Taking pot shots at Van Gogh at the National Gallery

Earlier this year two young women each threw a can of tomato soup at Van Gogh's painting of sunflowers at the National Gallery

Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland

throwing two cans of tomato soup at

Van Gogh's Sunflowers in the National Gallery

The video below shows what they did. They apparently caused criminal damage exceeding £10k

They pleaded 'not guilty' when their case was tried at London's Southwark Crown Court.

During the hearing, the defendants said they “couldn’t have cared less” if the painting had been damaged.

On Friday, they both received significant prison sentences.

• Phoebe Plummer, 23, was sentenced to two years in prison for causing an estimated £10,000 of damage to the frame of Sunflowers 1888. Wikipedia now describes as a British climate change activist and convicted criminal
• Anna Holland, 22, received 20 months for the same offence.

Prior to this, it seems very likely the two women charged had been told there was a good chance they'd go to prison for causing criminal damage. Hence they had others pleading their case and why they should not go to jail. 

Artists plead for activists who threw soup on a Van Gogh to be spared jail
More than 100 artists, curators and academics said Just Stop Oil action was in keeping with ethos of the arts

These are the Sentencing Guidelines for Criminal Damage

Note that if damage is valued at over £10,000, the case is tried at a Crown Court and a prison sentence is more than likely. Which is what happened. So those pleading on their behalf were effectively "performance art".

Of which there was more in the trial. Why do you plead” not guilty” when the whole thing is on video - unless you want to pursue further political protest eg the 20 minute statement in court by one of the protestors as to why it should be regarded as protest.

The Judge said

“You two simply had no right to do what you did to Sunflowers, and your arrogance in thinking otherwise deserves the strongest condemnation.

“The pair of you came within the thickness of a pane of glass of irreparably damaging or even destroying this priceless treasure, and that must be reflected in the sentences I pass.”

and

“Section 63 of the sentencing code requires me, in assessing the seriousness of your offending, to consider not only the harm your offence caused, but also the harm it might foreseeably have caused. For the reasons I have explained, that foreseeable harm is incalculable. Your offending is so serious that only custodial sentences are appropriate.”

Other protestors from the same organisation had obviously anticipated a prison sentence was likely and had planned ahead.

Which is why a little time after the sentence was announced, three more protestors were involved in the same painting being the target of their protest yet again. This time, they threw tomato soup again at TWO paintings of sunflowers by Van Gogh.

Three supporters of Just Stop Oil walked into the National Gallery in London, where an exhibition of Van Gogh’s collected works is on display, at 2.30pm on Friday afternoon, and threw Heinz soup over Sunflowers 1889 and Sunflowers 1888.

(Note to do so they must have planned ahead as it's currently impossible to get tickets for this exhibition without having to wait some time for access - I booked this week and am not going until mid October)

This video shows what they did

This time the three protestors refrained from glueing themselves to the wall.

I had thought the prison sentences might be deterrent. Obviously not.

What I'd like to know is:

• what on earth were the security staff doing letting people wearing Just Stop Oil Shirts into (a) the National Gallery and (b) a priced exhibition - when they had cans of tomato soup in their bags - and were wearing Just Stop Oil T Shirts.
• are these continued protests going to have an impact on what art lovers can take into art galleries and exhibitions?

For the record, I am unequivocal that criminal damage is criminal damage and deserves a prison sentence.

Update

It occurred to me after I wrote this, that there was another relevant point to make in relation to protest in or near art galleries. This latter point was first written as a comment in response to a comment on my Facebook post about this issue.

The fact is political protest is fine. Criminal damage is not. If you don’t care whether you cause damage - and then you do (within the terms of the definition of the law) then you are a criminal and not a protestor.

Smart protestors know how to raise the profile of an issue without getting sent to prison.

Nan Goldin and others participating in her “die-ins” (re the OxyContin/Purdue Pharma/Sackler protest) was arrested for disorderly conduct and got massive newspaper coverage. She did’t damage anything and she didn’t go to jail. Plus the Sackler family had their reputation trashed and their name take off lots of arts buildings.

see my previous posts on Nan Goldin and the Sacklers

• The Continuing Saga of Sackler Embarrassment for Art Galleries and Museums
• The Politics of Sponsorship - a new reality for art galleries and museums