Soup on Van Gogh's Painting

If you have been paying attention to the internet lately you might have heard of what happened to one of vincent van gogh’s paintings. Last week two young women named Phoebe Plummer who was 21 years old and Anna Holland who was 20 years old decided to throw cans of soup at one of Van Gogh's paintings called “Sunflowers” in room 43 of London's National Gallery . After throwing the soup they then glued themselves to the wall. They were then charged with criminal damage and aggravated trespass. 

 

The two ladies were protesting for their activist group Just Stop Oil which fights for stopping new production of fossil fuels. The reason they chose to do Van Gogh’s painting was because they knew that it was already protected by glass and throwing soup on it would do nothing. They saw it as a way to spread the word of Just Stop Oil since they have already done another painting in June. The painting (My Hearts in the Highlands) that they also threw soup on was from an artist named Horatio McCulloch.

 

They got the publicity that they wanted by doing so with the paintings. In fact it has caused more activist groups to do the same with dozens of paintings being dealt with the same way. The only problem with the Van Gogh painting was that the frame was slightly damaged. 


Climate activists throw soup at Van Gogh's 'Sunflowers' – POLITICO


Do you think that there could have been any other ways to spread publicity? Or was this the best way to do it?







https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/climate-activists-throw-soup-on-vincent-van-goghs-sunflowers-to-protest-fossil-fuels-180980958/

 

https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/just-stop-oil-protestor-van-gogh-sunflowers-why-video-1234643678/

You need to be a member of History 360 to add comments!

Join History 360

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies

  • Glad you got thos posted!

  • I personally believe that there are a lot of better ways to spead their word. It does not really help your cause that you threw soup on a paiting and also superglued your selfs to the wall. and their phone, shoes, shirts, hair dye are all make or produced with oil some way some how.

  • I think the girls are hipocrites because those shirts their wearing, made from petrolluim. So are there shoes, phones, that girls hair dye, and even the can were all made using some form of oil. 

  • There is a lot of better ways to spread publicity than runining important peices of history. It just brought attention to them not the problem they were trying to publicize. Imagine if the painting wasn't covered by a protective layer and the painting got ruined.

  •  I agree with the cause but this was a very wrong way to protest. It did get them the attention they wanted but it wasnt good attention. Who would want to support a group that throws soup on paintings that have nothing to do with what they are protesting. I think it was also dangerous if the frame was cracked or the soup leaked throught the frame onto the painting. I think they should have protested a differernt way that they still would have gotten attention, but it would have been poistive attention. 

  • I think this was not a great way to protest but in the end it work out. I think that they should of not throw the soup but protest a different way.

  • I agree with their cause but that is not the right way to protest. I think them protesting that way doesnt make people want to stop oil and support their cause, I think it looks bad and makes people not want to support that group and cause. Who wants to support a group that throws soups on paintings, and innocent people who have nothing to do with oil and fossil fules have to clean it up. If they wanted to protest they should protest somewhere that actually has to do with fossil fules. 

  • In my opinion, I strongly believe that this is a terrible way to protest, even if it is for a good cause. They knew that doing this would give them a lot of publicity, but what if there was a problem with the protective covering. Some of the soup could have seeped through the sides or the glass could have broken from the can, then actual art could have been heavily damaged. Although their message is good, they shouldn't risk damaging art.

  • I don't think this is the only way to protest.  But I will give them this:  It is darn effective.  They had to put some research into it, to figure out there was protective coating on top of the painting.  It however could have been the dumbest and most embarrasing way to get publicity and it is criminal. The reason it is embarrasing is because the people that are doing this are REALLY devoted to this that it is becoming a lifestyle, and that is too much of a thing if it dictates major actions like going to jail or not, it shouldn't be to that level. 

  • I think it was a little strange that this is the way they choose to display their message to the world, but they definetly got the publicity that they wanted and the platform to be able to share their beliefs. I do believe that there are other ways to go about spreading the message of something they clearly felt passionate about as the painting didn't really have a purpose other than getting attention. 

This reply was deleted.
eXTReMe Tracker