From Van Gogh to Picasso, almost all famed artists have had their pieces vandalized at least once throughout history -- but why?
Vincent Van Gogh's "Sunflowers," an expression of gratitude and happiness, a fairly rare theme in comparison to the troubled artist's other pieces, covered in a whole new kind of paint: tomato bisque.
On Oct. 14, 2022, two young visitors at the National Gallery in London threw the contents of canned tomato soup onto the beloved painting. As a shockwave of horror spread across the room, the protestors directed their attention to the crowd.
"What is worth more? Art or life?" one of the young activists asks the audience in defiance, hand superglued to the wall beside the painting. "Are you more concerned with the protection of a painting or the protection of our planet?"
While most eyes follow the path toward the ruined masterpiece, searching desperately for any remnants of the beautiful sunflowers beneath the shock of orange splattered onto the canvas, their attention could not help but return to the two vandalizers before them, on their knees. They did not need to explain what they had done, nor why they had done it. Emblazoned on their t-shirts, standing bold and proud, were the words "JUST STOP OIL."
As their name suggests, Just Stop Oil is a British activist organization that protests the UK government's continuous licensing and production of fossil fuels. Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland are two members of the activist group, and their act of protest in 2022 was their first attempt at gaining mainstream attention toward the overwhelming threat of climate change.
To their overwhelming surprise, they were successful.
However, many art lovers all across the world could physically feel their hearts breaking at the sight of the painting's ruination. There is a certain unspoken rule throughout society that art of any kind should not be tampered with. Yet, in spite of this, these young vandalizers had just broken the one golden rule that all museums uphold. That paired with the fact that this painting was by Vincent Van Gogh, one of the most revered and cherished artists in the past two centuries? For many people, it was inexcusable.
Upon first glance at the situation, both the activists and the cause they stood for were not painted in the best light. Their intentions were reasonable and even righteous. But what was the point of destroying a piece of art? How could Van Gogh help solve climate change? They might end up in headlines across the world, but is it really for the reasons they want?
If you were to type Just Stop Oil into a search bar right now, Van Gogh's name is sure to follow - because the point of their protest wasn't to gain appreciation toward their actions. It was to get people's attention.
While this might be the most widely observed and debated protest centering on the vandalization of art in our generation, it is not the first.
The suffragette movement in the early twentieth century brought about countless instances of radical and violent protests. The most memorable of these being the vandalism of Diego Velazquez's Rokeby Venus. In the hopes of spreading more awareness toward the fight for women's voting rights, Mary Richardson, a fellow suffragette, took a knife to the famed painting and slashed across its canvas. The destruction of this painting was also symbolic of Richardson's solidarity to Emmeline Pankhurst, a leader of the suffragette movement that had been arrested some time before.
"I have tried to destroy the picture of the most beautiful woman in mythological history," Richardson once said, "as a protest against the Government for destroying Mrs. Pankhurst, who is the most beautiful character in modern history."
In defacing the artistic representation of society's belief of what a woman should look like, Richardson was pointing out the hypocritical nature of the painting in its idealized form of beauty and the complete reverence of a female figure when, in reality, women were not being given the time of day.
The vandalization of art as a form of protest has been around long before the Just Stop Oil incident of 2022. Nor will it stop there.
But, why?
What is this stigma surrounding the physical destruction of art bringing more outrage than the actual reason behind the vandalization does?
In Phoebe Plummer and Anne Holland's case, it was the crushing threat of climate change that led to the defacement. In Mary Richardson's, it was the women's rights movement.
Each protest that caused some destruction or defacement to art has had a reason behind it - but then again, so do artists.
In 1974, a young upcoming artist named Tony Shafrazi spray painted the phrase "Kill Lies All" onto Pablo Picasso's 1937 painting Guernica.
Showcasing the destruction and tragedy of the bombing of the Spanish town of Guernica, the controversial yet famed Pablo Picasso, in an appropriated, cubist style, created a painting of monumental size that reflects the horrors of war on the lives of everyone involved, whether they were soldiers, mothers, children, and even farm animals. To this day, Picasso's Guernica is still considered the most influential painting within the last century depicting an anti-war message.
