Just Stop Oil activists throw soup at Van Gogh’s Sunflowers after fellow protesters jailed
theguardian.com
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.
You are viewing a single comment
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?
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(tm) 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...
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.
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.
Peaceful protests have not worked, disruptive protests have been widely villified and the protestors jailed for very long sentences. If you are facing 2-3 years for holding up a banner or throwing some paint seems like criminal damage of a fossil fuel facility isn't likely to net more years. As many have said in the past governments ignore peaceful protests at their peril, because once its clear that doesn't work they become not peaceful.
If everything is illegal, nothing is illegal.
If you’re gonna get thrown in jail if you’re caught regardless, why not go for broke?
To fight another day. If every passionate soul bound themselves to another rather then fizzling out or going up flames then we could become many.
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.
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.
But no one is realizing anything but these idiots throwing soup belong in jail
The idiots aren't the ones throwing the soup - the idiots are the ones more concerned about jailing people for a mess that can be cleaned up with windex, a rag, and 5 minutes rather than jailing the people keeping us all on course for the literal apocalypse.
When has it ever been buried? When? Point out a time when climate change was not a major issue being discussed in the last 20 years. And I don't mean just for a day or two like after January 6th, 2020.
When has there ever been reporting on the subject proportionate to the threat of the literal apocalypse?
Certainly not substantially more now that soup has been thrown than before.
So there's never been proportionate reporting on the issue.
Yet here we all are - talking about the protest and the apocalypse.
As we know, these protests prompt substantially more visibility and discussion than direct action.
There was just a massive hurricane in the U.S. that killed a large number of people and is creating an ongoing disaster.
And climate change has been discussed far, far more in regards to that than any soup-throwing could hope to achieve.
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.
Yes.
Agreed.
Which helps how? Does it end the reliance on fossil fuels? The world has been aware that fossil fuel dependence is causing global warming. What can you or I do about it? Nothing. We don't control the fossil fuel companies.
This whole idea that somehow "awareness" is going to do anything about this problem after decades of people doing these sort of stunts is ludicrous.
So we rely on isolated groups quietly engaged in direct action at a scale we know for a fact is inadequate to solve the problem while calling for the arrest of people protesting the apocalypse in a manner that can be cleaned up in five minutes?
What's your solution?
How about doing the hard work?
Every time I bring up Karen Silkwood and Erin Brockovich, people get very quiet.
Hard work - got it.
...what hard work?
Do you even know who the two people I'm talking about are? That might give you a clue.
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.
Well, clearly not throwing crap at paintings. Now I want to see these guys arrested and thrown in jail.
Right? Go throw soup at Darren Woods or one of the oil execs, not at a painting
Remember when famous assholes used to get pies in the face? What happened to that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tHGmSh7f-0
I remember when people would throw animal blood on rich fucks going to gala events who were wearing fur.
Right? I admit I don't have the bravery it takes to do stuff like that, but it seems like neither does anyone else anymore.
So... that's straight up assaut. There's a good reason why they changed tactics, and it's mostly because throwing soup at a Plexiglas barrier is 100x less destructive to property than covering valuable furs with blood.
I find it absolutely mind-boggling that you all are acknowledging that protests that make people uncomfortable are what works, then coming to the conclusion "but not like this, you can't protest like this, that's ridiculous!"
Heaven forbid oil executives get assaulted with soup or pies!
I didn't say they would work. None of this sort of activism will get the world to stop using fossil fuels because that involves getting corporations to stop doing it. And no amount of throwing food at anyone or anything will solve that.
But at least throwing food at the executives will be amusing.
Then we wouldn’t be talking about stopping oil production right now.
We’re not talking about stopping oil production. We’re talking about these nutcases. And when we do get back to the important topic, now it’s harder to get support, harder to stay on topic, environmental concerns are more likely to be dismissed with jokes about throwing soup
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.
So we should just stop trying anything and do nothing?
There is a massive, massive gulf between "never try anything" and "throw soup at paintings in the hopes of making people aware of a problem they're already aware of and not just get pissed off at you."
Throwing soup in art galleries is worse than doing nothing.
Pat yourself on the back then.
Bit we're not talking about stopping oil production. We're talking about how stupid and pointless defacing art is.
FTFY.
Right, I see you must have trouble reading.
We're now talking about whatever i am talking about, which is reading comprehension, not how dumb this protest is.
Speaking from across the ocean where we’re really behind ….. I’ve seen articles about UK having days entirely powered by renewables. I see a massive transit system. I see double the EV acceptance. I see why desperado commitment to ending production of gasoline cars.
It may be way too slow but I see a shit load has changed over the years. A lot has been accomplished. Let’s try to speed this up rather than give reactionaries more ammo to delay
Right. Those all involve action, not just talk and awareness. That was my point.
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.
Imagine if all the people I disagree with did the thing I wanted...
I'm sure you've never suggested people doing something might be better off spending their time doing something else, but most people have.
I mean we all make mistakes. The important thing is we take this moment to learn something new.
For example, maybe you would be better off not being unnecessarily rude to a moderator.
Yeah, y'all have a tough enough job I suppose. Sorry if the banter went too far.
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.
Wish granted
Can I request an article or at least a transcription?
YouTube provides transcripts. It's in the discription on the website
Wow. I am behind the times. I'll look through it then.
