On Friday afternoon, the National Gallery in London became the latest centerpiece for climate activism, as three members of the group Just Stop Oil threw tomato soup over two of Vincent van Gogh's iconic Sunflowers paintings from 1888 and 1889. This act of protest unfolded just one hour after fellow activists Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland received prison sentences for similar actions last year.
The spirited trio entered the gallery at around 2:30 PM, making their way directly to Van Gogh's celebrated works, both of which were protected by glass. This deliberate act was clearly calculated, echoing the prior soup-throwing event by Plummer and Holland, which had drawn public ire and discussion.
“Future generations will regard these prisoners of conscience to be on the right side of history,” Phil Green, one of the protestors, addressed bystanders at the gallery. His remarks capture the sentiment among many who believe drastic actions are necessary to wake the public and politicians up to the climate crisis.
The timing of this protest was telling. Only moments prior, Plummer, aged 23, had been handed down two years’ imprisonment for inflicting £10,000 worth of damage to the 1888 Sunflowers frame. Co-defendant Anna Holland received 20 months for the same charge, showing the judiciary's strict take on vandalism when artists' masterpieces are involved.
Judge Christopher Hehir, presiding over the case, pulled no punches as he delivered the sentences, asserting, “You two simply had no right to do what you did to Sunflowers, and your arrogance deserves the strongest condemnation.” Such statements reflect the serious tone of the legal system when artwork, often seen as the pinnacle of culture, is put at risk.
Plummer's and Holland's actions last year drew significant attention as they not only threw soup but then glued themselves to the wall below the painting, making their protest not just about the soup but about the broader, urgent message on climate action.
The judge’s comments also underscored the gravity of their actions: “You came within the thickness of a pane of glass of irreparably damaging or even destroying this priceless treasure.” The harm caused was weighed against the potential for even greater damage had the soup seeped behind the protective glass.
The gallery staff acted quickly when the incident occurred last year, swiftly removing the painting to assess its condition. Fortunately for art lovers, Van Gogh's masterpieces remain, albeit with scrutiny surrounding how these protests might impact cultural artifacts moving forward.
Plummer found herself expressing the sentiment held by many climate activists during her sentencing, citing historical figures like Emmeline Pankhurst, Mahatma Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela as inspirations who faced criticism for their justice pursuits. “I made those choices because I believe non-violent civil resistance is the best tool we have to protect life,” she asserted, encapsulating the ethos of her generation's urgent response to climate change.
Reflecting on her sentencing, she remarked, “I don’t intend to go on about how my life might be easier without prison. I accept whatever sentences I receive, knowing I’m fighting for countless innocent lives.” This resolve shows how conviction blends deeply with desperation amid rising temperatures and increasing climate catastrophes.
Since the initial protest last year, public opinion around these activists has been sharply divided. Some perceive them as misguided youth lashing out, others view them as champions of the most pressing issue facing our planet today: the climate emergency fueled by fossil fuels. Critics often mention the damage to cultural treasures as unacceptable, pointing out the potential to alienate the very public they aim to sway.
During the protest on Friday, Simpson, another activist involved, echoed this sentiment, asking, “When will the fossil fuel executives and the politicians they’ve bought be held accountable for the criminal damage they impose on every living thing?” This question encapsulates the rising frustration among climate advocates over the perceived indifference to environmental destruction by those wielding power.
Earlier this year, Plummer had been involved with other protests as well, which contributed to her earlier sentencing. These actions culminate not just from personal ideology but represent the mounting urgency within activist communities as climate-related disasters worsen globally.
Despite commonly held beliefs around vandalism and climate protests, the authors of these actions often brace for repercussions, much like Plummer and Holland. The legal system's approach serves as both deterrent and spotlight on the wider issues at stake, continuously challenging activists to weigh the costs of their protests.
Pundits and spectators alike can only speculate on how often artwork may become collateral damage for activism. The debate raises questions on how society values culture against the pressing issues of environmental sustainability — are art and tradition worth more than future existence?
With Fridays protest marking yet another event in the sequence of increasingly bold actions by Just Stop Oil, the conversation is sure to continue as the climate crisis persists. Each action evokes fresh responses from the public, as tension mounts both within activist circles and the legal framework aimed at curbing what authorities see as destructive behavior.
