On the 14th October 2022, alarm bells of national outcry were jointly launched across the UK by most mainstream news outlets. The BBC, Guardian, Evening Standard, Telegraph, Daily Mail, all reported on a perceived threat to culture. As if an individual of prominence had been assaulted or killed, all reports spoke of the desecration of art, an unnecessary act of barbarism which had resulted in nothing but the condemnation and alienation of the public audience. Even the venerable left-wing journalist, Andrew Marr decried the act, stating on Twitter 'Right. They've absolutely lost me forever'. No doubt, the left, and indeed the wider radical climate movement, will take years to recover from the loss of one of their most visible acolytes.
Amidst this echo-chamber of denouncements, some overt, and some lighter spreads of mustard yellow on the same canvas of mainstream disapproval, two voices appeared to be drowned out in the witch-hunt. These voices, the voices of 21-year old Phoebe Plummer and 20-year old Anna Holland whispered among the chattering hyena 'What is worth more, art or life? Is it worth more than food? More than justice? Are you more concerned about the protection of a painting or the protection of our planet and people?'
The age old question of philosophy goes, if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there, does it make a sound? In this National Gallery of felled wood frames and painted parchment a tree did fall, those words unheralded spoke with a thousand times more weight than the screeching hysteria of the chattering media. But, it would appear from the reactions of many, or perhaps the lack of an appropriate reaction to this very apt question, that amidst this congregation of cultured minds in high society not a single soul could help but lose sight of the trees through the forest and those words in their profundity made little sound. Nevertheless, the question was raised, what as a society should we value more, art, or people? But we can go even further in this line of inquiry and ask, what is art? What makes it in anyway 'valuable?' and can acts of art be realised in acts of protest?
It would appear wildly contradictory and even oxymoronic to claim that the art does not require the artist, after all - how could the product be made without the hands of the producer? Despite this, it is very much reality that art is not truly the product of the artist alone, and indeed does not truly need the input of any producer in the traditional sense of the word. Whilst this idea may seem terribly counter-intuitive, it fits into a basic principle of reality observed by none other than the great thinker Karl Marx in the 19th century, who when speaking on the source of value asserted 'Labour is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use-values, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labour power.' (Marx, 1875) Often, since Marx's writings his ideas have been lobotomised sufficiently to fall victim to strawman's of the level of general stupidity as low as arguments of the labour imparted on mud-pies having little value in children's gardens. However, his actual writing and its implications reveal far more than these mere caricatures indicate. For example, one only has to look at the very principle of the valuation of land, according to strict adherents of the labour theory of value, land itself in a raw state should have no value, representing the nature of it as un-toiled by human hands. Nevertheless, the ownership of land and the businesses of rent remain some of the most lucrative in the world, the monarchy and crown estates immense wealth of $28billion of assets situated in their status as amongst the largest landowners in the UK. (Ariel Shapiro, 2021) Marx explains this valuation of land fundamentally as an issue of speculation, derived from the non-reproducible nature of land which establishes its ownership as a natural monopoly. I will spare the precise details of Marx's theory of rent here, which would be far too lengthy and complex to accurately illuminate in this article, however I will assert a very basic and somewhat reductionist explanation of the basic principles of the valuation of land. In its very basic principle as aforementioned, land by its very nature is a non-reproducible commodity, and as such forms a natural monopoly for those whom own it. Not threatened by market competition, or the easy procurement of new land (artificial island of course do, and have existed for centuries, however even 'land reclamation' is limited by its very nature to the confines of space and can hardly be said to represent a reproducible commodity) the landowner can therefore demand a certain minimum of money for the land they own (absolute rent), the valuation and variation of this price of rent thereby stands on speculation of the lands worth based on factors such as fertility, size, etc. (differential rent). (Marx, Capital Volume III, 1894)
Here, the parallel between land and art as symbols of value may seem bizarre, however, the parallels are still very real nonetheless. Firstly, in the case of art as a commodity form, or use-value, as displayed in the works of the sunflowers of Van Goph, the commodity form as an original piece is by its nature a non-reproducible commodity, and by extension the person or institution which owns the artwork as property has an artificial monopoly directly paralleling the natural monopoly that exists in the ownership of land. Consequently, the cost of production as a factor in the valuation of art becomes a negligible and alien factor, often the description has been painted of art as 'priceless' an irony that is somewhat apt as the valuation of art as a monopoly swells in a speculative sense to whatever valuation the competitor is willing to pay to gain such a monopoly for themselves. Directly, this process leads to a form of capital accumulation in and of itself as described by Marx, with each re-sell of a private work of art aiming to sell at a higher price than the purchaser paid for it (Marx, Capital Volume 1, 1867).