Would you say this section is a fair summary of the justification claimed?
Also the section "jso critics" and "does it work"
"No art on a dead planet" is a braindead justification and does not in any way outline how vandalism of art is supposed to translate into climate activism, while the four criteria outlined for activism are valid but in no way provide a special justification for vandalism of cultural artifacts, which has a significantly greater backlash from the exact kind of educated people most likely to get involved in climate activism, and very little disruptive potential.
"I understand that we're pissing people off but there's no other way to get attention" and "Negative attention is good attention, because maybe it will cause people to become positively engaged with the cause" are not particularly compelling rebuttals in the critics section.
"JSO was central in setting the 2024 Labour agenda" is utterly deluded, while all the cited actions by their sister organizations in Europe are much more traditional instances of civil disobedience that have long-proven track records and a clear and logical progression of action-to-influence.
This really reinforces my view that JSO are terribly naive and have no real idea on how their actions will seriously lead to mass change of opinions on climate change.
If damaged art hurts your feelings get mad at the government killing all art on the planet and not the activists partially damaging some art.
Why not? How else should they be getting attention?
I won't disagree
Yeah I don't get the vibe from you that you'd change your view
Partially related but do you have any evidence that jso tactics has a "greater backlash from the exact kind of educated people most likely to get involved in climate activism" or is that kinda vibes based
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.)
Go fuck with the billionaires and lawmakers at their homes, offices, doctor's appointments, at the store, while they're out for coffee, etc. Fuck with the people actually causing the problem
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.
"What's blocking traffic have to do with racism? All it does is make people mad at black people!"
History rhymes.
And yet it damaged the frame, prevented people from enjoying a work of art and cost money from a museum that has nothing to do with the cause
I’m not sure it’s the acceptability that needs to be discussed here. In what way does this stop oil? The way you phrase your comment seems to presuppose that this is a useful action but some find it unacceptable. You’re skipping right over the main problem with this. Destroying art is not a useful act.
Oh, I dunno, any action that's actually related to the industry? Throwing crap at classic art as a means to bring attention to a cause completely unrelated to classic art is retarded.
What's your plan to keep society functioning with the immediate end of fossil fuels?
That wasn't my question. But if you must know, if the choice is between "maintaining the current standard of living" and "stop risking the habitability of the one place known that can support life", I choose the latter. Everytime. And it's crazy to choose the former.
But what about The Economy®™?!? We can't possibly have Apple only make 10s of billions of dollars in profit instead of 100s of billions of dollars because we made the price of goods destroying our planet more expensive!
If we start to make the cost of goods proportional to the associated environmental destruction, I won't be able to buy the 12th pair of Nikes for my shoe collection. I might have to wear my clothes more than once, and GASP, take public transit places.
Like sure, our grandkids may get to grow up in a world looking like something out of Mad Max, but at least I wouldn't have to suffer any inconveniences to my lifestyle.
It's crazy to think those are the only choices.
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.
Again, why not assume people saying we should have been off fossil fuels a decade ago mean that we should have been researching and investing in alternatives 50 years ago? If we did, we would have a way better chance if being off fossil fuels a decade ago
Assume people that who said "we need to stop producing fossil fuels a decade ago" really ment we need to do more to end fossil fuels usage in the next decade?
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.
Yes but by asking to stop it a decade ago naturally the rest of the timeline moves too, so we should've had a more aggressive push against oil and gas 2 decades ago or more and transitioned much sooner to green energy.
You can't just cut and paste progress forward. Battery technology is still two or three decades away from being able to fully replace fossil fuel use. Lithium batteries are not the answer there's just not enough lithium and it can't be refined fast enough. Even completely replacing fossil fuel electricity generation would take three decades and there's no technological hurdles, it's just scaling manufacturing and construction resources to build that many plants. The scale of these efforts is hard to grasp.
What stats are you working off of for those 3 decade estimates? Either way the point remains, the sentiment of "we should've done X decades ago" doesn't mean we should now be able to do it instantly, it just means we had the information and knowhow to start working towards it decades ago and we didn't do it.
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.
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.
So you agree that those should be used for building material, yes?
No, I would prefer we just stop oil.
You're evading the question.
You'll have to excuse me, your gotcha question was of low quality, so I assumed you set me up a slam dunk.
My mistake, I expected too much.
Is your question seriously: Would I rather monuments be destroyed and people be alive, or that people be dead and monuments be preserved? Because obviously people are more important. But, if we stop climate change, we are likely to be able to enjoy both people being alive and monuments being preserved.
That is not the question I asked. You are still evading. It's not a gotcha. You said art doesn't matter because of climate change. I am giving you two examples of art that can be turned into something functional (at a lower carbon output than cement or concrete, I might add) and you refuse to say whether or not they should be. Answer the question.
When someone calls for ending something last decade it required immediate action now.
Okay, well that's not going to happen. But maybe, if we're lucky, it can be phased out.
Society functioning in the way it's currently functioning is the cause of the problem. It's gonna stop because we change how we do things, or it'll get stopped in a way we have no control over, which is worse across every possible metric.
Investing in nuclear would help.
Grid wise with nuclear we have the capability of not using fossil fuels. Transportation wise we are decdades away before we have the capability.