If I may defend soup on Van Goghs and paint on Stonehenge

Then Stonehenge, a prehistoric structure that began its journey about five thousand years ago, was slathered in orange paint. The same collective anger broke out. This time protesters were attempting to damage ancient history and heritage. Again, the link to environmental justice was tenuous in the eyes of many.

Read more:

We’re stuck in an infinite nostalgia loop… where is the culture of tomorrow?

While petty vandalism of priceless artifacts may be in vogue with environmental protesters, there is no genuine threat of cultural destruction on the horizon from these high-profile stunts. Cultural destruction is already occurring, but it is a slow, suffocating process. It’s a boiling frog. An act as asinine as throwing washable paint on Stonehenge fails to move the needle an inch.

Perhaps a healthier and more productive way of seeing, understanding, and appreciating can arise from such direct action and the intense reaction it garners. Instead of driving blind from visceral anger, sharper focus could be placed on why these objects mean and matter so much to us.

We remain steadfast on the importance of the physical object in front of us when the culture of the future is set to leave such a physical world behind. It’s a gradual cultural shift that we must come to terms with. We will come to find out that the meaning and importance of these objects are not erased when their material presence no longer exists.

While the meaning and importance of Van Gogh’s work circulates in hearts and minds, in practice the physical paintings now lack the capability to transport that meaning and importance. Van Gogh and other major gallery draws have become cultural symbols lost in the muck of tourism and branding. Witness crowds observing important works through their phones as they take endless pictures, all just to prove and then forget that they’ve seen a known symbol of culture. Witness £25 tickets to an ‘immersive’ but pointless Van Gogh touring exhibit. I’m not sure how tomato soup can damage Van Gogh more than that.

Read more:

Don’t let taxpayer-funded sex film put off funding daring and provocative art

The same train of thought applies to Stonehenge. Far fewer headlines were written about the existentially damaging road tunnel planned to run underneath its site. UNESCO is now set to place Stonehenge on its list of 'World Heritage in Danger' sites as a result. Actual destruction could lie in wait for Stonehenge, but nary a peep.

But the serious issue of preservation and heritage that Stonehenge faces is dry and boring to broader eyes and ears. It fails to compare to the image of protesters fantastically throwing around a visually jarring bright colour, which is then easily disseminated and travelled through the media and the internet to provoke the outrage, disgust, and, most importantly, attention of many.

Protesters used the sight of Stonehenge covered in bright orange paint to provoke action on climate - while the site itself is now under real threat from an underground commuter tunnel (Image: PA)
Even historical sites have been reduced to mere symbols, making them potent and obvious targets for attention-grabbing protest stunts. The attitude is such that any saving of Stonehenge will likely come from threats to the business of tourism than the campaigners, archaeologists, environmentalists, and historians who understand and comprehend its importance and why its remaining presence on earth is still enriching to our understanding of developing civilisation.

Like many things in life, we care about the wrong things. We have let culture become a sea of empty symbols, and then judge protesters who, to their ends, decide to fill that emptiness with their own meaning. Regardless of their methods, their message carries a lot of weight and maintains a connection and awareness towards the sheer villainy of climate change inaction. As absurd and silly as they are, there is something quite radical in the spectacle these stunts create.

Read more:

Derek McArthur: No, we shouldn’t just ‘let people enjoy things’

It’s easy to just listen to instinct when seeing something we deem important under threat. But to get away from that instinct and consider exactly what is being lost is a much deeper, complicated question that few will ask themselves. There is ultimately something positive in ridding the narrow parameters that have over time come to represent such universally recognised cultural entities like Van Gogh and Stonehenge. There is something positive in evaluating and re-evaluating what is important to us, and why.

These protest stunts will continue to happen because protesters know they work. The same collective anger will arise, and the same discourse will play out. It will be conveniently filed under attention-seeking or immature iconoclasm by idealists. It will be culture war fodder to smear young people desperate for change and the many passionate campaigners for environmental justice. Maybe it’s best to take a step back and consider where our disgust comes from, and what effect can play out from these sorts of spectacles. Don’t fret, Van Gogh will be just fine.