Broad brush

It is one of the most famous episodes of Doctor Who. The Doctor brings artist Vincent van GoghA Dutch artist who painted The Starry Night in 1889 while staying in a French mental asylum after suffering a breakdown. He died by suicide the following year., who received little recognition in his own lifetime, to London's National GalleryAn art museum in London, founded in 1824. a hundred years into the future, so that he can see how beloved his works have become after his death.

It was lucky for the Doctor that he did not bring van Gogh to October 2022, otherwise the painter's joy might have been badly interrupted. This month, two activists threw soup on what has become his most famous work, Sunflowers.

It was the first of a series of food-based protests targeting famous art. French impressionistA 19th Century art movement known for small but visible brush strokes. Claude MonetA French painter and co-founder of the Impressionist movement. From 1883, he largely painted his garden. came next: activists in PotsdamA city in Germany. threw potato puree on his work Haystacks over the weekend. And on Monday, the wax figure of Charles III at Madame TussaudsA famous gallery of waxwork figures in London. in London suffered a cake to the face.

None of the works were damaged. The National Gallery protesters, from environmentalist group Just Stop OilA UK environmental activist group which uses direct action to protest against fossil fuel production. , said they made sure in advance that their protest would not affect the painting itself.¹

But some still think these demonstrations are simply wrongheaded. They say it can never be justified to attack works of art.

The world's artistic heritage belongs to everyone, they argue. It is selfish and unfair for activists to risk permanently damaging some of the world's most beautiful paintings to make a political point.

And they believe this kind of protest is ineffective. They suggest most people will have been horrified to see this art coming under attack.

But supporters of the activists disagree. They claim that the discussion caused by the protest proves it was the right thing to do. Unlike other activists, it has proved very difficult to ignore them.

They believe protests should challenge people. They say they do not want people to clap along to their demonstrations but then make no changes to their own lives. Throwing food at art can shock them into considering what they are doing about the climate crisis.

And, they say, the aim is to remind people of the effects of climate changeLong-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. Human action is a major cause of climate change.. Some experts fear that climate breakdown could bring about the end of civilisation itself.² In the activists' words, attacking art is a way of reminding people that the culture they love so much will mean nothing on a dead planet.

Yes: Art should always stand above the fray. It is a shared cultural heritage that binds together all of humanity. An attack on art is an attack on us all.

No: Climate breakdown is already killing people. It could bring about the end of life as we know it. Yet we continue to pollute the atmosphere. That is immoral, and any protest against it is moral by default.

Or... The overall effect of these protests is probably neutral. The activists got plenty of media coverage, but most of it negative. Now similar protests in future will go unnoticed.