In the last few years, climate protest groups, such as Just Stop Oil, Ultima Generazione and Extinction Rebellion, have damaged famous artworks to convey their argument: the government need to focus on the worsening environmental state.
However, their methods are highly controversial and raise three questions: why are they vandalising artworks? have their protests been effective? what impact does this have on museums displaying the art?
Climate protesters have targeted artwork because it attracts the attention of the public.
By throwing things like soup and paint at works of art it destroys the importance of the piece. It turns decades old art into something that can just be used for a scandal.
So, protesters damage art to maximise impact and get people talking about their cause. They create a media frenzy.
Some protesters have vandalised the art to get reactions out of people.
The protesters use reactions to their advantage; by questioning the public and making them think why they don’t care about the environment as much as the art.
In some ways, the protesting methods have been effective.
Most people know who ‘Just Stop Oil’ is from their various protests, such as throwing soup at ‘Sunflowers’ by Vincent Van Gogh and at the ‘Mona Lisa’ by Leonardo da Vinci.
These attacks have sparked discussions from many people. This benefits the protesters, whose aim is to raise awareness and to inform people of the damage to our environment.
Yet many people resent the protests. After throwing liquids at the artwork, they need to be cleaned.
This can take them off display for weeks.
People visiting museums in these weeks cannot see the artwork, creating disappointment and anger.
Protesters are actually turning people away from their cause. Why would you support someone whose methods cause such negative emotion to others?
Many museums have even created stricter policies for those who visit.
I went to The National Gallery in London last weekend to see the ‘Van Gogh: Poets and Lovers’ exhibition.
As you walk in, the new security checks – including no liquids, no aerosols, bag checks and walkthrough metal detectors – are imposed. These heightened measures were created for the safety of the public and to the artworks.
Also, the most valuable art that is on display is covered by layers of glass. This prevents observers from really seeing the art – details like brushstrokes are lost behind the bulletproof shield.
Overall, I think defacing art as a means of protest can be justified, even though it is illegal.
It gets people talking about issues that do need to be solved for the benefit of humanity, in a way that handing out flyers cannot.
However, these pieces are priceless products of the past and they tell stories that shouldn’t be ignored. Using them to protest only creates anger from the public and stops art from being enjoyed.
Do you think its justifiable?
Other Articles
No Comment! Be the first one.