answer to why protestors target famous artworks is the reactions they receive. Art elicits an emotional response, and an artwork famous enough to be recognised in a museum will hold important meaning for many. Targeting these artworks is a guaranteed way to get a lot of attention, and fast.
If you are a protestor, then this is the gold standard; the point of a protest is to draw attention to your cause, and the images of these world-famous artworks splattered with food or paint are certainly seared into the memories of anyone who sees them.
The emotive intention is to contrast the response of the public – shock and outrage – with the response to the climate crisis. It has been argued that the protests might help channel an appropriate anger and energy into working on climate issues. However, individual reactions to the protests seem to be in line with the level of commitment that each person already felt to the climate cause.
Widening the Gap
In terms of the effectiveness of the protests, the choice to target artworks can seem questionable. While the protestors can bank on making the evening news, it is hard to judge whether they are changing hearts and minds by their actions.
In many ways, it seems as though the people who would already be inclined to agree with the protestors’ cause will make arguments in favour of their actions, while those who disagree will say that the actions are misguided and reckless. There appears to be very little middle ground, and these dramatic protests run the risk of alienating those whose minds they apparently seek to change.
Is the Art Safe?
Those with a firm stance against the actions of the protestors will naturally cite the importance of protecting the artworks from attack, so they can continue to be enjoyed by all. On a practical
level, however, it is important to note the level of protection given to the artworks already. Museum artworks are protected by special non-reflective glass which is barely visible to the viewer, but keeps the artwork safe from dust, humidity – and, apparently, soup.
The activists targeting the artworks are fully aware that the artworks themselves will not be damaged by their actions. In this case, the act of protest is surely more about the reaction from the public than any action taken against the artwork. This makes sense, as the content of the artworks, interestingly, do not seem to represent what is being protested.
Historical Precedent
There are many examples of protestors destroying or damaging property that directly represents the issue being protested. In think pieces published about the recent art-focused protests, many have mentioned the infamous moment in 1974 that Tony Shafrazi spray painted the words “Kill Lies All” across Picasso’s Guernica in protest of the pardoning of a US officer who had been on trial for a massacre in the Vietnam war. However, Guernica is an artwork about the horror of wartime atrocities – and while Shafrazi’s choice to target it is something widely debated, the link to the protest itself is clear. By contrast, “Sunflowers” or “Girl with a Pearl Earring” are not easily associated with pollution or the climate crisis, beyond a link to the ideas of wealth and power.
However, there is a long history of targeting artworks in a general way, as part of a wider protest. The actions of the climate activists seem more in line with the protests of the Suffragettes, although the Votes For Women activists didn’t hesitate to actually damage the paintings that they targeted, slashing canvases at public galleries to attract attention for their cause.
Hitting Where it Hurts
It is impossible to ignore the role that money plays in these protests. The artworks are not just targeted because they hold cultural value, but because they are worth such vast sums.
In terms of the protests themselves, the logic is clear. If the elite care more about valuable artwork than the causes highlighted by the protestors, then targeting the artworks will get their attention. However, it remains to be seen whether there is anything to be done with the attention, once it has been caught.
Where do we go from here?
The actions of the climate activists speak to the desperation they feel. If they see the artworks as important targets, then they obviously understand the importance of the art, and perhaps have their own emotional connection with these pieces of history.
However, a dramatic action intended to cause a dramatic reaction leaves little room for nuance. And, while the activists would probably argue that the time for nuance has passed, it cannot be denied that it is in the grey areas of connection that hearts and minds are changed.
Art is, after all, intended to connect. Each of the paintings that has been used in the demonstrations was intended by the artist to speak to their audience. Protest is a form of communication – a shout, perhaps, loud and unnerving, that causes others to shout back. But if there is anything to be gained from these events, it would have to be by turning these shouts into a conversation.
To keep up with more headlines and stories from the art world, make sure to subscribe to the EzelDotz newsletter and follow our social media for updates.