Shafrazi, in his own desperate act toward protesting the Vietnam war - specifically the release of William Calley, the US officer convicted of taking part in the My Lai Massacre - spray painted across the already anti-war statement to push his own anti-war agenda. And while these reasons are understandable and even excusable, it almost feels as though Shafrazi did not understand the painting he was vandalizing.
Guernica was Picasso's way of protesting war - not just the war occuring within his lifetime, but the entire concept of war, and it is an artwork that still holds that same intensity almost a century later. In vandalizing the piece, Shafrazi doesn't heighten the message of anti-war protest - he minimizes it.
By damaging an artwork that protests the same issues you are fighting against, you are gaining backlash, not awareness. Even though Shafrazi was maintaining his anti-war beliefs by vandalizing Picasso's work, he failed to see that he was targeting the wrong audience. If he did want to protest the injustice of the Vietnam war, how many other artworks (i.e. propaganda pieces) would have spread the message even farther if his message was spray painted across their lies instead?
Art in and of itself is a way of protest. Take Jean-Michel Basquiat's Defacement. The painting, originally titled The Death of Michael Stewart, was a commemoration of the young, Black artist Michael Stewart, a friend of Basquiat's who had been killed prior due to a tragic and all too common case of police brutality. Through the painting, Basquiat showcases his rage and heartbreak for the untimely and unjust death of a fellow friend and artist, also recognizing the experience of every Black man within the United States throughout history.
Now, imagine the defacement of Defacement. Imagine the ruination and destruction of a commemoration and act of protest such as Basquiat's 1983 painting. Understanding art means understanding what it stands for: past, present, and future; it is never just brush strokes and splashes of color. And the destruction of paintings such as Defacement can only do more harm than good; destroying art means destroying its meaning, and all the artist went through to push their message forward.
While pieces like Rokeby Venus and Sunflowers had no underlying social issue the artist was protesting or spreading awareness towards, the concept of art is an act of protest on its own. In a society where being creative is looked down upon, where it is rare to view the world outside of the dogmatic view most people maintain, artists are revolutionists themselves.
What many might not know is that the Just Stop Oil protest in October of 2022 was not detrimental to Van Gogh's beloved painting. Due to protective measures, the painting was restored within days and back to its display in no time. It was as if nothing had ever happened. Which brings into question, if that is the case, why were people so angry?
The destruction of art and vandalism are very different, but there is a fine line that many people often don't see. Destroying art for the sake of its destruction is an action everyone can look down upon. It is simply the destruction of the spirit and creative force that made up an artist, and all they stood for. Vandalism - vandalism for protest - is an act of desperation, an act of hope, in wishing that somebody out there might hear them and listen to everything they are fighting for. And if having to throw tomato bisque or smash a sculpture is the only way to do it, then it is worth it.
Art-vandalism faces backlash because many view art as an aesthetic, something to look at without really understanding it. The stigma of protest through vandalism causes so much outrage because of the reminder of issues that stretch far beyond a painting's canvas.
Art will always draw people's attention. That's the point. Art is often created as a way to protest, to gather people's attention and spread awareness. In vandalizing that art, protestors capitalize on the art's previous message and shift the audience's attention toward a new, more pressing concern so that those already observing will be exposed to current problems.
It is a cyclical, almost ironic nature that works, even if it breaks your heart to see it.
The vandalization of art as a form of protest is an act that is, and will continue to be, heavily debated. Unfortunately, it is one without a clear cut answer. There are times where it is understandable and exigent, while other times it falls flat and does more harm than good. It is not all black and white - nothing ever is.
But maybe, the next time a group of desperate protesters choose to vandalize art in the hopes of exposing the world to the reality beyond the painted edges of a canvas, people will finally stop and listen. We owe it to those who are working to make a difference in history to pay attention and try to understand.
It is more likely than not that the artist would have tried to understand, too.