Finally, art as a commodity form as described, under capitalism serves to mimic the production process itself and the consequences of it. Those who decry the acts of Just Stop Oil in their attacks on the sunflowers have continuously referred to them as 'Van Goghs' sunflowers, some even referring to the art as his 'masterpiece' (Skinner, 2022) (Association, 2022) (MSN, 2022), creating a psychological mirage that in the subconscious minds of the viewers, that somehow, these attacks are not just attacks on the art, but also on the artists themselves. These perverse attempts at further demonising the protesters underlies a cynical disregard for the realities all too commonly faced by the artists who made their works and the realities of the lives they lived. For all the seeming adoration, fetishism and cultural praise heaped upon Van Goph now dead and buried, the fact remains that with the Sunflowers last sold price of £24 million (Roche, 2022) Van Goph himself would never have been able to pay for his acclaimed beloved works if he were alive today - committing suicide in 1890 at the age of 37 and dying a pauper with most of his works critically panned in his own life. Directly, this brute cynicism and fetishism reflects the sick broken mirror of a heartless society, the products of each worker selling for a price higher than the wage they received and the surplus value extracted marking the bedrock of capitalist profit - a reality all too familiar as the richest in society since the Covid pandemic have pocketed record profits in the billions, whilst this winter many in the UK will suffer the full brunt of a cost of living crisis that promises disaster, despair and death for those who have worked through it. (Oxfam International, 2022). Indeed, from a financial perspective in no way would the desecration of Van Gophs 'masterpieces' cynically denied recognition in his own life, be an attack of dismissal of his memory, nor character. Rather, the destruction of his art, now possessed as a commodity form would only serve to undermine the speculative and financial interests of those who have subsequently taken possession of his life's labour for the purpose of the accumulation of capital. It is these parasites of the art and the artist who stand most to lose from climate protests of this kind.
Writing in art as a social system, Niklas Luhmann illustrated how normatively we are made to appreciate and fetishize 'ideas' over sense perception. (Luhmann, 2000) This phenomena is particularly profound in analysing how art, and what is deemed to be culturally of value and to hold cultural capital in particular expressions of art, comes to form a part of systemic ideology and structures of hierarchy in society today. Namely, this concept of the 'idea' superimposing over perception is perhaps most clearly realised in the notion of the 'original' and its fetishism as being somehow of more cultural value than the reproduction. Inherently, these ideas of 'originals' are directly tied to property relations, manufacturing artificial monopolies as described previously that subsequently act as both sources of capital, and vehicles for the transport of ideas. Paradoxically, this fetishism of ideas over perception as Luhmann points out aptly arises out of Liberal Western ideas of the enlightenment era, favouring the protection of property, liberty and the like as essential human values and rights (Paine, 1791). This is paradoxical, as it was during this same period of intellectual advancement that the great philosopher David Hume so aptly presented compelling proof that ideas and imagination are not antecedent to perception, but rather are consequent to it. (Hume, 1739). Subsequently, the primacy of the idea of the 'original' in Western society must be seen as it is, an artificial creation and a creation of an artificial 'object' of control.
This process of ideological enforcement and subjectification have been outlined previously in brilliant terms by the thinkers Louis Althusser and Michel Foucault. Particularly, we can increasingly see how in the process of fetishising art such as the Sunflowers as original pieces, we are absorbing in the process certain ideological features of education - the respect and adoration of property, the signs which say 'do not touch' as protections of property against damage or theft, the idea that whilst we may commonly view the property, we do not possess it etc. In this sense, the modern art gallery is itself a means of socialisation and a means of subjectification. When the question is posed 'what is worth more, the life or the art?' the question becomes clearly answered in the act of potential damage or destruction, the individual is swiftly punished, they will receive some kind of fine, prison sentence etc. and in the immediate act of confinement will most likely be detained to some degree of violence.
