Just Stop Oil activists and climate protesters stage a protest by throwing cans of tomato soup at Vincent van Gogh’s house. Sunflowers, 1888, at the National Gallery in London, UK, 2022. Photo: Just Stop Oil
The conviction of the Just Stop Oil activists sparks a debate about art and activism. Find out the implications of their protest and what it means for society
BY Kazeem Adeleke, ARTCENTRON
On September 27, 2023, Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland, two activists from the protest group Just Stop Oil, were sentenced to prison terms for their controversial action involving Vincent van Goghthe emblematic painting of, Sunflowers (1888). This incident, which occurred in October 2022 at National Gallery, Londonsparked an important debate about the intersection of art, activism, and legal boundaries.
Plummer and Holland made headlines when they threw cans of tomato soup at Van Gogh’s masterpiece before gluing their hands to the wall. While the glass protected and kept the painting intact, the 17th century the frame suffered minor damageresulting in an estimated repair cost of up to £10,000. This act was part of a wider strategy by Just Stop Oil to raise awareness of climate change and pressure the UK government to take immediate action.
Arrest Oil Activists: Activism and Legal Consequences
In a video post on TikTok following the protest, Plummer explained his motivations, saying: “We’re not asking the question: Should everyone throw soup on the boards? What we do is start the conversation so we can ask the questions that matter. This statement highlights the activist’s intention to provoke thought and debate on crucial issues such as climate change and societal responsibilities.
The legal consequences for Plummer and Holland were severe. Judge Christopher Hehir at Southwark Crown Court sentenced Plummer to two years and three months, while Holland was sentenced to 20 months. Hehir condemned their actions, emphasizing that they “didn’t care” if the painting had been ruined. This statement reflects the court’s view of the seriousness of their actions, despite the lack of permanent damage to the artwork itself.
A wave of support emerged from the artistic community in response to these condemnations. More than 100 artists, curators and art historians signed an open letter opposing the imprisonment of activists. Greenpeace United Kingdom and the arts collective Liberate Tate organized this letter to position the protest as an act of artistic expression rather than vandalism. They argued that the soup-splashing incident was linked to a long tradition of creative “iconoclasm” in the arts.
Creative iconoclasm is the deliberate destruction or alteration of artistic works to challenge societal norms and provoke thought. Historical examples include Robert Rauschenberg, who erased a drawing by Willem de Kooning, and Jake and Dinos Chapman, who altered prints from Goya’s Disasters of War. The letter’s signatories suggested that Plummer and Holland’s protest resembled historical precedents. Their argument therefore was that this should be seen as a legitimate comment on the urgent climate crisis rather than a destructive act.
Overview: climate crisis and art
The Just Stop Oil protest was not only about the act itself, but also served as a powerful metaphor for the climate crisis affecting the planet. Activists say artistic expression can play a crucial role in raising awareness of critical social issues. By targeting revered works of art, they aimed to draw public attention to the urgent need for government action on climate change.
In his closing statements, Plummer highlighted the moral implications of their actions, suggesting that sometimes “morality is different from the law.” According to her, the intentions behind the protest were to “highlight the climate crisis and the cost of living crisis”. Above all, inspire a broader conversation about social responsibility.
Just Stop Condemning Oil Activists: Public Response and Continued Activism
The public had a mixed reaction following the conviction. While many condemned the actions as reckless and damaging to cultural heritage, others celebrated the protest as a bold statement on the urgency of climate action. The complexity of the issue reveals a growing division within society regarding methods of protest and the ethical implications of targeting art for activist purposes.
Just hours after the sentencing was announced, another group of Just Stop Oil campaigners returned to the National Gallery. They threw soup on two paintings of Sunflowers, including the same painting targeted by Plummer and Holland. This continued act of defiance underscores the movement’s commitment to its cause and the lengths activists are willing to go to make their voices heard.
The intersection of art, activism and law
The case of Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland raises profound questions about the intersection of art, activism, and law. While the legal system considers their actions criminal, many in the artistic community see it as a necessary form of protest that aligns with the broader artistic tradition of questioning societal values and norms.
As society grapples with the realities of climate change, the role of artists and activists will remain central in driving conversations and actions. The debate over appropriate methods of protest continues, challenging us to consider the boundaries between legal conduct and moral responsibility in the quest for a better future.
