Three individuals targeted National Gallery paintings an hour after Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland were jailed for similar attack in 2022
Climate activists have thrown tomato soup over two Sunflowers paintings by Vincent van Gogh, just an hour after two others were jailed for a similar protest action in 2022.
Three supporters of Just Stop Oil walked into the National Gallery in London, where an exhibition of Van Gogh’s collected works is on display, at 2.30pm on Friday afternoon, and threw Heinz soup over Sunflowers 1889 and Sunflowers 1888.
The latter was the same work targeted by Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland in 2022. That pair are now among 25 supporters of Just Stop Oil in jail for climate protests.
While I think this was a stupid way to go about risking jail time for a noble cause, I would like to remind everybody here of what everybody in the 60s thought about MLK and his peaceful protests:
There never has nor will there ever be such a thing as “the right way to protest.” The right way to protest means out of sight where it can be conveniently ignored.
What you’re really saying is that no effective protest will ever be welcomed as acceptable.
But the way you say it, that there will never be a right way, begs another question: just because legitimate protests will be called wrong, does that mean that all protests are right?
I don’t think so. This is a random act of destruction. I personally find it disgusting to compare this to MLK’s mass demonstrations.
My argument is not “if a protest is uncomfortable, then it is effective”.
It is “how can you in the same comment say ‘this is a stupid way to go about risking jail for a noble cause’ and ‘there never has nor will there ever be such a thing as “the right way to protest”’?”.
Well. If you’re going to bring out that argument regardless of how stupid, destructive, and ineffective the protest is, then I’m afraid your argument turns into that first one.
I’m going to go shit down the throat of a golden retriever in front of the White House to protest oil. Are you going to block and tackle for me, reminding my critics that effective protests are always uncomfortable? I’m just probing to see if you will just automatically say that or if you are evaluating the situation before saying it.
Sorry, I wasn’t aware that animal abuse is on the same level of inanity as throwing soup at a painting. You’re being insanely disingenuous.
I agree except that potential damage to historical pieces makes me extremely upset.
I would prefer they ACTUALLY riot to that.
… and, in fact, that would probably be much more effective.
They tried protesting at oil infrastructure, they stopped multiple oil terminals in the UK being used for weeks and caused shortages in various parts of the UK. Hundreds went to prison and everyone forgot about it after a week.
They throw soup at glass, 2 people go to a police station for a few days and people are still talking about it months later.
Unfortunately, they have to exist within the constraints of modern news media, outrage cycles and social media, and that influences their decisions.
So if throwing paint at a entierly replaceable cover for a dusty old painting is too far gone to be acceptable, what action can we take to stop oil production? Like. It needs to stop. To continue producing fossil fuels is a death cult. It needs to stop, like, a decade ago. I ask genuinely, how is this too far, and what is an acceptable response to an existential threat?
edit: On the off chance someone reads this so long after the post, I just want to point out that nobody actually engaged with my question here.
It’s weird that there are people in this thread that think defacing the protective barrier of a painting is too far, but advocating for harming or killing oil industry executives is not because the painting didn’t do anything to cause our climate emergency. By that argument, defacing a building with grafitti can’t work, blocking traffic would put more pollution in the air, blowing up a pipeline would kill innocent people and animals.
Nothing is good enough for them except the status quo. They’d rather a museum burned down in a riot than plexiglass get covered in soup because riots are okay (but once that happens, the pearls will be clutched again.)
So if throwing paint at a entierly replaceable cover for a dusty old painting is too far gone to be acceptable, what action can we take to stop oil production?
God, I wish someone could actually trace the train of events that would lead to reduced oil production from this other than some bizarre notion that throwing soup at a priceless artifact of human heritage will Energize The Masses™ or suddenly convince people who think climate change is a hoax or overblown that it’s actually a serious problem.
Imagine if these activists spent more time going after companies benefiting from fossil fuel production rather than throwing soup in museums…
Then they wouldn’t get their five minutes of fame, though. And even worse, they couldn’t even claim their five minutes of fame was some self-righteous moment that they should be lionized for. A fate worse than death, basically.
I see shit like this and I think about people like Erin Brockovich and Karen Silkwood…
Sounds a lot like boring work that has no grand trumpets or asspats at the end of the rainbow, or that requires specialized skills and education. Can’t we just draw some attention to ourselves, cry out “Climate change!” and call it a day?
Nah - let’s just feel superior by whining about people doing something to defer the apocalypse - both stunts to draw attention, and shutting down oil pipelines directly.
They’ve done that too, and have encountered media blackouts.
