In a series called Mondo Bullshittio, let’s talk about some of the most glaring hypocrisies and faux pas in pop culture… and all that it affects.
As if Vincent Van Gogh didn’t suffer enough in his life—yes, believe it or not, a white man was capable of suffering—he continues to endure the incompetence of the art world and art world hangers-on via the latest “splat” stunt taken by “activists” against a painting. Proving, yet again, that it’s all been done, the “soup incident” that took place at London’s National Gallery this week followed the recent “caking” of Leonardo Da Vinci’s “Mona Lisa” at the Louvre. The latter “protest” was also, as usual, helmed by a millennial man (one says “as usual” because everything Gen Z does is grafted from millennials—and all as they continue to talk their shit about said generation).
The Louvre “protester’s” approach to getting close enough access to this particular famous painting was also far more madcap than what occurred with Van Gogh’s “Sunflowers” in that the person in question—ultimately apprehended and put under psychiatric evaluation (because you’d have to be “crazy” to be unmoved by the Mona Lisa, right?)—feigned being disabled and a woman to get close enough to the painting. Zany indeed. Something right out of Scooby-Doo.
Things were more straightforward in the case of the two people from a group called Just Stop Oil that decided to single-handedly “put a stop to climate catastrophe.” Their method, instead, was to glue themselves to the wall (with glue that obviously wasn’t very strong) after tossing a can of tomato soup (how very Warhol) at the beloved painting that Van Gogh spent toiling over in 1888 and 1889, the former year being when he cut off his ear. So yeah, “Sunflowers” was goddamn hard-won for the painter. He didn’t sacrifice a body part for two twats from a flaccid generation to try to fuck with it and make a totally non sequitur “statement” about climate change and big business (i.e., oil companies).
But to give this lot the “benefit of the doubt,” maybe “Sunflowers” was chosen for its “nature-y angle” (the way John Constable’s “The Hay Wain” was previously targeted by the same group back in July). Who knows? Regardless, Van Gogh—nor any other painter like him—isn’t the one to wield as some kind of attention-grabbing tool. It does nothing to spotlight the climate emergency, but rather, serves only to accent the grasping-at-straws aura Gen Z is constantly radiating.
Complete with one of the protesters giving a prime example of the argument of false equivalence by way of the so-called reasoning for the soup splat: “What is worth more? Art or life? Is it worth more than food? Worth more than justice? Are you more concerned about the protection of a painting or the protection of our planet and people?” Oh darling, appreciating the painting—appreciating art—has nothing to do with why we’re where we’re at today.
Indeed, it is precisely because society has veered so far from taking time for things like art that capitalism has been permitted to thrive unchecked. Another reason why it’s quite odd to witness this sudden trend in the backlash against art, presently being used as a means to place blame on something that’s drawing the attention of the world away from what’s really important. The “Mona Lisa” man already pulling the same thematic stunt when he said, “Think of the Earth… There are people who are destroying the Earth.” Yes, okay. We can think of that while not fucking up artists’ work that actually does force people to reflect on Mother Nature and her significance (not to mention a slew of other existential dilemmas). The way in which none of our middling efforts for attention will stand a chance against her ability to topple us for our insolence in the end. And if Gen Z really gave a shit about saving her, they wouldn’t engage in the same exact behavior as the forebears they so openly and ageistly mock as they proceed to click Add to Cart on websites like Shein. Because “getting eyes on an issue” isn’t the same as actually doing the work to find a solution for it.
To boot, this totally bizarre and inane need to flex against art speaks to a larger issue about the rise of philistinism in our society. Obviously, art is something that is actually extremely undervalued and ill-regarded. Just look at the total lack of funds distributed toward it as a subject in schools (especially in the United States). With government legislation instead placing emphasis on the dumbing down of its still-unable-to-vote constituents. And it is directly because art is so under-appreciated as a “viable skill” (read: commodifiable one) that the world has become obsessed with only pursuing it if it can be “monetized”—a phenomenon that belies the very core of what art is supposed to be about: doing it solely for the sake of it (which is what Van Gogh himself did most of the time), because it gives one pleasure, release (if you’ll pardon the sexual innuendo).
Maybe, if Gen Z actually engaged with tangible art (instead of deeming making parroting videos in an attempt for virality as such), we might not be witnessing this blatant form of false equivalence in terms of trying to compare people paying attention to art “in lieu of” the environment as the crux of what’s wrong with our society. When, in fact, the crux of what’s wrong is that there isn’t enough art or comprehension of its value on this Earth. Now, it’s been repurposed as but a tool for Gen Z to “protest,” not realizing that such variations of “rebellion” only display their ilk as utterly daft in their attempts for relevance and “avante-gardeness.” Having so few things to cling to identity-wise that “saving the environment” feels more like a bid to establish a defined personality of some sort than it does a genuine concern for the future of humanity. And certainly not any concern whatsoever for the future of art, which is absolutely necessary for anyone with a soul to want to continue on in this life—fucked environment or not. Which, hate to break it to the snowflakes, is already an assured inevitability (try as the millennials did to recycle, reduce, reuse)… no matter how many paintings are “splatted.”
Nonetheless, one of the protesters from the “Hay Wain” stunt felt obliged to ask, “When there is no water, what use is art? When billions of people are in pain and suffering, what use then is art?” To Gen Z’s dismay, that’s exactly when art is going to be at its peak level of importance (to certain circles). Of course, comme toujours, only as a status symbol for “the rich.” In this scenario, those who have managed to flee to a climate refuge.
Thus, in effect, the aforementioned protester is using the argument Mark Fisher made (because, to reiterate, Gen Z has no original thoughts) whilst using the example of a scene from Children of Men, describing, “Cultural treasures—Michelangelo’s ‘David,’ Picasso’s ‘Guernica,’ Pink Floyd’s inflatable pig—are preserved in a building that is itself a refurbished heritage artifact. This is our only glimpse into the lives of the elite, holed up against the effects of a catastrophe… Theo asks the question, ‘How can all this matter if there will be no one to see it?’ The alibi can no longer be future generations, since there will be none. The response is nihilistic hedonism: ‘I try not to think about it.’”
Yet the fact remains, art and the caring about it is not a cause of climate change, merely an imminent mark of affluence (granted, it is already). And if it is the affluent that Gen Z has beef with for their callousness toward The Reckoning, why not take it up with their false idols instead? Those rebranded “artists” of the present called celebrities? It seems a more pointed and effective mode of dissent than taking art away from the garden-variety broke asses who try to see it in the public space so as to fulfill Keith Haring’s dream of art being “for everyone.” Even uncultured swine like Gen Z.
