Experts appreciated the vandalism of “eco-activists”: who ordered a soup from Van Gogh with Botticelli

The International Council of Museums (ICOM) is sounding the alarm: on November 11, the organization issued a statement expressing concern about the actions of so-called eco-activists. For the last six months they have been actively attacking the world temples of art. The list of victims of vandals calling to save the planet and abandon oil, coal and gas is replenished with paramount masterpieces: La Gioconda in the Louvre, a copy of The Last Supper in the Royal Academy of Arts, Van Gogh’s Sunflowers in the National Gallery in London, Botticelli’s Spring in the Uffizi, “Girl with a Pearl Earring” in the Mauritshuis Museum, “Mach” in the Prado. It is already clear that this is a planned political campaign, which is unlikely to be related to both art and ecology. So who “ordered” the masterpieces and why?

When a young man in a wig threw a cake at the Mona Lisa from a wheelchair in May, some smiled, others raised their eyebrows, but both of them twisted at the temple. We thought: well, we lived, environmentalists began to go crazy. But it’s okay – the picture was, after all, protected by glass. Just a slight insanity against the backdrop of general instability, or an unconvincing action by a young performer.

Then the so-called environmentalists began to speak more and more often: sticking themselves next to top masterpieces, dousing them with tomato soup or mashed potatoes, shouting calls to think about the planet and abandon fossil fuels.

Van Gogh’s Sunflowers, for example, got the soup, and someone decided that this was a clever homage to Andy Warhol, the author of the Campbell’s Soup Cans series, which became a symbol of pop art in the 1960s.

Other “statements” of environmentalists also seem to have been with some pretense of artistic actionism. For example, the peaceful landscape of John Constable in the London National Gallery was covered by young people with an illustration depicting climate collapse.

“I don’t see this as an artistic concept,” artist Marina Zvyagintseva says to MK. – The paintings of artists exist on their own, and the demands of eco-activists exist on their own. The paintings here are used as a kind of marker of fame, and not as part of the action. This is Herostrat’s glory – to set fire to a cool place, and in this case – to stick to the coolest work. Masterpieces here are just a PR tool.

Here it is worth noting an important point that unites all attacks on paintings, wherever they occur – in France, Germany, Britain, Spain or Italy. In all cases, ecovandals choose as their victims only those masterpieces that are protected by glass or act in such a way as not to cause serious damage to the works. Such behavior was hardly dictated by a pure and bright love for high art. Rather, it is about responsibility. For vandalism – even without significant damage to the masterpiece – the performers face a large fine or from 2 to 5 years in prison.

Thus, the activists who attacked the painting “Girl with a Pearl Earring” by Jan Vermeer in The Hague were fined (although the prosecutor’s office demanded that young people from the Just Stop Oi movement be sent to jail for four months). And environmental activists from the Last Generation movement, who poured soup on Vincent van Gogh’s The Sower in Rome, face up to 5 years in prison.

Suppose young people believe in their ideas and are ready to sit for them for a couple of years. But they are unlikely to be able to pay serious compensation, which can be imposed in court for serious damage to cultural heritage (already somewhere, but Europe knows how to count the damage caused to museum exhibits). Behind the “eco-activists” are certain so-called charitable foundations that finance their activities, and apparently cover fines for vandalism. But who finances these funds is still a mystery shrouded in darkness.

Italy’s “Last Generation” demands on its website to “immediately halt the re-opening of abandoned coal-fired power plants”, “cancel a new drilling project for exploration and production of natural gas” and “increase attention to solar and wind energy”.

Approximately the same agenda for the British movement “Just Stop the Oil” – only wider in the list, there is a refusal to produce oil and gas (and the site is more powerful and richer). And the rest of the authors of eco-vandal performances have the same on their lips (the young man who attacked the Mona Lisa, for example, did not identify himself with any of the organizations, but made all the same calls to save the Earth). However, in fact, the struggle for everything good against everything bad now leads to only one thing – an increase in negativity towards the “green movement”.