As nice as it would be if they could simply fix the climate problem with the disruption a handful of protests cause, they can’t, and need to draw public attention to the problem.
These demonstrations open up the conversation in threads like this - you agree there’s a problem, you agree these protests don’t fix the problem, so let’s talk about what will.
Seems to me that it would be pretty difficult to encounter a media blackout to do this sort of thing at, for example, global climate summits, oil company shareholder meetings, etc.
But I’m not seeing much soup being thrown there.
In Germany, protestors repeatedly shut oil pipelines off and locked themselves to the valves to prevent their reopening, blocking oil flow for several hours every time. I consume a lot of news, both mainstream and in my leftist bubble. That story barely registered anywhere.
The exact same protestors threw mashed potatoes at a Van Gogh. They were the main headline for over a week.
Hell, some guy set himself on fire a few years ago and it was in the news for half a day.
The media blackout is real, but it’s not a huge conspiracy. It’s just that the media reports on what gets them clicks, and nothing generates clicks like outrage. That’s why so much reporting also conveniently forgets to mention that the paintings are protected by plexiglass and nothing ever got damaged. But all the controversy gets people talking, and some people will inevitably question what drives people to do something like that. That is the real objective. If they wanted to be popular, they’d to greenwashed recycling videos on YouTube instead, or whatever else is hip with the neoliberal peddlers of personal responsibility at the moment.
And how will this get corporations to stop drilling for and selling and taking advantage of fossil fuels? How do you get from throwing soup to that?
You stop the problem from being buried under the fact that everyone is struggling to get by, or distracted by whatever the fuck the likes of the Kardashians are up to. You bring it to the forefront and prompt conversations like these - conversations where someone might realise that to stay the course on this one is to roll down the road to the apocalypse, and maybe they’d like to do something about that.
By ‘media blackout’ they mean ‘it was a blip on the radar like this is, but this is NOW and thus relevant and important’
The people who talk about ‘media blackouts’ also seem to forget that everyone has an internet-connected video camera in their pockets.
What are you even trying to say here? That any bastard with a camera and something to show will magically be seen, or that everyone with a smartphone is going to be aware of everything that affects them? Because neither of those things is remotely close to the way the world works.
You were aware of the JSO protesters shutting down the oil pipeline? If and that’s a big “if” so, do you think the average schmuck is? No. But chances are that they’re aware of the stunts like the soup.
I feel like we’re kind of entering an era where direct action and ecology-motivated terrorism are going to start becoming a thing. And I’m honestly not sure that would be a bad thing.
Assuming there’s no collateral damage to speak of, I’d argue it would be an act of self-defence for the benefit of all of us. In principle, I’d struggle to find reason to be upset by it.
There will be collateral damage. There always is. The idea there wouldn’t be collateral damage is already setting the bar higher than is feasible.
I don’t think that’s true at all, but if it is, it becomes a question of whether that damage is outweighed by the benefit of the action.
let’s talk about what will.
Stop throwing soup.
We’re at the point where idiots throwing soup are called sing more environmental damage than backwoods yahoos rolling coal. Shall we protest soup abuse? Because that’s more likely to help the environment
People throwing soup to protest climate change are doing more environmental damage than people burning fossil fuels in the dirtiest way possible because that’s their gender identity or whateverthefuck? You’ll need to explain that one for me, champ.
Then they would be in cages already.
I brought up Karen Silkwood and Erin Brockovich elsewhere. They were not put in cages. They were just willing to do some very hard work rather than just stunts.
Then we wouldn’t be talking about stopping oil production right now.
We’ve literally been talking about it for decades. An Inconvenient Truth won the Oscar in 2006. What has talking about it accomplished?
That’s not my point. Everytime they deface something, we start talking again about stopping oil production. Sure we talk about it without that push too. But this means we start talking about it more.
When has talking about ending reliance on fossil fuels ever stopped? I don’t remember it stopping.
Most people are aware that the Earth is warming and fossil fuels are the cause. There’s nothing you or I can do about that. It’s the corporations that have to be stopped. I can’t stop them. You can’t stop them. Talking about them won’t stop them and neither will throwing cans of soup.
In fact, I have no idea what will stop them, but talking sure as fuck won’t.
Instead of intentionally pissing people off at climate protesters, put effort towards educating people on the myriad of ways we actually subsidize fossil fuels and the corrupt relationships that keep that going, so people instead get pissed off at the fossil fuel industry, lobbyists, and corrupt politicians.
Of course some people do work on this already, Climate Town being a good example. We should be talking about those efforts instead of these.
