Protesters who threw soup on Vincent van Gogh’s iconic painting, Sunflowers, are now facing jail time, igniting significant debate over the intersection of art and activism. The two members of the climate advocacy group Just Stop Oil, Phoebe Plummer, 23, and Anna Holland, 22, were sentenced today at Southwark Crown Court.
This high-profile case, which centers around their protest at the National Gallery last October, saw the activists throw Heinz tomato soup onto the protected masterpiece, provoking uproar not just about the act itself, but about the broader issues of climate change activism and the right to protest.
Plummer received a two-year prison sentence, whereas Holland was handed 20 months behind bars. The court concluded these sentences were necessary after determining the act went beyond acceptable forms of protest and could be regarded as criminal damage.
The Sunflowers painting, created by Van Gogh in 1888 and valued up to £72.5 million, was shielded by protective glass. Nevertheless, prosecutors argued the soup had the potential to cause damage to the painting’s wooden frame. They estimated the potential harm to the frame could cost around £10,000, leading to the activists' conviction.
Yet, not everyone is on board with this punitive approach. An open letter supporting Plummer and Holland surfaced yesterday, signed by over 100 artists, musicians, and academics, claiming the act should be viewed as art itself. They argued, “These activists should not receive custodial sentences for an act connects entirely to the artistic canon.” The authors characterized the soup-splashing as reminiscent of Jackson Pollock-style art, describing it as “a sight to behold.”
This notion of art as activism isn't entirely new. Throughout history, acts of iconoclasm and artistic destruction have sparked conversations within both the art world and society at large. The letter drew parallels to instances like Robert Rauschenberg's erasure of Willem de Kooning's drawing, which has since been appreciated as part of art history. Today’s climate crisis, the letter’s authors contend, positions the protests as acts enriching the narrative surrounding the Sunflowers, not diminishing it.
The trial revealed how these activists viewed their actions. Plummer asserted their intent was to raise awareness about environmental issues, not to damage art. During the trial, they emphasized their belief the glass casing would protect the artwork, expressing regret over the incident yet standing firmly behind their cause.
The court has become the stage for passionate discussions about the responsibilities of conservation versus the urgency of climate activism, with Judge Christopher Hehir warning the duo of the reality of their potential sentences long before their conviction. “You must prepare for practical and emotional terms to go to prison,” he cautioned.
Further complicate this narrative is the evolution of the legal systems’ response to public protests. Just months ago, five other JSO activists were sentenced to significant prison terms for planning non-violent disruptions along the M25, marking what many are labeling as some of the longest sentences handed down for non-violent protest actions within the U.K.
The aftermath of the court’s ruling has already seen additional protests. Just hours after the sentencing, Just Stop Oil activists targeted the same painting again, throwing soup over two versions of Sunflowers on display at the National Gallery. This follow-up incident underscored the activists’ determination to keep their message alive.
Plummer, who opted to represent herself during the court proceedings, articulated the discrepancy between legal definitions and morality. “Sometimes morality is different from the law,” she remarked, reflecting on the broader societal implications of their protest.
This incident continues to spark heated conversations about the boundaries of artistic expression, environmentalism, and protest rights, leaving many to wonder how society balances these complex interactions. Will acts of civil disobedience find acceptance, or will they be met with increasing legal repercussions?
