JUST STOP SITTING ON THE FENCE
Cultural Institutions and Climate Breakdown.
In October 2024, Just Stop Oil asked me to write an article in response to an open letter from the National Museum Directors’ Council. I wrote what follows, and we tried to get interest from national and specialist art papers. None of them took the bait. Perhaps the piece is a bit crap, or maybe it cuts too close to the establishment bone. You decide.
JUST STOP SITTING ON THE FENCE
It was a repeat protest of throwing soup at Van Gogh’s Sunflowers by climate activists in September 2024 that pushed the custodians of our national museums over the edge. The National Museum Directors’ Council (NMDC) issued an open letter, which was quickly followed by a response from Just Stop Oil. The language and tenor of the two letters say so much about the opposing views of the two parties and, with it, positions taken in the face of climate breakdown. The NMDC letter issues a contradictory diktat: “Whilst we respect the right for people to protest, and are often sympathetic to the cause, these attacks have to stop.” Their use of "often" is revealing—after all, NMDC members like the British Museum and Science Museum continue to accept funding from fossil fuel companies. Their letter is also disingenuous in its assertions. No damage was done to the artworks as they claim. After the 2022 protest, the National Gallery reported ‘some minor damage to the frame, but the painting is unharmed.’ Their suggestion that "visitors no longer feel safe" is pure hyperbole—Just Stop Oil, like Extinction Rebellion and Insulate Britain, holds non-violence as a core principle. Maybe NMDC had followed Judge Hehir’s arguments when when sentencing the original soup throwers, Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland, to two years and twenty months respectively. “There is nothing peaceful or nonviolent about throwing soup. Throwing soup in someone’s face is violent,” he pronounced from the bench, conveniently forgetting that the soup was thrown at a protected painting, not a person.. By trial time, the National Gallery had inflated their initial "minor damage" assessment to a £10,000 repair bill, joining the broader establishment clamour to criminalize Phoebe and Anna.
What is most revealing about the NMDC letter is that the Directors cannot bring themselves to mention climate. While they speak of the world being "currently in a very dark place," they completely ignore the actual subject of the protests—the existential threat of climate breakdown. In the face of the darkness, all they can offer is for their museums and galleries to ‘continue to provide light and succour to all.’ This patrician stance implies that the role of art and culture is one of passive reassurance. They declare that ‘Everyone (is) to be inspired by humanity’s greatest achievements’, as if contemplating a received version of beauty is enough to save us from our current predicament.
The NMDC stance represents a cultural retreat, where the custodians assert a duty to safeguard the past and not to engage meaningfully in the debate and action about the future. This position unwittingly reinforces one of the primary tenets of the Eurocentric modern project – the culture/nature divide that allows humankind to glorify the former while treating nature as an unruly resource to be plundered. It is precisely this extractivist logic of modernity that has created the conditions of ecological collapse. Our museums and galleries, far from guardians of ‘humanity’s greatest achievements’ might actually be providers of emollient glosses that distract from humanity’s greatest disaster. The supine stance of our cultural institutions was reflected in the 2022 Royal Academy Summer Show that was notionally dedicated to climate. The first room one entered had one wall of pictures of trees opposite a wall of pictures of birds. A distinguished Royal Academician curated the room. Yes, we know these more-than-human beings face extinction, but making pretty images of them does not help.
Aestheticising environmental collapse might superficially bring attention to the crisis, but it leaves the underlying causes untouched. This is where Just Stop Oil sharply diverges from the NMDC's approach of offering mere "light and succour." During their protests, JSO presented one clear, achievable demand: stop new oil and gas extraction. Their actions often use creative techniques to heighten the impact of their protests. The image of orange powder rising in a cloud from the green baise of a World Snooker table is incredibly knowing in its dramatic effect. Likewise, the cheap soup dripping harmlessly down the frame of a ‘priceless’ painting provokes countless responses, like all good art should – about value, about what is truly important as we face ecological collapse, about whether preserving art matters more than preserving the planet., and so on.
In this light, the Directors of our National Museums, far from denouncing the protestors, should see how much they have to learn from the creative tactics of Just Stop Oil. Given the urgency of the situation, cultural institutions must turn outwards and actively engage with the crisis. The latest United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report is clear that unless immediate action is taken to reduce greenhouse gases, the world is on course for a temperature rise between 2.6C and 3.1C. At these levels, vast swathes of the planet become uninhabitable. Museums will be reduced to bunkers hunkering down against heat and floods. As the JSO response argues, ‘we need institutions to confront their responsibilities at this time – head on.’ It is time to Just Stop Sitting on the Fence.