“We do not need allies more devoted to order than to justice,” Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote in the spring of 1964, refusing calls from moderate Black and White leaders to condemn a planned highway “stall-in” to highlight systemic racism in New York City. “I hear a lot of talk these days about our direct action talk alienating former friends,” he added. “I would rather feel they are bringing to the surface latent prejudices that are already there. If our direct action programs alienate our friends … they never were really our friends.”
“What’s blocking traffic have to do with racism? All it does is make people mad at black people!”
History rhymes.
What’s your plan to keep society functioning with the immediate end of fossil fuels?
Kinda dumb of you to assume the only option to stop oil is an immediate cessation of all usage
Kinda dumb to call for the end of fossil fuels a decade ago.
Why?
We don’t have a means to replace energy needs today and we were even further away a decade ago.
You don’t think maybe we would be closer to having that means of energy production now if we started 50 years ago when we noticed the impacts of climate change?
Youre assuming climate activists have the MORONIC idea of just transitioning to shit tech, instead of the idea of investing in making tech that can replace oil usage
I don’t assume all climate activists have the moronic opnion that we need to transition to shit tech, just the ones who say we need to be off fissile fuels a decade ago.
And we never will if we don’t start making progress on it, it’ll always be unfeasible because the powers that be don’t start making changes unless it’s doable within one election cycle. Just Stop Oil isn’t asking for immediate stopping of oil, just moving the deadline to 2030, which means there’s a few years to realistically invest in other forms of energy generation like nuclear, green energy, and other ways.
The OP wanted a complete stop of production of fossil fuels a decade ago. That is a completely different statement than we need to curb fossil fuel use.
Why does it have to be an immediate end and not a phase out? Right now, we’re not even phasing out.
Pretty uncharitable interpretation of something posted by someone who I would guess you have a common goal with.
People that give a fuck about “priceless art” or whatever are so silly. Lmao.
I’m not saying to not continue posting articles like this, but I do think that maybe your time would be better spent arguing with people who don’t believe in climate change instead of arguing with people who do believe in climate change.
People that give a fuck about “priceless art” or whatever are so silly. Lmao.
Yeah, who gives a shit about the cultural history of humanity, am I right? After destroying paintings, maybe the can go after other things of cultural significance! Bulldoze the Great Serpent Mound! Blow up Angkor Wat! Carve rude words into the Elgin Marbles!
There is no art on a dead planet.
Got it. Cut up the Martin Luther King, Jr. memorial into usable stone for building material.
While we’re at it, let’s also do it to the Holocaust memorial in Berlin. That’s a lot of useful stone blocks.
No art on a dead planet, am I right?
If we’re all dead, the memorials are for all of us anyway.
🌍 > 🖼️
That sort of comment could be used to justify an unbelievable amount of vandalism and terror and is just not productive
We should value the Earth more than art. If vandalism of paintings bothers people more than the destruction of the Earth then they should reexamine their priorities. No to mention, the vandalism of the art is imagined, the painting is undamaged, but the damage to the planet is real. On top of that, if we do nothing to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions then the damage to the planet will continue to worsen.
There is no reason to compare the earth and art given that destroying art does not in any way benefit earth.
Well destroying the Earth does not in anyway benefit art, either, but we’re still doing that one.
You created your own argument here though, right? I can be an advocate for any of one million serious problems that our societies have. Should everyone go destroy art galleries? Housing crisis = art destruction? Unliveable minimal wage = art destruction? Car centric societies = art destruction? Local store increased prices = art destruction? You have to agree that at a certain point this becomes indistinguishable from vandalism.
At what level then is this threshold? Or do you propose a hierarchy of ideas, which are suitable to protest in an art gallery, versus those that aren’t?
Should everyone go destroy art galleries? Housing crisis = art destruction?
Do you not agree? Over half a million homeless are without homes. People are dying, and the homeless are largely being dehumanized or ignored. There is a very real human cost far beyond a piece of art or the barrier protecting it.
If you’re looking for objective quantifiable criteria on right vs wrong, you’ll never find it. Morality often falls into a grey area involving tradeoffs, but bringing attention to a societal issue with huge human costs just for splashing soup on a plastic barrier seems pretty effective to me.
Well I agree with the problem, but I don’t believe attacking art galleries is a solut. Why not spray paint a real estate firm?
Condering that the art is unharmed, and they glue themselves to the gallery waiting for the police while explaining what their goals are so that passersby film them to spread the message, I’d say that they are, frankly, pretty distinguishable from vandals, or do you know of other vandals that do that?
