Back in November 2022, the Italian Minister of Culture, Gennaro Sangiuliano, talked about the need to better protect works of art from the actions of climate activists and stated: “Considering the enormous heritage to be protected, the intervention will represent a considerable cost for the ministry and for the entire nation. Unfortunately, I can only foresee an increase in the cost of the entrance ticket.”
The statement sounded
deeply populist (and ridiculous) to me at the time. Perhaps not more populist
(or ridiculous), though, than the
statement of The National Gallery on 17 October:
“Following recent incidents within the Gallery it is now necessary to introduce increased security measures to ensure the safety of all who visit, National Gallery staff and the nation’s collection of paintings.
No liquids can be brought into the National Gallery, with the exception of baby formula, expressed milk and prescription medicines. We urge all visitors to bring minimal items with them including no large bags.
We anticipate it will take longer to access the Gallery and we apologise for this inconvenience in advance of your visit.”
Thus, the Italian
Minister of Culture anticipated an increase in the cost of the entrance ticket,
just like the National Gallery anticipates it will take longer to access the
Gallery. All because of “the climate loonies”, the “climate vandals”, who make “the
rest of us pay for [their] stupidity”, “ruin[ing] another's experience” (just a
few comments made by the public on Facebook, following the announcement of the
new measures).
Us and Them. The art lovers
and the loonies. The decent people and the vandals. Those caring for the future
of humans and more-than-humans on the planet and… who?
A few days before the National Gallery’s announcement, I had read the open letter of the National Museums Directors’ Council (NMDC) and was puzzled and upset with their statement that “While we respect the right for people to protest, and are often sympathetic to the cause, these attacks have to stop. They are hugely damaging to the reputation of UK museums and cause enormous stress for colleagues at every level of an organisation, along with visitors who now no longer feel safe visiting the nation’s finest museums and galleries.”
I understand the stress
these actions have caused on museum staff, but, hey… it’s part of the job, isn’t
it? I am sure British museum directors and museum staff remember the time IRA
was threatening citizens in the public space, including museums. I have difficulty
in understanding why visitors might not feel safe in museums today due to
climate activists. Has anyone expressed this concern or fear?
We are witnessing the
demonisation of climate activists, their implicit, but conscious, comparison to
terrorists. One may ask, which are the causes these museums/museum directors
are sympathetic to? Is the climate emergency one of them? Why are they repeating
the lie of artworks having been damaged? How have they handled climate
activists so far? Have they invited them to talk?
They haven’t. It
was actually the activists who asked for a meeting. Stressing that the
NMDC did not acknowledge in its statement the “climate emergency” or the
responsibilities of its signatories as “custodians of our national treasures”, Just
Stop Oil issued the invitation:
“Let’s meet next week, in a public location at the National Gallery. We have action takers who have risked liberty to call for an end to oil and gas that would love to speak with [National Gallery director] Dr. Gabriele Finaldi. (…) Today you take issue with soup and stickers, but tomorrow you will contend with rising waters in the Thames and deadly heat waves in the city. People disrupt museum and gallery spaces to break the illusion that everything is fine. We need institutions to confront their responsibilities at this time - head on.”
Following the comments
people made on Facebook regarding the new measures at the National Gallery, we
can see how far we are from this institution (and many others) assuming its
responsibilities in the climate change and its role in serving a very wide and
diverse public, “Most importantly: future generations”.
The generations that are already trying to raise awareness about a climate
emergency.
Thus, a number of angry
and obliging citizens answered my request for clarification from the National
Gallery with arguments based on “what if”…
“What if the liquid thrown by activists were not benign, but chemical acid strong enough to dissolve flesh?”
“They start throwing soup, then some idiot copies them and destroys The Hay Wain.”
“Do you think it is better to wait until something irreplaceable is actually damaged beyond repair?”
“But I was wondering - you sell soup on the premises. What is stopping an activist (and art hater?) buying it in the restaurant and using it.”
“The ‘climate’ vandals are damaging artworks, and nobody knows until they've thrown whatever they've brought what substance it is - it could be anything.”
Seriously, National
Gallery?
Seriously, National
Gallery followers? If the activists' purpose was to destroy artistic works or
hurt people, wouldn't they have done it?
Then, we also have a long
list of comments and questions regarding bringing water to the galleries, which
the National Gallery had to clarify one by one…
“We are older and need to bring water with us whenever we go out.”
“It takes me 4 hours to get home from the National Gallery and always have enough drinks on me for the journey. Is there anywhere I can leave them?”
“When I'm out and about all day in London, I always have a (filled) water bottle in my handbag. I can't really walk around a gallery/exhibition for hours without having a sip every now and then. I usually sit on a bench in a gallery nowhere near an artwork. How's that supposed to work now?”
“If someone has to take a prescription medicine (meaning pills, to be taken with water), then what do they do? I'm never without a water bottle on me because I have to take medicines regularly and also due to intense migraines. Does that mean I can't visit now?”
“For people like me with POTS who’s greatest joy is the arts this is actually very difficult. To retain blood volume and not faint with extended standing I have to take in water and salt as often as possible. So not having water readily available would be risky in a larger museum.”
And again: seriously,
National Gallery?
In September, Judge Christopher
Hehir sentenced Phoebe Plummer to two years in prison and Anna Holland to 20
months for causing an estimated £10,000 of damage to the frame of Van Gogh’s “Sunflowers”.
His words were chillying:
“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.”
Court sentences based on
“what if”? In the same way, the same judge sentenced climate activists last summer to
five and four years in prison for planning to block a motorway?
And if not everyone understands the severity of these sentences in what
concerns human rights, peaceful protest and civil disobedience, George Monbiot made it clear for us:
“The same judge, Christopher Hehir, presided over the trial of the two sons of one of the richest men in Britain (…) they viciously beat up two off-duty police officers, apparently for the hell of it. One of the officers required major surgery, including the insertion of titanium plates in his cheek and eye socket. One of the brothers, Costas, already had three similar assault convictions. But Hehir gave them both suspended sentences. He also decided that a police officer who had sex in his car with a drunk woman he had ‘offered to take home’ should receive only a suspended sentence. (…) Hehir also handed a suspended sentence to a man who rammed his car into the gates of Downing Street and was then found by police to have extreme child abuse images on his phone.”
The UN Special
Rapporteur on Environmental Defenders under the Aarhus Convention released
a position paper stating:
“The repression that environmental activists who use peaceful civil disobedience are currently facing in Europe is a major threat to democracy and human rights. The environmental emergency that we are collectively facing, and that scientists have been documenting for decades, cannot be addressed if those raising the alarm and demanding action are criminalized for it. The only legitimate response to peaceful environmental activism and civil disobedience at this point is that the authorities, the media, and the public realize how essential it is for us all to listen to what environmental defenders have to say.”
So, again: Seriously,
National Gallery? Seriously, National Museum Directors’ Council? Seriously,
museum directors and museum staff around the world who still prefer to believe
that this has nothing to do with museums, their governance, their functioning,
their sponsors or… art?
On October 21, we will
have the annual Access Culture conference: “Climate
emergency: what about Culture?”. The main speaker will be artist Maret
Anne Sara. Never heard of her? “Google her”, to follow the advice/order of the
National Gallery’s obliging followers.
More on this blog
First
they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.
No comments:
Post a Comment