Here, Foucault's work becomes particularly important of its own accord, Foucault's detailing of the shift from feudalism to capitalism of the ideas of the public punishment to the public trial resounding with a noted authority on the matter. (Foucault, 1975) Notably, the illusion of the trial in the capitalist state serves to give the illusion of fairness, a non-biased jury hearing the case of both sides before handing down the righteous judgement of law. Furthermore, the visibility of the trial is increasingly becoming in its own accords a spectacle of further interpellation, as demonstrated by the recent case of Amber Heard Vs Johnny Depp in America which became a social media sensation and itself promoted a reactionary right-wing ideology and a backlash to the #MeToo movement (Donegan, 2022) Immediately, this has been seen in the running commentary on the Just Stop Oil protest itself with emphasis being placed over their supposed 'criminal damage' to the art (Cooney, 2022) (Sean Seddon, 2022). Manifestly, these various factors become chains of enforcement from potentiality to actuality in reinforcing ideology and the protection of property as a societal norm over the protection of lives and the planet. First, as illustrated we have the warnings, for example in the very gallery itself the distanced protection of the paintings, warnings of do not touch etc. Individually, these appear as nothing but words and threats, but veil the potentiality of the realisation of actual enforcement and are consequently designed to deter. Subsequently, we have the action, the throwing of the soup which violates these warnings and therefore demands the reaction of the executives of ideology to act. Here we have the response, first the arrest, then the public trial, the handing down of judgement which inevitably will conclude with charges of property damage and possible prison time and then, in the final punishment of the conditions of prison the idea becomes suddenly immaterial and abstract – dehumanising the punished into memories no longer tangible in the minds of the perceiver, as described by Foucault. (Foucault, 1975)
Impressing upon the mind of the casual viewer, is the brute comparison between this process and the very system of education from which they were brought up as a child in the process of punishment and reward. In 'The Process of Education' Jerome Bruner illustrates how a critical element of the education system is not only the educational value of learning to overcome particular issues and challenges, but also the transfer of principals and attitudes that lend to general ideas. These general ideas subsequently are said to enable the recognition and resolution of similar and related problems not necessarily of the instance covered in the scenario of basic ideas taught. (Bruner, 1977). Further than this however, this same system of education enables the reinforcement of social norms and values and the discouraging of non-ideal behaviours. B.F. Skinner, a key thinker in the development of philosophical and psychological behaviourism coined the term operant conditioning to refer to the ways in which behaviours that are reinforced are likely to be repeated, and those that are punished are less likely to be repeated, a foundation of modern education systems. (Skinner B. , 1938) From this, we can see how from both a theoretical standpoint of sociology and a practical standpoint of psychology, how the very act of fetishism of art as demonstrated in the case of Van Goph's Sunflowers, represent an important process in the reinforcement and construction of an ideology intimately tied to the protection and proliferation of property rights over the lives of people.
In a 2017 journal published in Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, it was determined that generally speaking people face difficulties in being able to distinguish between 'original' photographs and images, and images which may have been tampered with in identifying what was or was not 'real'. (Sophie J. Nightingale, 2017) Critically, this research was conducted in the context of images that contained nominal differences of real life scenes which had varying levels of editing from their source materials. From this conclusion, it was apparent that the ability of the perceiver to differentiate between the real and unreal scenes was remarkably limited. Despite this, writers and artists such as Russell Dickerson have themselves stated that 'Original art is always better than the reproduction'. (Dickerson, 2016) Dickerson's arguments assert that there is a fundamental difference in perception between seeing original pieces of art and their reproductions, a difference that he himself describes as a transcendental experience. Dickerson heavily emphasises the role of proportion, intention and detail in describing the difference between original pieces of art and digital reproductions, for example the differences between the texture of paint on the painting rather than the digital smoothness of a post-card. Whilst these assertions are true by design, they bely an underlying falsehood and flaw in the methodology of his argument. For example and to best illustrate this point, Dickerson refers to the difference between two figures of art in the image of that painted by the artist Frank Schoonover - describing the differences in feelings, atmosphere and perception presented by the two, one coloured and the other black and white. Whilst it is true, and commendable of Dickerson's skills of perception, that the black and white painting evocates certain completely alien perceptions to the coloured image, it does little to demonstrate in any capacity that the original is somehow better in any capacity than the reproduction. Critically, this point lies in the very fundamental question - if an observer, with no prior knowledge of the Schoonover's work was presented in a museum setting the original painting, and say two other life-like reproductions, could they with accuracy identify the original? By all indications presented by the ground-breaking work of Nightingale, Wade and Watson, this appears to be empirically unlikely. This is in no way meant to dispute or disprove the assertion that different pieces of art confer different experiences, however it does raise the question of to what extent these experiences are confirmed posterior to the knowledge of the art as an 'original'.
