avatarAraci Almeida

Summary

Two environmental activists threw a can of soup at Van Gogh's "Sunflowers" painting to protest the prioritization of art over human crises, sparking debate about effective activism and the irony of using food as a projectile.

Abstract

The incident, which gained widespread attention on social media, involved two young British environmental activists who targeted Vincent Van Gogh's renowned "Sunflowers" painting. They expressed their frustration with the prioritization of art over pressing human issues, such as rising food prices and the climate crisis. The act of throwing a can of Campbell's soup against the painting, while symbolic, was met with criticism for the irony of wasting food to make a point about environmental and social justice. The author of the article, Araci, a Portuguese writer, reflects on the complexity of the situation, questioning the effectiveness of such a protest, especially when it involves damaging a timeless piece of art. The activists' message risks being overshadowed by the controversial method of delivery, potentially alienating potential allies and provoking the opposite of the intended reaction.

Opinions

  • The author sympathizes with the activists' message about the importance of addressing human crises over preserving art.
  • There is a strong sense of irony in using a can of soup, a symbol of capitalism and pop art, as a tool for protest against the very system the activists are criticizing.
  • The act is seen as a missed opportunity for effective activism, with the potential to alienate the public and strengthen the opposition's stance.
  • The author suggests that the activists could have chosen a more impactful and less destructive form of protest, such as disrupting a high-society event to highlight inequality.
  • The article points out the common rhetoric of using the poor or starving children to justify arguments, which is also present in the comments about the incident.
  • The author fears that the activists' choice of target may have a reverse effect, reinforcing the value of art and potentially increasing support for the status quo they aimed to challenge.
  • The article emphasizes that alerting people to the need for a just world and a clean environment does not require the destruction of cultural treasures.

Throwing a Can of Soup at a Painting? They Could Have Been More Creative

But I guess because they devalued a painting so much, creativity is not something these kids like.

Print Screen from Twitter

I don’t know if you’ve seen today’s news. I’m not talking about the potential threat of nuclear war, and we’re all living on the set of the German series Dark.

I’m talking about what appeared in my feed on all the social networks. Through all of them, Facebook, Instagram, and Youtube, the news of two young Brits, environmental activists, who wanted to ruin Van Gogh’s famous painting Sunflowers.

The two young Brits appear in a video shouting words with which, I admit, I sympathize. They stand there in front of the painting, angry, shouting for the end of the oil companies.

They then ask rhetorically why we live in a world where a painting is prioritized more than the people who are now going through a complex crisis, namely with rising food prices.

So far, so good, but something that shouldn’t have occurred did happen. The young woman with pink hair opens an American can of Campbell's soup and throws it against the famous painting.

What have I just witnessed?

There is a great deal of irony here. It is true. And half the comments fall into the easy line of thought, which is to say, “you are advocating for food, and you throw a can of soup away when you could give it to the poor.”

Thank goodness we always have the poor little people or some African child to validate our arguments.

But my sense of irony is due to the fact that it is a Heinz’ can of soup, a thing for me of the most representative of capitalism, a bit like Campbell’s and all the pop art that it generated.

I bet the girl’s anger was connected to this feeling of not being satisfied with that insipid red water, which isn’t difficult to happen in England. Have you been there? Their food is terrible!

“Damn,” she must have thought, “ is this all the crap left to eat? I’m going to throw this away against a painting of some crazy guy who killed himself, and I’ll take advantage of it and ask for a clean environment!”

It’s easy to say that that thing they call soup — they never came to Portugal to eat bean soup, or they wouldn’t call it soup — could be given to some hungry person.

That’s what we usually do — right, most of us don’t get offended. What we don’t want we give to some poor person who has to make do. Pasta Barilla? It’s for us, along with the 8 euros pesto jar. Then out of charity, we may buy a kilo of white brand rice or some cheap cookies, and we think they should thank us.

But I believe that activists, as they usually do, want to use their voice to reach further. In this case, though, the throwing object didn’t fly very far, but up to the painting of Van Gogh, who, after even being dead, is still being slaughtered.

He didn’t need to have cut off an ear, he could have simply gone on living to suffer.

And soon, the activists lost all their reason. Many thought that “no” that it is necessary to warn people. But listen to me. I’m all in alerting people. Jesus, that’s what I’ve been doing the most lately.

But, alerting for a more just world and a clean environment, doesn’t necessarily have to be done by ruining timeless pieces of art, which are among the most beautiful things humanity has achieved.

I fear that because they have chosen precisely the wrong target, their actions will have a reverse effect. They already have it.

Many internet users, who probably don’t even know the painting, have come out in defense of the artist, calling the young people “environmental idiots.” See what you did now? It is to be expected that the other extremist fools pop out everywhere, driving their big trunks, and saying. “OIL, yeah.”

In this case, putting out fire with fire doesn’t seem productive at all.

I don’t know, instead of raiding a museum, they could have raided a party at the Ritz Hotel with rich people eating lobster. They would have invaded and taken a bunch of homeless people with them, who would have eaten until they could no more.

All this while drinking expensive champagne at the expense of some rich people. Then they would throw in a tomato soup can and say, “you eat this shit! Down with oil, for lobster for all”.

That would have been a lot funnier.

Hello, I’m Araci, a female writer from Portugal. I like to write about my country, Portugal. But I also enjoy pop culture, American culture, and cultural differences. I hope you’ve enjoyed this article!

You can also find more about me here:

If you have enjoyed this article, maybe you would like to buy me a coffee here https://ko-fi.com/joanaaraci. I don’t drink coffee that much, but food is getting ridiculously expensive, and I need to put it on the table.

There are other ways to help me out:

Are you considering joining Medium for only 5$ a month? Your membership fee directly supports me. This way, you are helping me out while you’ll also get full access to every story on Medium.

If so, consider doing it through my referral link.

Thank you for reading me.

News
Art
Youth
Environment
Stupidity
Recommended from ReadMedium