November 22nd, 2022

On May 29th, 2022, at the Louvre Museum in Paris, France, a man attacked one of the most beloved and recognizable pieces of artwork in the world with cream cake. This painting was Leonardo Davinci’s most celebrated work, the Mona Lisa, which is valued at around $867 million dollars and is a household name in the world of art. Onlookers proceeded to stare and videotape the incident as the man began to shout a peculiar message: Think of the earth. Think of the earth? What does that mean? How does that relate to the Mona Lisa? These questions puzzled us, and sat at the back of our minds, forgotten with what seemed to be a once-in-a-while wild act. However, we are now forced to answer and take a closer look as we start to see an odd trend arise in climate protests.

 

Lately, we’ve begun to see situations like this become more and more popular.  However, the one that struck up this topic of debate again happened just a few weeks ago. On October 14th, 2022, at the National Gallery in London, England, two women threw a tin can of Heinz’s Tomato Soup on Vincent Van Gogh’s most famous piece called Sunflowers. It is reportedly worth $84.2 million dollars. The two women then revealed their T-Shirts with the words Just Stop Oil and proceeded to glue their hands to the wall of the painting. They shouted “What is worth more, art or life? Is it worth more than food? Worth more than justice? Are you more concerned about the protection of a painting, or the protection of our planet and people?”

 

Renowned pieces of art have become the victim of many climate protests, along with famous structures and designer stores. Famous paintings, like those created by the likes of Van Gogh, Monet and Vemeer’s have been targeted in such events. These protests have mostly been carried out by climate activism groups, such as Just Stop Oil, Extinction Rebellion, Letzte Generation, and Ultima Generazione in different countries. So why is art their latest fixation and how does this protest relate to helping our climate? 

 

It is described in the words of a man bearing a Just Stop Oil T-Shirt, as he stood with his hand glued to the protective glass of Girl With a Pearl Earring. “How do you feel when you see something beautiful and priceless being apparently destroyed before your very eyes?…That is that same feeling when you see the planet being destroyed.” Art is undoubtedly a huge cultural value in our society, and it always has been. The destruction of art has been used constantly to make bold statements throughout history, and it works because we feel a personal connection and have an deep love for these artifacts. For instance, picture your own disappointed, disturbed reaction when you first learnt that “Sunflowers” had been splashed with tomato soup. Art is one of few things that can implement such widespread, deep reaction over millions of people. These climate activists hope that by creating this shock through “ruining” things the world is attached to, they can possibly to evoke that exact emotion and reaction towards the staggering effects of climate change in the general public. 

 

Considering all this, is this even a productive protest? Well, they successfully did evoke emotion in the public – however, it may not have been the kind of emotion the organizations were hoping for. Rather than people being angry about the planet being destroyed rapidly, the majority ended up angry at the activists themselves for taking such action. Quite a few people I talked to weren’t aware the painting was actually unharmed, and even if they were, many found it disrespectful. This turned them against these climate activist groups and shunned them from listening to the real message. This is a bit unfortunate, because climate change is a very real problem, which needs all the recognition it can get. However, in their execution of these protests, they turned people away from supporting their cause. The focus was taken from the main topic of climate change to the activists groups’ disruptive methods, and I think that made it an ineffective protest. It gives off a negative impression of these organizations and it is unfair to their brand. Even though their main message is the preservation of our planet, they are now viewed as unpredictable vandalizers, and are unlikely to receive any support. Perhaps on paper this plan sounded effective, but once put in motion, it was evident that it’s aftermath wasn’t effective.

 

By Arielle Chung

Categories: Editorials