In October of 2022, two environmental activists walked into room 43 of The National Gallery in London and tomato soup over Van Gogh鈥檚 1888 Sunflowers. As the yellow hues disappeared behind the soup鈥檚 creamy orange, the activists glued themselves to the wall. Though the canvas was protected by glass, the protestors were to jail in September of 2024. After their conviction, three other protestors threw tomato soup on the same painting. This year, Pro-Palestine demonstrations at the and the also resulted in arrests. The strong response to these demonstrations has garnered new attention, but protests like these have a long history in the art world.
In his book The Museum: A Short History of Crisis and Resilience, Samuel J. Redman examines how cultural institutions in the United States coped with different crises throughout history. Redman dedicates an entire chapter of his book to the 1970 art strike, a movement that urged art museums to stand up against racism, sexism, repression, and war, which protestors called the 鈥淔our Horsemen鈥� of the 1970s. He writes that these protests forced museums to ask an existential question: whom do we serve? The political climate of the 1970s is very similar to the current one: a country drastically divided, armed conflicts exploding all over the world, and civil rights movements sparking the flame of justice in the population. Therefore, this key existential question remains: whom do museums serve?
Museums in the U.S. were forged by fire. Redman opens his book recalling a destructive fire that consumed the Smithsonian Institution in 1865, which he calls 鈥渁n omen of things to come for museums in the United States.鈥� He argues that the history of museums in this country is no more than a story of crisis and response. As museums transformed and became part of larger cultural conversations, the nature of these crises morphed.
By 1970, art museums like The Met and the MoMA came under scrutiny because young artists and students started questioning the real objective of these institutions and their sources of funding. A year earlier, in 1969, The Met had been the stage of a controversial protest regarding Harlem on My Mind, an art show that only served to reinforce harmful stereotypes of Harlem鈥檚 Black community. On that occasion, vandals scratched the letter 鈥淗鈥� on ten paintings across the museum, including Rembrant鈥檚 1661 Christ with a Staff. The paintings didn鈥檛 sustain major damages and were repaired by art conservators. It鈥檚 still unclear if the vandals were associated with the protest or just wanted to frame peaceful organizers in a bad light.
On May 22, 1970, five hundred protesters sat on The Met鈥檚 steps, claiming that the museum failed to stand with them against the war in Southeast Asia. They also brought demands: more artists on museum governance boards, more people of color from around New York on major gallery walls, and no art that had been illegally obtained from native Americans.
Demonstrations like these illustrate that museums are intensely political environments by nature. The protests that erupted in 2024 are nothing more than a continuation of the protests already seen in the past century and of crises that date back to the fire in the Smithsonian.
The specific circumstances might have changed, but the structural causes remain. As the humanitarian despair escalates in Gaza, artists and students want to see cultural institutions taking firmer stances on the conflict. In an era of rising book bans and legislative pushes against creative expression, younger generations expect museums to give more extensive support to up-and-coming artists.
Analyzing the situation from a historical point of view, Redman pointed out that there is a key difference between 2024 and 1970. The existence of social media and a wider access to the Internet makes these debates become more heated.
鈥淧eople are forced to rethink, 鈥榳hat does activism looks like in 2024?鈥欌�� He said.
Demonstrators must ask themselves how to protest in this new context. In some instances, what causes controversy is not the subject of the protest, but the method of it. Assaulting a work of art, for example, is seen as an ineffective decision that damages the reputation of the movement. Throwing tomato soup on a painting failed to do anything to mitigate climate change. It drew attention to the issue, but is it effective to draw attention to the issue if the attention being drawn to it is negative? This is the kind of question that demonstrators will have to consider.
Even the 1970 art strike was only partially successful in achieving its goal. The movement certainly prompted the art world to think more deeply about community engagement. Some museums, though, simply saw the protests as affronts. That鈥檚 the case of the Guggenheim, which pulled artwork off the gallery walls in preparation for the strike, afraid that protests would harm it. By the end of the strike, no museums made radical changes. However, today鈥檚 art world activists can push for real changes using new technological tools. .
Still, museums have to be willing to collaborate. Redman explained that legacy institutions like The Met have long relied on their mission statements to justify inaction, as if to say 鈥渢his is who we are and it might not make sense for us to get involved.鈥� This will no longer be enough.
鈥淸Museums] should be less firmly committed to the older notion of being an encyclopedic purveyor of ultimate truth and objectivity,鈥� he said.
When making decisions, museum directors and leaders have to carefully consider various factors: meeting donors’ expectations, listening to their audience, remaining loyal to the purpose of art, and more. Institutions are made up of individuals, and individual decisions shape the public鈥檚 perception of the institution. This is where the existential question comes into play. Whom do museums serve? Is it the trustees? Is it art? Is it the visitors?
When museums arrest protesters, young artists discover yet another reason to be frustrated with cultural institutions. Redman highlighted the absence of third spaces in contemporary society. As our number of public spaces dwindles, demonstrators have to seek new sites related to culture and history. Museums should step in to fill that gap. It is their responsibility to think more creatively about ways to engage with people interested in social justice.
In 2023, the Whitney Museum of American Art was for high ticket prices. At $30 per entry, the museum is the most expensive in New York. A year later, the Whitney implemented and announced that for anyone under the age of 25. Institutions always have room to grow, and programs like these show how museums can learn from their critics and make art more accessible to underserved communities.
The 2024 protest crisis will eventually come to an end. However, as demonstrated by history, it鈥檚 only a matter of time before a new crisis surges. As we move into an increasingly uncertain future, museums should turn inward and reflect on their fundamental mission. Art can challenge or soothe us, can advocate for change or idealize a lost past. It鈥檚 up to the individuals that make up these cultural institutions to decide the purpose they will serve.
Rafael Cruvinel is a publishing聽student at NYU and a marketing intern at 尤物视频. He was born and raised in Brazil, but attended college at Stony Brook University, where he graduated with a BA in journalism. As a journalist, he has reported from Long Island, New York City, Brazil, and Nepal.聽