Activism and Art: Where Do We Draw the Line?

Earlier this year, extreme activists threw pumpkin soup at the Mona Lisa, which could have damaged the prized painting. While the painting is undamaged, the act warrants a few questions: Is there any cause that can justify such an act? Did these protestors go too far? By: Joy Ye

(Image grab from the AFPTV footage, David Cantiniaux, AFP)

On January 28th, 2024, two protesters threw pumpkin soup at the Mona Lisa, shocking bystanders as they climbed under the barrier and revealed themselves as part of the activist group Riposte Alimentaire, who advocate for a better agricultural system in France. While they were shouting about their rights to healthy and sustainable food, the museum security quickly blocked the two with screens before ushering them out.

This event caused quite a stir, garnering attention from not only the French but also overseas audiences. The painting remains unharmed due to the bulletproof glass it was behind, and news about this event has eventually dwindled since then. But, what was the goal of throwing soup at such a priceless painting? To gain attention for their cause. Causing potential damage to something that the world constantly had eyes on would gain the attention of those who they were protesting against. This proved to work to some extent, as protestors did get a response from the public, with people becoming aware of the organization and the cause they supported. Some people sympathized with the cause, understanding why they resorted to drastic measures to gain attention. However, what appeared to be the widely shared opinion was that no cause could justify harming the Mona Lisa. 

If the painting weren’t behind the glass, it most likely would have been damaged. The Mona Lisa is a hard painting to restore due to both the age and the unique painting techniques Leonardo Da Vinci used. The painting is highly valued for these techniques and also its use of an imaginary landscape. It’s also known for its realism and how Mona Lisa’s eyes follow the viewer. Due to this, it is the most famous of Da Vinci’s works, which makes it a perfect target for gathering attention. 

It’s hard to say if what these activists did was warranted, especially because they failed to get a reaction from the intended party: the government. Nothing much has changed in French Agriculture since. The activists themselves justify their actions by arguing that historical pieces mean nothing if the people do not have a future. They believe the exchange is equal and necessary for them and future generations. Their act of protest introduced the issue in a less palatable way to the public, forcing those who were once ignorant to think about the future of sustainable food. Even if they do not agree with the actions taken, it does serve as a reminder. 

Despite not receiving a response from the French government, the activists have not stopped with their extreme acts of protest. In May, protestors arrived at the Hall of Mirrors at the Palace of Versailles. They opened bags of orange powder, spilling it onto the floor. Again, they had justification for their actions of disturbing a historical site, claiming that the Hall of Mirrors was a reminder of those who monopolize power and money while other people die and how nothing has changed since then. 

The message from the activists are hard to ignore, especially after researching more about them. At first glance, their actions may seem too extreme or radical with no connection to their cause, which is a popular opinion from the public. However, the problem the activists are targeting is actually much larger than it seems. In France, about one in five people suffer from food insecurity. Not only that, food insecurity also affects the larger world. Since the news of their act of protest reached an international audience, people could think about the situation of their food security and take action for it. Throwing soup at the Mona Lisa was extreme, but ultimately, it was for a justifiable reason. 

Losing a historical piece that would be nearly impossible to restore or replicate or losing a historical site would be a devastating loss. Something of so much value would impact the preservation of the past and the potential for others to see it in the future. However, the health and security of people are important, and overlooking it could lead to worse results in the future than if something was done about the issue now. Given the lack of response from the government, it seems like activists’attention-grabbing tactics are the only way to gain support and inflict change.