This past summer while studying abroad in London, I took a day trip to the infamous Stonehenge, a structure that was built and has remained since the BC times. I was excited to see this marvelous creation but my plan was hindered when I heard that Just Stop Oil protesters had sprayed orange paint all over the landmark in a fight against new oil and gas licensing. The stones no longer looked as they do in all of the glorious and beautiful pictures online, but are now orange and destroyed. This begged the question of whether these protestors were brave and making a strong case or going way too far by temporarily destroying and shutting down a historical landmark that thousands of people visit every day. Is it necessary to go as far as this? Why aren’t these protestors simply just making flashy posters and taking to the streets? In a PBS interview titled, “Why activists are targeting famous art to protest climate change,” an oil protester named Emma Brown explained that signs and posters no longer grab the attention of individuals and they needed to do something shocking to the public to raise awareness of their concerns.
Other artworks these protestors have targeted are the Mona Lisa, Van Gogh’s Sunflowers, and Monet’s Haystacks. The activists of Just Stop Oil have been targeting artwork for several years now in an attempt to get us to listen. The cause that they stand for is to fight against climate change and their concern is that it is not anyone’s, including politicians, top priority. By attacking infamous artwork all around the world, Just Stop Oil activists are begging people to ask themselves whether the lifestyle that we currently all live is worth harming the Earth for. By attacking items that are viewed as historical treasures, climate activists are forcing viewers to think about how important climate change is to them. These attacks on art are not permanent and no artwork has been destroyed, instead, the artwork is temporarily detourned for the sake of protesting.
Experts and reporters have been questioning whether these attacks on artworks actually do anything. Evidence shows that viewers are actually angry about the extent that these protesters are going and in turn are not supporting their cause. The message is not being received and instead is being taken a completely different way.
Lastly, I want to question whether these protesters are creating art themselves. Throwing orange paint onto a giant stone sculpture is using detournement and therefore is art in itself. This activist artwork is grabbing the attention of people whether it is positive or negative attention. Viewers are forced to stop and look and ask themselves questions about what the artwork means. In this case, the orange paint expresses the use of oil and how that is further causing climate change and needs to stop.
To address the question you posed at the end of your article, I do not think that these protesters are creating art nor do I think that it is their intention to do so. I think that your example of Stonehenge is a perfect example of this. There are many reasons why the protesters choose to target artwork. In the case of climate protests, for example, there is the message to the viewer that these precious historical artifacts are fragile, they can be destroyed and they will be if climate change progresses. Another message may ask the viewer to consider their priorities and where they spend their money given these museums and sights are often quite expensive. When looking at it this way, yes, I would consider the protester’s actions as a type of performative art via detournement. However, I think that money is the key point here. Looking back at the Stonehenge example, when the protesters disrupted the area, they caused either the temporary closure of the sight altogether or their actions may have discouraged tourists from visiting. This can cause huge financial losses for a temporary period that not only draws the attention of the viewers to the protest but the attention of public entities as well. This is exactly what the protesters want, they want to be heard by those who have the power to make a difference and money can be the fastest way to convey the seriousness of the issue.
To answer your question about whether or not these protestors are creating art by defacing art, I would say yes. As you mentioned in your article, these protestors are using detournement to send a message to the general public about climate change. At first, before I read that the protestors do not cause any permanent damage to these historical art pieces, I was shocked and angry that anyone would deface such valuable art. However, I feel better that they are not actually damaging the art, and I can understand their reasoning a bit more. I think it is really interesting that most viewers refuse to support the protestors’ cause because of their actions. I can completely understand their perspective because I believe that there are much more effective ways to gain people’s attention besides detourning artwork — for instance, by creating artwork instead of defacing artwork that already exists.