Just Stop Oil and Van Gogh’s Sunflowers: Climate Activism and Its Efficacy

Sunflowers by Vincent Van Gogh, courtesy of the National Gallery

On the 14th of October, two people wearing t-shirts printed with the slogan ‘JUST STOP OIL’ hurled the contents of a tin of soup at the famous oil painting Sunflowers by Vincent van Gogh. They then proceeded to glue their hands to the wall beneath the painting in the National Gallery and commenced a speech that lasted around thirty seconds, beginning with the question, “What is worth more—art or life?”. The entire incident, lasting less than two minutes, was filmed. The footage quickly went viral, sparking controversy and attracting much negative attention. Popular responses included remarks that the behaviour is ‘disrespectful’, questioning the correlation between climate change and damaging the painting. 

Precisely as the question “What is worth more—art or life?” predicted, many responses showed concern for the well-being of the painting after the incident. The National Gallery revealed that the painting remains ‘unharmed’, as it was protected under glass, with only slight damage to the frame. Phoebe Plummer, one of the two people responsible for throwing the soup, later revealed in an interview that they never intended to harm the painting and that the act was simply to create a stage where their voice would be listened to. Essentially, the artwork is used simply as a canvas to get a certain message across. Then what is the message? 

Just Stop Oil is an environmental activist group formed earlier this year, with the central aim being to bring an end to the licensing and production of fossil fuels, especially by the government. While some activists draw criticism upon art institutions for supporting fossil fuel companies, this is not necessarily something Just Stop Oil is trying to address. Rather, it is people’s lack of attention towards the continuous use of fossil fuels, despite their direct correlation to the climate crisis, in contrast with the love, care and attentiveness many have for famous artworks, that Just Stop Oil is trying to emphasise. 

While this incident has made the name Just Stop Oil a known one, it is questionable as to whether throwing soup at Sunflowers was a good method for getting their message across. Using an art gallery as the scene of action summons the ongoing controversy surrounding the position of art in the context of the climate crisis. Much rhetoric regarding climate change involves a hierarchy which places human survival (e.g., food and warmth) over things with symbolic and emotional value (e.g., art and religion), therefore in many cases of climate activism, art institutions are put under scrutiny for ‘wasting resources’. Such rhetoric has difficulty garnering support because these priorities do not necessarily parallel their audience’s everyday experiences, where culture and emotions are extremely important to living. 

In the case of Just Stop Oil, art itself, as well as its very cultural significance, was never intended to be attacked but merely utilised. However, the activist group’s method breaches the art gallery’s ‘code of conduct’ – simply to treat the displayed object with respect – by literally trespassing set boundaries. This seems to have caused many people to lose any sympathy they had towards Just Stop Oil, as it comes across that the activists do not share the same values. Feeling disrespected, many people became unwilling to even listen to what the activists had to say. 

The enormous attention given to Just Stop Oil has inspired a chain of similar happenings, such as activist group Letzte Generation spraying mashed potato over Monet’s Les Meules in the Museum Barberini in Potsdam, Germany, just nine days after the Sunflowers incident. Most recently, members of Letzte Generation have squirted black liquid over Death and Life at the Leopold Museum in Vienna. If anything, the negative response towards these repeated events, as well as their organisers, will only grow stronger over time, as they will lose meaning if continued despite a lack of support or success. 

So then, how does one participate in activism without turning the world against them? From this incident and its reception, we learned that destroying, or mimicking the act of destroying, a beloved object will not be met with a warm welcome. It is essential to consider the cultural language spoken by the intended audience; unless there is a consensus of values, any speech of activism will be a sentence spoken at the audience, rather than to them. It is upon this common ground that discussion or persuasion is born, for a certain level of respect between the activist and audience is assumed.