The gallery still has to be closed, has to dedicate cleaners, invest into security measures etc. Vandalism can be as simple as spitting on the street. But that’s not my point, in general.
My point is why mess with a place what has nothing to do with climate change, and not mess with places that absolutely do have something to do with it?
Just Stop Oil activists throw soup at
Van Gogh’s Sunflowersplastic sheet after fellow protesters jailedI dunno why these newspapers constantly print these phony headlines… Oh wait. It’s the clickbait and propaganda obviously.
Is this a joke? They literally threw soup at the painting, but the painting was protected. And you’re calling this click bait and propaganda? I’ve seen some pretty ridiculous whining about click bait, but this might now take the top spot.
So imagine in retort of a joke your friend makes you lightly backslap them in the chest or something, these headlines would report it as you punching your friend. Is that accurate? It doesn’t really paint an accurate picture does it?
No. But I don’t believe this is even remotely an accurate analogy.
Let me try this way. If it’s no different than throwing soup against a plastic sheet…why didn’t they just hang up a plastic sheet in their home and do it there?
The whole point of this act was to target a famous painting to draw attention. They even say this was their intent.
You literally have to ignore what they said, abandon all reason, and undermine their goal in the process to hold the position that the more accurate description is to say they were just throwing soup at a sheet of plastic.
Just Stop Oil has to be the most destructive and idiotic activist group I’ve ever heard of (besides Greenpeace and their anti-nuclear agenda). They make activism as a whole look bad with their pointless stunts.
What does Vincent van Gogh have to do with the current state of the petrol industry? What does any classical artist have to do with the current state of the petrol industry? Why go out of one’s way to try and ruin something that isn’t even remotely related to the subject? They’re only making themselves look like a bad joke.
Doesnt help they’re total assholes either; a few years ago they blocked a motorway in England in protest. Fair enough. But there was a family who’s baby had to be rushed to the nearest hospital, and they weren’t allowed to pass! Seriously, fuck them.
pointless stunts.
Well, we’re talking about it. I also understand (which doesn’t mean I support) their message without even looking it up. I’m glad someone else clarified it (cf “There is no art on a dead planet.”) proving that it’s really not that hard.
Who cares about the most beautiful piece of art ever if there is nobody left to enjoy it because we are literally burning up the only livable ecosystem we know?
And destroying that art so that if we do end up fixing it and living we still can’t have it isn’t a good look, imo.
It was behind glass. A janitor had to take some Windex to it. The horror!
Ah well that’s good, at least they didn’t destroy anything then.
They never do. It’s always these outrageous headlines, but they never actually harm anything.
“Just Stop Oil HORRIFICALLY DEFACES STONEHENGE!”
No, actually they put gentle water washable biodegradable paint on it. It disappeared after the first light mist.
We’re talking about their pointless stunt, not about climate change. They’re adding absolutely nothing.
Just like art, it is up to the viewer to decide what conversation they want to have. Neither an artist or a protestor can force viewers to have a singular interpretation.
Evidence suggests that disruptive protests actually help, rather than hinder organisations like JSO:
It’s all about raising awareness and facilitating discussions.
Meanwhile petrol companies are doing everything they can to smother protests: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/26/anti-protest-laws-fossil-fuel-lobby
Consider who gains the most from perpetuating the idea that JSO are the bad guys…
only 30% thought disruptive tactics were effective for issues with high awareness but low support
Nicely cherry-picked.
69% of experts thought that disruptive tactics were effective for issues (like climate change) that have high public awareness and support. For issues with high awareness but low support (like anti-vaccination), only 30% thought disruptive tactics were effective.
Lucky JSO are about the former, not the latter.
If they have such high public support why doesn’t the public vote accordingly?
The majority of people see climate action as a priority:
The reason not everyone is voting accordingly is because political motivation is complex. There’s more things pressing for people’s attention like being able to feed, cloth and home themselves. That’s why addressing societal issues like poverty, inequality etc are part of addressing climate change. We need to free up people’s bandwidth to allow them to concentrate on issues like the climate.
No shit people are for fighting climate change in the abstract. But we’re not living in an abstract world, we are living in an actual one. One, where needs and desires compete. And consistently, other desires take priority over fighting climate change. There obviously isn’t as much support for actually combating climate change in the real world, with real consequences for real humans as you people assume.
