"What's worth more, art or life?": Rethinking climate activism and education through environmental aesthetics

• In Event: Climate and Environmental Protests as Education

Proposal

While Greta Thunberg’s powerful “How Dare You” speech at the 2019 UN climate action summit garnered substantial media coverage and attention among politicians and the general public, few necessary radical climate actions and policies have been implemented. The level of political unwillingness to take the climate crisis seriously still holds true to this date even though the UN Secretary-General remarked that “the climate crisis has passed the point of no return” in 2022. Out of desperation and frustration, some young activists have begun “attacking” artworks at museums and galleries. Since 2022, renowned artworks such as the Mona Lisa, The Scream and more have been targeted by activists throwing food (or paint) at and (attempting to) glue themselves to the protective coverings of the artworks (Benzine, 2022). Although their actions and reasoning have not been well-received by the broader society, most of these groups are determined to ramp up disruptions, including targeting artwork (Bir, 2022; Paddison, 2023). It is therefore important to understand the essence of this form of activism and its broader implications to climate activism and education.

Existing discussions are limited within the fields of social sciences, climate communication, and art history and are mainly concerned with the effectiveness, legitimacy, and consequences of attacking artworks as a form of climate protest (Ozmen, 2023; Small, 2023). From a social science perspective, climate activists targeting artworks have two broad interpretations: 1) radicalizing actions as expressing eco-distress and frustration towards climate emergency (Horn-Muller, 2022; Jacobo, 2022), and 2) provoking shock to seek visibility and reactivity through the internet and social media (Bir, 2022; Einhorn & Corrigal-Brown, 2023). While some activists and sociologists suggest that people talking about the disruptions proves the tactic effective, others are concerned that the ceiling effect is already in place and radical actions would bring backlash to the cause (Davis, 2022; Osaka, 2022; Patterson & Mann, 2022). Art critics, journalists, and social commentators argue that unlike previous LGBTQ+ and feminist movements where thoughtful, tactical art vandals were deemed successful and effective, the current art attacks are seen as a “misguided strategy” which lacks coherent links between the shouted messages and the targeted artworks (Davis, 2022). With social media as an accelerator and amplifier coupled with negative media coverage, these actions are perceived as unthoughtful “PR stunts” (Medina, 2022; Rogan, 2022; Romano, 2022).

However, what has been significantly absent from the current discourse is the shared sense of social and cultural betrayal across comments towards the art-attack tactic. Instead of responding to the stated objective to converse about climate inaction and oil reliance, most comments under the art attack-related videos are, at best, expressing annoyance towards the tactic and, at worst, targeting activists’ appearance, assumed sexual orientation and socio-economic status (France 24 English, 2022; JOE; 2022). In the case of activists throwing soup at van Gough’s Sunflowers and shouting "What's worth more, art or life?", five categories of betrayal are identified: 1) to have ignored the disparity between class regarding their capacity and resourcefulness to take climate actions; 2) downplayed the difficulty for individuals and institutions to decouple from oil (by-)products and companies; 3) misplaced outrage and accountability on the people instead of people in power; 4) violated public trust in that public galleries as safe spaces for documenting, preserving and enriching civilization and humanity; and 5) fundamentally challenged cultural values around nature, aesthetics, and environmentalism.

This paper focuses on the last cultural betrayal through the lens of environmental aesthetics (Carlson & Lintott, 2008). Nature’s value has predominantly been associated with the notions of beauty (picturesqueness) and interest and our perception of and engagement with nature is fundamentally impacted by aesthetics (Hargrove, 1979). Nature, the subject which inspires natural scientists, artists and poets, is commonly considered as valuable and worthy enough for ethical considerations only when it is transformed into cultural objects and products (e.g. landscape paintings, national parks, etc.). Since preservation and conservation are heavily informed by our perception of nature and forestry management is essentially a service for consumption, nature has long been part of the cultural reproduction process (Zeller, 2022). How we interact with nature reinforces what we predominantly think ‘nature’ should look and be like. With art as the symbol of humanity, the very question about worthiness highlights the uncomfortable truth and brutally challenges the paradoxical cultural values embedded in our perception of art, human and non-human life.

This paper contributes to the discussion in two critical and novel ways. First, by qualitatively analyzing all comments under all videos related to climate activists’ art attacks available on YouTube since 2022, a nuanced understanding of the perception of such a tactic with the identified categories of betrayal are provided. Second, by introducing environmental aesthetics into the discussion, not only does it offer additional insights on the effectiveness, legitimacy, and consequences of the tactic, it also encourages education researchers and practitioners to consider more interdisciplinary perspectives when reflecting on their own work. Specifically, articulating the paradoxical relationship between art and environmental aesthetics could potentially explain why art vandal tactics have been more successful in protesting about other issues than climate change. Informed by the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 2005), the concept of psychological distance (Chu, 2019) and other work on climate communication (Kelsey, 2020; Marlon et al., 2019), while support for climate policies might not fall due to general public’s awareness, the continuous art attacks might amplify anxiety and intensify people’s sense of helplessness, increasing the likelihood of disengagement and inaction. Regarding education, we must understand how historical foundations shape our current knowledge and value systems and so as our approaches to science, art, environmental, and climate change education in particular. To combat the climate crisis and beyond, sciences and the arts must work together on an equal footing and alternative framings across disciplines about our relationship with nature must be discussed more openly and frequently. This paper will conclude with concrete recommendations on considering future climate activism tactics, addressing the five categories of social and cultural betrayal through education, and rethinking environmental and climate change education.

Author

• Shue-kei Joanna Mok, University of Maryland, College Park