Vandalizing art distracts from climate activism

A new protesting fad for activists has quite literally hit a wall. In the past year, climate change activists have been vandalizing prominent pieces of art with various types of food. Museums in London, Germany, Potsdam, and The Hague have been primary targets for attacks, subjected to mashed potatoes and cans of tomatoes alike in protest. Paintings such as, The Girl With a Pearl Earring, Sunflowers, and Les Mueles have specifically been subjected to such acts.

Protesters from organizations like Just Stop Oil and Letzte Generation have turned to vandalism in an effort to address the growing issue of climate change. Activists are struggling to illustrate the weight of climate instability — or at least in a way that encourages the required major changes that would combat the issue — so they instead turn to art to make their statements. One activist, Phoebe

Plummer, has posed a thought-provoking question: “What is worth more: art or life?”

There is no clear answer to this question. The gravity of the climate movement is hard to visualize as the effects are intangible, at least in the short term.

But the visuals of an irreplaceable piece of culture being defaced is one that sticks in the minds of art patrons. This initial impact deemed the activists movement as inflammatory, more likely to upset the public than gain their approval and support.

Suffice to say, the initial shock-value of the vandalism did not translate into climate activism. The patrons, instead, turned their charity towards the defaced artwork. This ultimately detracted from the concern about climate instability as individuals turned their attention to the artwork. The very perception of the situation as inflammatory, coupled with peoples’ lack of support to understand the activists’ point displayed how unwilling people are to face the dangers of climate change, and more importantly, change in order to help better the issue.

Activists are hoping to get the public to be just as concerned about climate change as they are marred artworks. “The cost of living crisis is part of the cost of the oil crisis, fuel is unaffordable to millions of cold, hungry families. They can not even afford to heat a tin of soup.” Plummer said. Cans of soup have since been used to signify the discrepancy between the elitist crowds of art patrons and the ones who are truly impacted by the climate crisis.

Climate instability has escalated in the past decade, and, upon further inspection, the intentionality behind these acts of vandalism reveals the thought the activists have put into the movements following these degradations. The paintings that have been targeted are indicative of one common theme: a vision for middle-class prosperity from the 19th and 20th centuries

With a growing middle class came a robust factory system which sparked the creation of destructive coal-fired power plants. The so-called victims of vandalism were created in an age that promoted a harmful revolution. Paintings that have been recently vandalized stem from the time when pernicious machines that hurt the earth were the visionary. Climate activists have defaced artwork that embodies destructive innovations.

As time has progressed and the vandalism has continued, climate change organizations have effectively sparked conversation about Earth’s current climate state. These attacks have made people question their priorities and reflect upon their actions in regard to their treatment of the planet and environment Although lobbing cans of tomato soup may not seem like a strong political statement, it captures exactly what the climate activists are advocating for.

The vision of soup cascading below work of art is ingrained in the minds of non-activists, while the greater danger posed by climate change may not be as impactful on the audience. That is precisely why climate activists have chosen artwork; not to make society choose, but to make it consider its perspective and evaluate what is more important: a painting from a century ago or the Earth.