Madison Kwiecinski – Editor-in-Chief 

Mvk5945@psu.edu 

Activists have tried to make their points heard in dramatic fashions, doing anything they can to ensure someone is paying attention to their cause. However, throughout the last year, some of these protestors have attacked historical pieces of art in outrageous fashions, simply to capture the attention of the press. 

First, I would like to say that I am all for protests and civil discourse through the proper routes. I think it is incredibly important to stand for what you believe in and fight for change. However, I also think it entirely defeats the purpose to pull stunts and damage history and art to achieve this goal. 

For example, this week two climate activists protesting oil entered the Metropolitan Museum of Art and attacked the painting Sunflowers by Vincent Van Gough. They claim this was meant to protest big oil, a cause I typically would stand for, but upon seeing this it immediately did not matter to me what their cause was. They went about this wrong. 

The two activists threw a can of Heinz tomato soup all over the painting, covering it in the red slimy substance. My favorite part? The painting was covered in glass, as most historical paintings in museums tend to be due to people like them who make it unsafe to display them otherwise.

There are many people who believe all press is good press, despite the negative connotations it may bring, because it puts your cause out there. I am not one of those people, and I strongly believe stunts like these cause bad publicity that undermines the cause, making people who originally would support the root issue, such as stopping big oil, disregard the issue as a whole. 

In May of this year, a man in a wheelchair dressed as a woman threw cake at the Mona Lisa in the Louvre Museum. When being interviewed by the Associate Press, he stated, “Think of the Earth! There are people who are destroying the Earth! Think about it. Artists tell you: think of the Earth. That’s why I did this.” 

Although the point of this action is even less clear than that of the activists against big oil, regardless, this is not how we fix anything. Destroying art and human history is not and will not be the thing that inspires change, especially among the general population. 

In July of this year, a group of activists made the ridiculous decision to all physically glue themselves to the Last Supper and spray painted the wall in the museum to say “no new oil.” 

I simply cannot wrap my head around these activists thinking the best way to stop big oil is to attack beloved oil paintings in museums the public frequents across the world. Talk to your legislators, protest at your state capitol or in Washington D.C. Do something that can elicit actual change. 

If you are going to physically glue yourself to something, causing possible damage, annoying those around you, should you not at least do it in a place where something worthwhile may come out of it? Go to the biggest oil company, or the lobbying organization that does the most dirty work for big oil, and glue yourself to their front door. Protests outside of these places annoy their CEOs. Stage a sit-in in the lobby of these organizations. Maybe if you are feeling really spicy and desperately need to glue yourself to something today, glue yourself to the car door of the owner of the biggest oil company near you. 

I think the overall point here, is destroying art and history is not only not helping these causes, but is an entirely uncalled for tragedy. Why should we destroy art simply because the top one percent is destroying our world? Why cause more problems in the world instead of actually fixing something? I propose when we protest, we use our voices to say what is important, not just to simply be heard screaming but to make a real and worthwhile point in a way that may actually spark change.