Victoria Spagnuolo '25
On October 14, two activists for the climate activism group Just Stop Oil walked into London’s National Gallery and threw tomato soup on one of the most admired works of art — Vincent van Gogh’s Sunflowers.
Just Stop Oil gained worldwide attention for this not-so-peaceful protest. Much of this national attention — from the public to the media, was extremely negative. With this enormous amount of negative attention, many headlines have forgotten to include Just Stop Oil’s true intention: to stop new oil licensing across Britain.
By seemingly putting this famous painting at stake, the group managed to get in the way of their own message, which hurt their cause. While yes, the group did gain national exposure, the vast majority of people did not take their form of protest seriously because of this attack on such a renowned work of art.
This protest, however, did not ruin any artwork. Sealed with glass, van Gogh’s Sunflowers survived the incident unscathed. After the event occurred, the National Gallery later announced that only the frame had been slightly damaged.
So why go for art? Why Van Gogh for that matter? What does art, more specifically van Gogh, have to do with fossil fuels or climate change? A spokeswoman for Just Stop Oil, Mel Carrington, said in an interview that the group’s aim had been to gain exposure and produce a climate crisis debate on how we need to stop it. She speaks about van Gogh’s painting as solely “an iconic painting, by an iconic painter” — having nothing to do with climate change, except serve as a way for them to gain international attention.
There can, however, be an underlying meaning in them bringing attention to what our society deems as more important. Through this potential loss of artwork — we are able to question what we would have really lost if they had damaged the painting. Yes, with its great historical and artistic value, it would cause a national grievance, but we truly wouldn’t be losing anything. As opposed to our earth, as their point goes — when it’s gone, it’s gone. Our earth is not something that is up for debate — there is only one, as there are many paintings.
So: was the protest really successful?
While this protest did have the potential to be, the group’s philosophy of attacking a globally renowned and admired treasure for their own advantage led to the downfall of the overall perception of the protest — people only saw the tomato soup and the painting, and were not receptive to the group’s tactics like they had perhaps hoped. They therefore criticized the move, and did not consider the purpose.
The complexities of the protest can cause questions of the importance of art versus life — giving people a new perception of climate change. However, people will only associate this protest and this group with the two teenagers who threw soup on a painting, with the new generation of reckless kids doing controversial things for attention.
Komentarze