Where do our loyalties lie? Just Stop Oil and the value of art

“What matters more, art or life?”

Phoebe Plummer’s question echoed through the National Gallery on October 14 2022.  Now, nearly two years on, the law has stepped in to give its answer: art. Well, more specifically, the framing of art. It was the “corrosive effect” of tomato soup on the frame of Van Gogh’s Sunflowers that resulted in two-year and 20-month jail sentences respectively for Just Stop Oil protestors, Plummer and Holland, painting (or, rather, trashing) a grim picture for the future of political protest in the UK.

The destruction of art is deeply intertwined with the history of UK political protest

The soup-tossing incident has become one of the most controversial acts of protest in recent years and was met with a slew of media criticism, accusing the activists of mindless destruction, stupidity, and attention seeking. One such article from The Spectator suggested that: “they deface art because we let them” and that “we have invited this kind of behaviour by indulging it…we do not deter acts on our great national treasures and so the attacks keep coming.” Beyond the irony of naming the Dutch painter’s work a UK “national treasure”, such condescending attacks on the intentionally shocking form of protest prove the exact point that Just Stop Oil is making: we care far more about preserving the artifacts of the past than looking at the harsh reality of the present and future.

The destruction of art is deeply intertwined with the history of UK political protest. In 1913, three Suffragettes attacked 13 paintings in the Manchester Art Gallery to protest the sentencing of Emmeline Pankhurst to three years in prison. The event was part of a series of art gallery attacks as the Suffragette movement increased its use of unlawful direct action, which is now considered to have been a crucial part of the successful fight for women’s votes.

Despite the historical significance of art vandalism, modern examples are often dismissed for their spontaneity, defined negatively by their ‘shock value’, and written off as cheap attempts to gain media attention. Sentencing is brutal, and trials continue to project false impressions of the protesters’ intentions. For Plummer and Holland, “publicity was [their] goal,” as stated by Judge Hehir. The judge then went on to suggest that if it weren’t for the protective glass covering Sunflowers, more harm could have been done, despite the protesters’ assurance that no damage was intended to the painting itself.

Plummer’s question concerns not only whether we value art more than life, but how we value art at all

“Damage” was the central concern of the trial, the word tossed around with no question of its true meaning. While no harm was inflicted on the painting, Judge Hehir insisted that: “the damage was done, and it was permanent damage.” Understanding the meaning of damage in this sense, whether it be financial, aesthetic, or otherwise, naturally calls for an interrogation of the meaning of value – Phoebe Plummer’s question concerns not only whether we value art more than life, but how we value art at all.

In the eyes of the law, it seems that this value is largely monetary. Judge Hehir did highlight the physical beauty of the painting’s frame: “its patina – the sheen caused by age, which was one of its most attractive features – has been removed,” yet returned to a financial understanding when considering the frame’s loss of value, with the prosecution producing a figure of £10,000 to quantify the reduction in its worth over time and the repair cost. The value of Sunflowers is similarly defined by its high monetary status: “it is simply so valuable that it could not be sold on the open market,” he stated.

But the true “damage” of the incident runs far deeper than financial burdens. The imprisonment of climate activists fighting for a better future is just one example of the harrowing new reality of political protest in the UK since the introduction of the contentious Public Order Act in 2023. The legislation has been highly criticised for its ambiguity by institutions including the United Nations, which emphasised the long history of resistance as a necessity to maintaining people’s civic freedoms. As unlawful protest is defined vaguely as causing “serious disruption,” the extent to which future protests will be threatened with legal action is unknown, however peacefully they present themselves. Not only this, but the silencing of climate protesters only continues to diminish the urgent need for action. Without the ability to pressure lawmakers through direct action, the future seems undoubtedly bleak.

Sunflowers adopts new significance as a small yet instrumental part of modern political action

Despite its negative press, the attack on Van Gogh’s Sunflowers cannot be seen merely as a destructive act intended to erase the culture of the past. By bringing an object of the past into the material reality of the present, Sunflowers adopts new significance as a small yet instrumental part of modern political action, which, perhaps, adds to its value. The painting has been transformed into a site of protest. It is now embedded within the discourse surrounding the value of art and the future of the planet, playing a crucial role in questioning the priorities of the law and its devotion to protecting cultural artifacts over the threat of mass extinction. The details of the protest are even documented on the painting’s Wikipedia page, and the event will forever be a key chapter in its rich history.

In one sense, therefore, the protest was a success. Raising the profile of the campaign was far from the only goal of the Just Stop Oil activists; Judge Hehir’s evaluation is proof that the concerns of our society are misguided, and the urgent need to prevent climate breakdown is widely ignored by those who wield power. We can only hope that these protests will go down in history as stepping stones on the path to success, and continue to strive for a future where activism is once again understood as essential to the legitimacy of our democracy.