The research and knowledge of phenomena such as change blindness all serve to indicate a general reality that in spite of our own intuitive beliefs about the ability to determine authenticity, we are in fact remarkably inefficient in actually doing so. Despite this, we as a society value 'authenticity' and the idea of the 'original' in art as a core element of its value, a principle already explained. Another fact that has become increasingly demonstrated by the advance of technology is the reality that pieces of art previously valued and cherished as 'originals' have been demonstrated in all likelihood to be elaborate reproductions. To illustrate this, the famous 'Portrait of a Woman' Long thought to have been produced by the Spanish romantic artist Francisco Goya, was found by X-ray images in 1954 to have actually been an elaborate forgery. Counterposing this idea, 'A young Woman Seated at The Virginals' attributed to Johannes Vermeer, was long questioned to be a forgery, but technical examinations in 1993 confirmed its attribution. Both these cases illustrate a case in point of the very principle that the idea of the 'original' is not an idea that emanates organically from perception, but rather is created as a social construct based on the principle of shared acceptance. It is conceivable, that the most famous cases of 'originals' in the national gallery could at once be elaborate forgeries or truly the original work of artists, however without advanced knowledge no faculty of human perception would appear by all evidence to be able to confirm nor deny this. Naturally, if we accept the idea that the 'original' itself is a created concept, and not a natural one, it logically follows that the valuation, cultural capital and perceived importance of the original over reproductions is also necessarily a created, and not a natural concept as Dickerson states.
However basic this concept may seem, it is one of profound and immense importance. With the recognition that art as it may appear in museums has no more cultural capital or empirical value over a potential reproduction of its kind, it becomes by extension apparent that those who argue against the desecration of art based on its character as 'original' have little in the ways of argument. Subsequently, we must look at the true reasons as to why art is so protected as has been the case of Van Goph's Sunflowers. This case is simple, these works of art maintain and help propagate, both physically and ideally, systems of control and ideology over the minds of individuals which prevent actions to power. As aforementioned, art as a commodity form manifests as a source of speculation and by extension the accumulation of capital. The vast profits seated in which underlie the all too often poverty of the works creators and thereby serve as symbolic representatives of the general extraction of surplus value. Ideally, art serves as the symbol of property, as the 'original' it creates an artificial monopoly for its holder that secures its value as a source of speculation, and on its loan it may be perceived from a distance as an article of beauty by the general public but may not be touched or interfered with. Directly, this instils a continuous education in the minds of the subject relating to crime, punishment and enforcement. In the question of what is worth more, the question is answered in the action and reaction of the institutions of state power - you may protest inequality, you may protest the climate crisis verbally, you may shout and scream, but if you dare damage property - the foundation of capitalist profit - you will be punished.
As hitherto described, art has manifested as a tool of ideology, property relation enforcement, and speculative capital, serving through these means to reinforce social relations. From this, the vast amount of 'art' in the mainstream coheres to these ideas, singular objects, the fetishization of the 'original' and the artificial monopoly on such artefacts by the control of a select few institutions worldwide, the overwhelming majority of which lying in the Northern Hemisphere and Western states in particular. This intellectual and material monopoly is in effect secured by what as a society we value as 'artwork' specifically crystallised as an idea into physical pieces as previously described often garnering their cultural capital posthumous to the deaths of their creators. This idea of art as a 'static' or possessed form, necessarily lends itself to the concept of art as a speculative form of property - its material status ensured and protected and thus forming its very possibility to be a physical symbol of capital intellectualised.
Necessarily, this lends into a certain historical fetishism of art as well, with older works already ascribed social capital taking precedence over newer productions. From this, it is easily explainable from a social perspective why arts and the creative arts are often derided from an intellectual standpoint. (Wilson, 2018) Furthermore, it has been recently shown by Graduate Outcome surveys that the direct employability of creative art degrees into professions closely related to the degrees themselves showed some of the lowest numbers of correspondence, with just over a quarter of graduates going into areas directly related to their degrees. (Ben Robertson, 2022) Additionally, Creative arts tend to have higher relative occurrences of part-time employment and higher rates of zero-hour contracts, indicating less stable employment, a fact somewhat illustrated by relatively lower levels of employment overall, with an unemployment rate of 9.2% in creative arts against an average of 8.9% across all subjects (Ben Robertson, 2022). Amongst the divisions of the creative arts, fine arts had the lowest rate of full employment.