Actually people are voting for climate action, enough to potentially have swung results in America:
And we see the same in Europe:
And wider:
But as those same articles highlight voting for climate action is a complex topic. Our economic system often makes the worst option the cheapest and easiest, and green policies, done badly, can sometimes end up penalising those who can least afford it which is why climate change is also an inequalities issue:
These are all things which can only be addressed at a governmental level. People are voting in parties because of their Green credentials but it’s down to the incumbent to act on those promises once elected. Unfortunately organisations such as oil companies have a lot of lobbying power which can dull or redirect green policy. It’s up to the public to ensure that this doesn’t happen by making sure climate change remains in the spotlight, thus making it hard for the government to ignore. Which is what groups like JSO are doing, and why the petrochemical companies are so determine to undermine them.
To everyone in this thread who has nothing but insults for these activists, what are you doing against climate breakdown? Besides sitting on your couch, insulting people who are actually trying to make a difference, facing jail time?
You are the kind of people who would’ve called the Suffragettes names and said they’re hurting the cause, as well.
I don’t own a car. Most of what I do is done via bicycle, with the occasional public transport on the side. I don’t buy a new piece of tech whenever it comes out, or throw tech out unless it’s well and truly broken. I don’t participate in one-day fashion, usually wearing all my clothes till they’re threadbare.
But these are all consumer side things. They don’t do shit. It’s a wonderful corporate ploy to say that climate change is somehow in our hands. But throwing soup at great art sure as fuck isn’t going to suddenly change that.
You still heat your house, maybe even cool it down. You still work, probably for some organisation that pollutes a lot.
And you said it yourself. Consuming less at an individual level doesn’t do shit. Activism does. They’re the ones forcing climate change to be on the agenda.
Compared to what they’ve accomplished by getting some plexiglass wet, it seems like sitting on my couch has accomplished the same. Maybe more by staying home, unless they rode bikes or walked to do the deed.
Definitely more. You haven’t pissed a bunch of people off that are on your side on this issue.
If some soup on plexiglass can convince you to let the planet burn, you were never on the side of progress.
This right here. For shame on anyone who genuinely thinks they’re on the right side of history, whining about soup on a Plexiglas barrier.
Anything that targets art is on the wrong side of history.
Old paintings are valuable because people bought into it. Like nfts or crypto. They don’t worth anything. Old people’s baggage. Quit carrying it.
These pro-acrylic protests are getting out of hand!
Pro-acrylic or anti-ear mutilation?
Well, they are oil paintings sooo…
Yeah, but they were painted by a guy who cut off his ear, so maybe this is the Coalition of Two-Eared Painters.
-
It was covered by glass, unclutch your fucking pearls already.
-
Van Gogh is my favorite painter, and I would still rather have a habitable planet for future generations than have Sunflowers. If you’re more mad about this than you are about what big oil and gas companies are doing, sit down and have a good hard think about where your priorities are. I do not give a shit if you “agree with their message but not their tactics” or if you “think it makes the cause look bad” or whatever other bullshit you want to spew to cover your ass right now. Ultimately, if this caused you to feel a greater sense of righteous anger than the wholesale destruction of our environment for profit does, you are part of the problem. I’d rather side with the people who are trying to make a difference, even if I don’t like how they do it, than side with the people plundering our world for personal gain.
Van Gogh died penniless, right? He’d probably be cheering. “Oh no, rich people will be slightly less able to profit off of my work?”
Rich people profiting… is that your description of what happens at an art museum? Maybe you should get off the internet and go visit one.
It’s privately owned but okay
https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2023/1/19/japanese-firm-defends-van-gogh-ownership-after-us-lawsuitNever said otherwise. All I’m saying is that when I pay my $10 and visit the art museum, I profit.
I’m willing to bet that the huge majority of those here supporting these vandals have never been inside a museum.
-
These people are utter cunts.
All this does is annoy people and potentially damage the actual art. If they threw soup at oil execs or something, at least it’d be somewhat related to their message. But attacking paintings does nothing.
If I saw that in a museum, I’d punch them in the mouth.
You are the utter cunt here yourself, with your short-sighted opinion. Can’t you see the parallel in polluting something of value? Like is being done to our planet? And those people’s grandchildren will be even more annoyed when they have hardly any food left, with weather catastrophies ruining their existence. OK, that was a bit harsh, but you catch my drift.
We know perfectly well that the art is behind glass and will not be damaged because they did it before. So it’s complete nonsense to say that it will potentially destroy the art.
Didn’t they throw it at a protective barrier, though? So zero potential of damaging the art?
Throwing soup at an oil exec is assault on a human being and would be worse, ethically, because human beings have sensory apparatuses and, presumably at least some level of emotion.
If you punched someone in the mouth because they threw soup at a protective plastic barrier in a museum, then it is you who would be the “utter cunt”.
