Does the end justify the means? The question still stands behind environmental activists attempted against works of art in 15 days Van Gogh, picassoMonet and Vermeer from soup to porridge, or those who finally glue their hands to frames or walls.
The first victim was Picasso’s ‘Massacre in Korea’ in Melbourne on October 9, where two people shook hands.
Then there was Van Gogh’s ‘Sunflowers’ on display at the National Gallery in London, which, after being soaked in tomato soup, slightly damaged the frame without damaging it thanks to the protective glass. A piece in Monet’s ‘HayStacks’ series was also attacked by mashed potatoes last weekend. and andThursday was the turn of Johannes Vermeer’s ‘Girl with a Pearl Earring’.In a museum in The Hague. An activist stuck his head in the painting. There are three detainees involved in an attack attributed to individuals linked to the Just Stop Oil environmental organization.
Those who carried out the ‘attacks’ justified themselves by pointing out that they are protesting in this way to draw attention to climate change.
“it’s all a bit strange”, points out art historian and professor Miguel Ángel Cajigal, known as El Barroquista en Redes. “I hope the trend will subside before someone gets hurt because some of these actions endanger the people who made them. It’s dangerous to stick your hands on the frame of a work of art: the piece could fall on someone,” adds El Barroquista, demanding that the wave stop, “one day they make a mistake of calculation and eventually cause serious destruction or irreversible in a work of art”.
“I hope one day the trend will stop without miscalculation”
Javier Buján, director of the Laxeiro Foundation, said, “The most worrying thing is that it’s becoming a trend. It seems like a vengeful strategy of action on any issue. I find this worrisome as an arts professional and also as a citizen. this artistic legacy it is good to protect and spread, there is no negative connotation.. Going against this favor seems worrisome to me.”
Manuel Vilar, director of the Galician Folk Museum, said:there are other ways to get attention. Personally, I am not afraid that they will do such a thing in our museum. These people seek places with greater demand. But it worries me” by saying, “You have to know art history and if you know it, you have to respect it”.
Santiago Olmo, president of the Galician Center for Contemporary Art (CGAC), believes that “there is a certain fanaticism and little consistency in these actions. Culture is everyone’s heritage. It’s like we burned libraries to protest deforestation. I think this is determined by the deterioration of teaching and culture in general”.
He thinks that “these attacks are aimed at works with a high media impact” and therefore the works currently on display at his center are “not likely to be attacked”. However, he admitsthere is always risk, there is no 100% security in these cases”.
“Surveillance and security measures in museums – continued El Barroquista – are basically deterrent. It is true that if you try to do something like this, you will eventually find a way to do it. Museums are not places with extraordinarily high security measures. They are trying to prevent it, but it is very difficult to prevent it,” he said.
From his point of view, we should also pay attention to the loudspeaker effect that the media can achieve. about Endless doubt as to whether it is better to inform or remain silent to stop the echo. “What happens is that every single one of these acts is news and gives me the feeling that we’re on a escalation. Every week something worse is done than the last, and a ban is opened to attack known works of art. There is a tolerance in some media outlets that justifies justifications,” he criticizes.
The director of the CGAC also thinks about the role of the media: “Every time there is such a case, it is in the media.”
“There is a general pointlessness that comes in part from the lack of reflection caused by networks”
Miguel Ángel Cajigal points out that “museums play a very minor role in climate change for them to be the target of this kind of action. Most of these actions justified by groups new to the struggle environmental and they want to distinguish He does these kinds of things for publicity.”
In addition, he asks himself: “Where are the limits to the legacy of all who are protected by law and who have taken an economic, scientific, and intellectual effort to maintain it? They always justify that they don’t want to damage their artwork, but one day something big will happen.”
counterproductive
According to him, these actions can backfire because they run the risk of “being” eventually.negative publicity“Since today, there are so many people who criticize them and stand by them. I don’t think it’s a good way to draw attention to a problem that everyone has.”
Currently working on a second book, El Barroquista believes he “did not see clearly the real motivation behind it.” I don’t see how this is desirable for a protest movement. appearing as vandals in the media”.
Buján says, “artworks are always innocent. There are several ways to use works of art as a protest. There are those who do something without harming them,” he said.
For him, “a deep reflection“about whether art is becoming less and less important to society. “For a while, everything has been so trivialized that everything seems to be of equal importance, from the most trivial to the most important. There is a general sense of meaninglessness, partly due to the lack of reflection that networks cause”.