On October 27th, the famous Girl with a Pearl Earring painting, an oil painting on canvas made in 1665, painted by Dutch artist Johannes Vermeer, was targeted. Climate activists threw glue and various liquids at it to destroy the painting. Luckily, it was protected by the glaze and glass, and no damage was done. The activists were attempting to demonstrate against the use of oil in paintings since it harms the environment. It is essentially because of how hard it is to clean up. The harsh chemical, when disposed of incorrectly, leaks into the watershed (a land area channelling liquids into pools of water), therefore polluting the water. Also, the creation of oil releases a huge amount of carbon when burned. Carbon emissions are one of the largest contributors to climate change. But when interviewing a local artist, I discovered this no longer seems to be the case. Oil paint uses natural oils, like the ones used in cooking. The “solvents used to clean after oils,” are no longer as much of a hazard. “For 20 years or more, most art stores have solvents that are ecologically friendly.”
The Girl with the Pearl Earring is not the only example of people protesting against oil paint. People have been throwing mashed potatoes and tomato soup on Monet, cake at the Mona Lisa, gluing their hands to Primavera, and spray painting under The Last Supper. In all these situations, for the majority, nothing has been harmed. Museums protect their paintings well and have prepared themselves for situations like these.
But, at what point is activism not changing the future, but instead ruining the past? Can extreme measures such as destroying old art ever be justified?
In an interview with a local New Brunswick artist who decided to remain anonymous, he said that this movement is “good in that it catches people’s attention,” but he doesn’t “know why they chose art as the thing to pick on.” He said that Van Gough’s Sunflowers seemed to be a painting that celebrated nature.” As someone who is “part of the art world, but… also a director for a nature trust group,” he believes “a more positive way to make change is to join organizations like that.” When asked, “If people did this to your art for climate change, how would you feel,” he said, “if they did that to me, I don’t think that would be the right message.”
Generally, we must remember that museums are a place of respect. This recurring event is causing museum curators to work overtime cleaning up the mess and dealing with the press. They are attempting not to give the activists too much spotlight, as it could be encouraging. At a certain stage, their point has been made, and we can stop repeating the same actions of protest. We cannot let this continue as people will eventually have lost their respect for art—which we must not forget, holds immense cultural value even in modern civilization. Art shapes an ever-growing society. We cannot let it be a trend to destroy art. Trends come and go—art stays forever.
Comments