MUSEUMS HAVE recently become a stage where climate activists advocate for their causes. From throwing foods at valuable artworks to gluing themselves to the frames of paintings, protestors have been finding unconventional ways to attract attention. This eccentric slew of protests has sparked heated debates—some praise the bold creativity of these activists while others rightfully question whether they are truly effective in provoking change.

A wave of protests at museums

   Unusual protests are a popular medium through which organizations direct attention toward certain causes. A particular protest earlier this year caught the attention of many when a man smeared cake over the glass-encased Mona Lisa, before pleading for people to think about the planet that was being destroyed[1]. Soon thereafter, more and more demonstrations involving prominent artworks at renowned museums became the subject of news headlines around the world. One environmental activist organization in the spotlight for its museum protests is “Just Stop Oil.” In October, the group’s activists threw tomato soup at Van Gogh’s Sunflowers displayed in London’s National Gallery before gluing their hands to the wall and delivering a passionate speech about climate change. Later that month, a protestor wearing a Just Stop Oil shirt glued their head onto Johannes Vermeer’s Girl with a Pearl Earring—while this protest was not organized by Just Stop Oil itself, Just Stop Oil released a statement expressing its enthusiastic support[1]. Inspired by daring demonstrations as such, other groups unassociated with Just Stop Oil have begun carrying out similar acts of their own. In Germany, supporters of the activist organization Letzte Generation threw mashed potatoes at Claude Monet’s Grainstacks before gluing their hands to the wall[1].

The unjustifiability of these protests

   Just Stop Oil defended itself by stating that it purposely selected artworks that it knew were protected, preventing its protests from damaging the actual pieces. It also argued that these protests were justified as they received considerable press coverage and amplified its message that the climate should be cared about more than the paintings in museums are[2]. However, this could potentially be viewed as shallow, as it appears that Just Stop Oil is seeking recognition without successfully advocating for anything constructive within the climate change movement. Such one-dimensional efforts in raising “more awareness” about the climate crisis—and nothing more—are redundant because most people already know of its existence. The crux of the problem of indifference towards the climate crisis lies not in the public’s lack of awareness; rather, it has to do with the lack of familiarity with the tangible consequences of climate change[3]. Moreover, the movement risks losing support as the incidents exhibit the stubbornness of these protesters while ruining the experiences of museumgoers, causing them to have a distasteful opinion on the climate change movement—in videos of the protests, bystanders could be heard chastising the activists, calling their actions “obscene[4].”

   Additionally, the activists who threw soup at Van Gogh’s Sunflowers asked the audience if they were “more concerned about the protection of a painting, or the protection of our planet and people[1].” Their statement, however, is not particularly persuasive nor logical as these concerns are not mutually exclusive: one is able to enjoy the art in museums in addition to caring about the environment. Instead of attacking artworks in museums, activists should direct their frustration and anger toward direct contributors to climate change and institutions that are able to make significant changes–such as oil companies and local governments–rather than unassociated third-party institutions.

The reception of these protests

   These protests are admirable in their intentions as the activists are simply trying to save the world from impending catastrophe. However, there are more effective methods that can be used to fight the urgent climate crisis. While Just Stop Oil did succeed in getting the coverage they wanted—being featured in powerhouse media outlets like The New York Times—that is, unfortunately, the limited extent of their impact. Their protests are seen by many spectators as attention-seeking or unproductive, and have obtained a bad reputation[1]. Hence, people can be found solely commenting on the method of protest rather than the intentions that fuel them: the focus of the discussion should be on how to act on climate change, but the absurdity of the protests steals the spotlight. Subsequently, organizations, including Just Stop Oil, must be careful with their approaches, as the public may start associating ridicule with the climate change movement at large.

*                 *                 *

   The recent wave of protests staged at museums are weak in its rationale and do little to create worthwhile change. So far, the targeted paintings have not yet been harmed, but other inspired imitators could end up damaging the actual paintings, which would incite more negative responses toward these protests. The climate change movement is in dire need of supporters who will take affirmative action, yet these museum protests fail to fulfill such requirements.

[1] The New York Times

[2] Just Stop Oil

[3] Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

[4] Forbes