Environmental activists damaged Velazquez’s masterpiece “Venus with a Mirror”

Painting has again become a bargaining chip in politics

The Renaissance masterpiece, exhibited at London’s National Gallery, has become the latest banner in a campaign by environmental activists from the Just Stop Oil movement, who call for an end to oil and gas development. Over the past couple of years, they have already gone through almost all the great artists of the past, but previously their actions have not caused serious harm to works of art. Environmental activists selected canvases in protective glass, doused them with tomato soup or something else, so that traces of their actions could then be washed off. But they smashed the glass that protected Velazquez’s canvas with a hammer.

Venus with a Mirror is not only one of the most famous works in the history of art, it is also one of the most famous victims of vandalism. In 1914, British suffragette Mary Richardson stabbed the canvas several times. After the arrest, the girl admitted that she made such a desperate gesture to protest against the arrest of her friend Emmeline Pankhurst. Then Velazquez became a bargaining chip in the struggle of women for their rights. Now the experience of a hundred years ago has been adopted by environmental activists.

The act of vandalism at the National Gallery was committed by two young people – a 22-year-old girl and a 20-year-old boy. Each of them hit the glass of the painting with a hammer five times, which left serious cracks on it. It is not yet known how damaged the canvas itself is, but it is likely that the fragments could have cut into the paint layer.

“New oil and gas development is killing millions. If we love art, if we love life, if we love our families, we should just stop the oil,” the environmental activists said. After which they were immediately detained.

The incident at the National Gallery suggests that opponents of oil development are going on the offensive. They are no longer limited to spectacular actions that are relatively safe for works. What’s next? Will axes be used?

The second question is about the museum itself. In a situation where environmental activists stage pranks almost every week, security measures should have been strengthened. However, the activists carried hammers into the gallery without any problems. Why didn’t the guards stop them? Why didn’t the caretakers press the alarm button as soon as the young people crossed the fence at the museum? Even if the signal was sent to the security service, the reaction to it turned out to be late. It is obvious that until museums take some kind of quick response measures, attacks on masterpieces will continue.