In this context, it is reasonable to recall the story of the suffragette Mary Richardson, who chopped up Diego Velasquez’s painting “Venus with a Mirror”. On March 10, 1914, a woman entered the London National Gallery, seized the moment, approached the painting, broke the glass protecting the canvas, and attacked the painting with a meat cutter. The damage was severe. Mary later stated that this act of “civil disobedience” was done in defense of her friend Emmeline Pankhurst, who was languishing behind bars at the time. What did it lead to? Did the attack on the world-famous masterpiece help the suffragettes achieve the rights and freedoms they fought for? Not at all. In general, the movement, of course, played a role in the story of gender equality, but this particular action rather embittered society and created a negative reputation for suffragettes.

Now something similar is happening – instead of believing in pure and bright “green” ideas, the actions of “defenders of the Earth” rather give the eco-movement a bad name.

“It seems that all this has nothing to do with the ideas of ecology,” says Inna Pulikova, a researcher at the Institute of Art Studies. “More like rocking the boat, deliberately increasing the level of instability. Europeans, accustomed to a normal comfortable life, are already faced with a drop in temperature in their homes and an increase in gasoline prices. And the seemingly senseless attacks on paintings with paintings only cause irritation and the growth of social “entropy”. Of course, there is a micron chance that this is genuine idiocy and that the so-called eco-activists truly believe in their ideas. But the scale of what is happening suggests that this is all a big political campaign.

Who needs it and why?

We can only guess. Here is the version. By imposing sanctions on Russia, abandoning our gas and oil, withdrawing business from the Russian Federation, Europe has actually committed economic suicide. The European Union was not only a powerful political force, but also the main economic competitor of the United States. Today, the EU countries are trying one by one to circumvent the sanctions that they themselves imposed against Russia, thereby hitting their own economies. Hungary will continue to buy Russian gas, Belgium has withdrawn Russian diamonds from sanctions, Holland allows Russian ships (especially with food and aluminum) to enter its ports and buys energy resources from Russia, etc. As for the fashionable transition to renewable energy, everyone has already understood that the economy cannot exist on it alone, it does not cover all the needs of Europe, and one cannot do without oil, gas and coal. Due to the high cost and lack of energy, European business is beginning to look for safer places, and, for example, from Germany (the former economic powerhouse of Europe), some large industries, in particular chemical and automotive, are planning to move to the United States. Europe, as an economic competitor to the United States, not only completely loses its positions, but also really strengthens America. Accordingly, economically, Europe will follow in the footsteps of the United States, losing its independence. The seemingly chaotic activity of “eco-activists” only adds to the feeling of instability and contributes to the process of weakening the EU.

It turns out that it is quite possible that someone across the ocean “ordered a soup” for Van Gogh and Leonardo and two dozen more masterpieces to boot, in order to undermine the already unstable situation in Europe.

Let’s say. And what to do? Can the wave of ecovandalism be stopped? How to deal with a campaign whose instrument is world masterpieces? This issue is the main one on the agenda of the International Council of Museums (ICOM). On November 11, the association published a statement expressing its concern about the actions of eco-activists.

More than 90 museum leaders signed the letter condemning the actions of the “defenders of the Earth”, including the director of the Louvre, Laurence de Car, Miguel Falomir of the Prado, Hartwig Fischer of the British Museum, Richard Armstrong of the Guggenheim, director of the Guggenheim, Martin Gosselink of the Art Mauritshuis and Max Hollein of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The museum group said in a statement that the protesters “grossly underestimate the fragility” of the works and urge them to come to their senses and remember that museums have done much to protect the environment in more humane ways – through educational programs, special exhibitions and scientific research.

But there is a simpler option than collective letters and increased security in museums. Take and leave the adherent activists, instead of immediately handing them over to the police. Take pictures, put them away from sin, and let these sit in the exhibition hall. Thinking how to save the planet. Maybe they think. Or dress up. But such an experience will surely reduce their ardor.