This juxtaposition between the ideation and fetishism of historic works of art already famed for their perceived cultural value, and the very real snobbery and scorn painted onto modern artists, represents a very real reality in the role of art in capitalism. Namely, in the maintenance of an artificial monopoly, and art as a speculative resource, the control of the arts market must be a strictly guarded point of control. By limiting the cultural impact, visibility, and proliferation of new works of art this system of inertia can be maintained.
Here, visibility and cultural impact become exceptionally important factors in the general production and reproduction of ideology. In the 1960's, the Surrealists famously asserted that modern society was the society of the 'spectacle' with theorists referring increasingly to ideas of performativity within social interactions and as a social phenomena (Debord, 1967) (Butler, 1990). In this case, it is clear that in modern capitalist society, consumed by rapid streams of information, shortening attention spans and the like (McClinton, 2019) the reproduction of art generally isn't the spectacle ideal for commercial proliferation.
Despite that, for better or for worst, the actions of the climate protesters and representatives of Just Stop Oil did cause huge exposure, yet again, to the wider climate movement, and to the problem of global climate change. It was, by its very nature as something so apparently obscene, cliche and counter-cultural, a spectacular performance. Furthermore, the very act taken was itself symbolic, the use of tomato soup and its colouring completely for a brief period of time obscuring the historic art in the gallery - covering up a cultural and intellectual Goliath behind the mesmerising and pronounced colours of canned paste. In this irony, it was directly the threatened act of a desecration of art, which has produced an image far more circulated and seen than the visibility the works of many modern artists will ever receive in their lifetime. Linguistically, art has many different precise definitions, but one in particular expresses art as 'the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power'. In this sense, the scorn, backlash, antipathy and derision drawn and thrown at the climate protesters in the National gallery on the 14th has in many ways fulfilled the definition of art far more-so than any other image in recent years, I imagine with far less training.
In this sense, we can see illustrated how protest increasingly, in its production of images of rebellion, social media and mainstream media dissemination and its evocation of emotions of praise and derision increasingly has become its own 'art form'. This 'anti-art' reminiscent in many ways of 20th century Dadaism and the Avant-garde directly seeks to challenge the solidification and fetishism of mainstream art by challenging the commodity form through its destruction, creating images which will proliferate and peak intermittently with the protests themselves whilst never remaining in a fixed form - in short, by undermining all the conventions of art as it holds cultural capital in capitalist society. Whatever the view of the left becomes or is of the nature and manner of the National Gallery protest, it has re-shown the world how protest, anti-art and revolutionary art are intimately tied. The true realisation of this spectacle, and the construction of this counter-ideology can only be realised where the Just Oil protests stopped short, the complete destruction of the physical art forms themselves. By destroying the tangible forms of artwork so heavily fetishized, the counter-ideology of art as a revolutionary form can succeed. The art is in the visibility, it is in the act, and it is in the realisation that each and every individual has the power to express themselves as the 'artist'. It is in the de-naturalisation of art as a privileged monopoly subject to the ownership and speculation of the few.
It may be the case, that the protesters, these new artists, are seen as being against culture, intellectualism and the like. And, to the words of these enlightened detractors, all accusations ring true. The protester is the enemy of capitalist culture. They are the enemy of capitalist intellectualism. Fixed in time and space, indifferentiable by the naked eye from original or forgery, the museum gallery of artwork exists as the painted canvas of the blood, sweat and tears of the downtrodden. It is the written parchment of the obituary of the millions of dead, forgotten and exploited artists like Van Goph who received not a pittance in their lifetimes for their work, now seized upon as the betting houses for the rich proprietors who seek to source such images for their own enjoyment. The destruction, and true destruction of this 'art' is the destruction of property, speculation and the seats of culturalized and naturalised exploitation. And in this vein of destruction, in this barbarism of the new age let the intellectual shake and quiver as the curtains of concealment fall down to reveal their grotesque and ailing picture of Dorian Grey. Capitalism, and its cultural virtues have passed their time, the planet is dying and no solution can be posited by the present system to fix it. What we need is change, what we need is true revolutionary art, and in order to do so to ask again the question - What is more important? A picture, or the earth?
© 2022. This work is openly licensed via CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.