 |
| Climate activists threw tomato soup on a Van Gogh painting in a London gallery on Friday. Attention- getting, yes, but probably not so effective messaging. |
Then the two activists glued their hands to the wall.
Yes, this is incredibly stupid in any scenario, and like probably everyone else, I'm at a loss as to how this will blunt the dangerous effects of climate change.
As the Washington Post reports:
"'What is worth more, art or life?' one of the protesters shouted, her hand glued to the wall behind her. '..... Are you more concerned about the protection of a painting or the protection of our planet?'"
I'm being Captain Obvious here, but t's unclear how trying to destroy a work of art will save any lives that could be claimed by climate change.
Don't get me wrong. It IS appropriate for climate activists to make the fossil fuel industry and the politicians who support these industries uncomfortable. However, to be too literal, I don't think it's Van Gogh's fault that we are facing a climate crisis.
The good news is "Sunflowers" was protected by glass, so it was unharmed, though the frame suffered light damage from the acidity in the tomato soup. Six hours after the incident, "Sunflowers" was back on display in the National Gallery.
The Washington Post's report notes that the "Sunflower" attack was one of a series of climate protests that have targeted famous art. I don't know why.
If you want to do something about climate change, you need allies. You want to convince people the cause is important, that everyone should participate in efforts to wean ourselves away from fossil fuel.
The art attacks and other strange climate activist stunts, has the opposite effect of alienating potential allies.
It's true these wacko climate moments do garner plenty of attention. Various video of the Great Van Gogh Tomato Soup Incident of '22 has garnered tens of millions of views on social media.
But how many people who watched the video became more sympathetic to the cause? My guess is very few. In fact, I bet they had quite the opposite effect. People who might have been persuaded that climate activism might actually help the planet now might incorrectly dismiss most climate change activists as kooks and attention seekers.
There's research to back this up. Michael Mann, a leading climate scientist, cited research from Stamford suggesting that bad or extreme messaging backfires. In the study's abstract, the researchers wrote:
"....we find across three experiments that extreme protest tactics decreased popular support for a given cause because they reduced feelings of identification with the movement."
This isn't at all to say that climate activism among youth is bad. Most of the time, it's extremely helpful as many young people are creative, super smart and bring a lot of energy in the fight for climate change reform.
Mann tweeted: "I love the passion of the youth climate movement - it has been a game changer, precisely because it has WON hearts and minds. Let's not forget that."
I completely agree with him.
I'm not sure if Friday's tomato soup group was just looking for social media clicks, or they succumbed to despair. I suspect the later, judging from public statements from the soup kids and their supporters.
I thought Terri Mitchell's @Storm4Nosey defense of the pair was pretty representative. "There will be no art on a dead planet. Climate change will not just destroy the natural world, but everything that humans have ever created. No beauty, no culture, no past, no future no life. Nothing..... There won't be any beauty in the world if we allow the climate to be destroyed."
My response was, "So the solution is to try to preemptively destroy beauty before climate change does it?"
I worry about Mitchell's nihilism and that of the soup group. And that of the other despairing activists. The climate crisis is obviously an enormous foe, and everything needs to be done to stop it. But this apparent need to try and destroy things before climate change gets a chance seems counterproductive. Why try to blunt climate change when all is already lost?
Climate scientist Peter Kalmus had a more nuanced, but still supportive take on the soup group, In a Twitter thread, he notes that the anger over the vandalism to the Van Gogh painting, which really caused no damage, is misplaced. In part, Kalmus writes:
"How tragic, that there is LITERALLY more outrage over this act that caused zero damage, than about fossil fuel executives lying, colluding, and blocking action for decades, locking in intensifying heat waves, flooding, fires, rising seas, collapsing crop yields and death?
Kalmus continued: "These activists and their bold act of desperation shattered the collective sleepwalk, if for a moment. It stirred things up. It caused discussion. It shone a light."
I still worry that it might have caused the wrong discussion. The climate crisis is so big that we need as many of us as possible to participate in a solution. Trying to damage a painting, sitting down and blocking roads (thereby making cars sit and idle, spewing more CO2 into the atmosphere) and other stunts turn too many people off.
Why not turn our attention toward the fossil fuel executives that Kalmus refers to. And the politicians that aid and abet them. And others would would deny the dangers of climate change, all for fun and especially profit?
Van Gogh had nothing to do with the climate change. I know it is hard for younger people especially to not succumb to nihilism and despair over the climate crisis? But what choice do we have. Give up and throw soup cans, or do the real work of changing the world before it's too late.
I know many people, especially those younger than me are doing just that. Changing the world to save it. Let's join them instead of denying and destroying the beauty of the world that still exists.
No comments:
Post a Comment