Alone, probably not. But a tomato soup stained Van Gogh painting just might do it. In recent months, activists have launched nothing short of a food fight against museums around the world to protest climate issues. The concept is straight out of a lunchroom, but climate protesters have already managed to throw tomato soup and an array of other comfort foods on the works of Monet and Van Gogh. But these outlandish attacks on the upper class world of art represents a contemporary protest style which has adopted a top down approach to keep the rich accountable in the most eye-catching way possible.
When I served as the chief social media coordinator for the University of Southern California’s Environmental Student Assembly, I recall the way that our climate protests and initiatives often blended into the cluttered background of the media landscape. Our in-person protests in front of the school’s administrative building barely received coverage by any local or university news network. The most we ever got out of campus administrators was a 30 minute meeting with the sustainability officer. Even he didn’t recall hearing about our events.
But where our picket signs failed, a clever combination of Heinz tomato soup and glue have echoed across the globe. Tens of millions of people across almost two thirds of our planet’s countries take part in climate protests every year, but what percentage of them really get substantial news coverage? When it’s all said and done, the goal of a protest should be to gain attention. And if throwing food at art is what it takes to draw international attention to an issue of your choice, I’d say it’s a pretty damn good strategy.
Part of me does flinch, however, at the image of a food stain smeared on a priceless piece of art. As an artist myself, seeing a painting potentially damaged is one of the least pleasant images our world has to offer and makes me wonder how this might change the museum experience in the future. But I also shutter at the thought of Earth’s citizens valuing art over our planet’s future. I can confidently say that this issue is an appropriate eye for an eye, as painful as it can sometimes be. If we can’t take the time to address our planet’s imminent demise, we quite frankly should not have the luxury of strolling peacefully through art museums.
These activists, many of which are involved with the organization “Last Generation”, are operating under this exact ultimatum which is provoked with their museum protests: Art or Life? And while many of us would choose life, it’s those that are inclined to answer “art” that these protests are targeting.
But if these protests feel unusual, it’s not just because of their outlandish nature. It’s because this form of protesting is aiming directly upward at those exact people that actively choose luxuries over our planet. The protests I’ve organized in the past were aimed at rallying students, a microcosm of many of the larger public rallies across the globe. And while these protests find success in their own ways, many of the politicians and businessmen who can instill real change have the ability to opt out and look away. This protesting style starts from the bottom and creates civil unity before moving upward to attack the elite, and has immense potential to reach the largest possible audience due to its widespread media coverage.
The soup protesters skip this middle step of creating a call to action in order to take the momentum of their message directly to the upper class. By attacking clear imagery of high status, these protesters create an image that the media and the elite can’t ignore. The imagery is biting and harsh, spreading rapidly through media and up the chain to those who could normally look away from more conventional avenues of protest.
While conventional climate protests - the crowds, picket signs, chants - have garnered change and set precedents, they often allow those at the top the ability to opt out and look away from Those that would choose art and other high class luxuries are the audience of these attacks which force them to look. Staining their luxuries serves as a giant middle finger in the face of the politicians and companies who choose to look away from their damage to the planet. When the art that they consume is damaged, it forces them to open their eyes.
Do I think that protesters can get away with throwing food at art until we see substantial policy changes? Probably not. But I’m confident that a more direct, assertive style of protesting that this movement is beginning to inspire could very well be what finally relays the urgency of our climate situation to those in power. Until then, we can only hope that someday we can shift our focus from protecting paintings of our planet to defending the real thing.
It's super valuable for me to read your take on this because I honestly felt really conflicted about the protests. I definitely think climate change specifically has not been attacked aggressively enough (both in protest and tangible action) as people just overlook any efforts as it's not a 'pressing enough' issue. For me, the messaging gets a bit lost in translation from what I have seen, but I guess that even if it leaves its audience confused, sparking any interest to look more into it means it was successful. I heard of this on TikTok which I think actually hurt its credibility in the way it was presented on this comedic platform.
I'm happy you wrote about this topic. I have been seeing this all over social media. It definitely left me in shock and got my attention so this movement is really sparking a rise. I believe this type of protesting is being taken way too far. I don't think that destroying art and history is super detrimental. However, I feel like they are really taking action towards this issue which is kind of inspiring. This topic leaves me conflicted.
As someone who cares for the environment but also an advocate for art, this methodology of protesting has me feeling unsure. I feel like their would be better ways to go about protesting without damaging such a fine piece of art, nevertheless, I fully understand the motives behind this approach. I will credit that this method gained the attention it desired very quickly and effectively. As you concluded the essay, our focus should be shifted on protecting the real planet rather than mere paintings of it.
This article is super interesting. I feel like there is no such thing as a “perfect protest” that can effectively create change without disturbing the peace at all. As you mentioned, there is a choice here between allowing luxurious consumption or taking action to address climate change, and this creative attack on a famous piece of artwork has certainly gotten people talking about the crossroads we have arrived at. I, too, cringe at the idea of such irreplaceable art being damaged, but at the end of the day, the future of the planet is far more important.
I think this was the perfect op-ed topic as your apart tone and choice of words further strengthens your point a lot. I love that you said this discussion is straight out of a lunchroom. I can see where the protestors are coming from, but as an artist myself I find it ridiculous that they project their aggression onto monumental pieces of art of all time. I do not see how throwing tomato soup at a art piece could lead to a policy change, but people do have a way of getting creative. I completely understand the view point of priorities being put into order thought, in terms of an art museum should not be publicized more than environmental matters.