Trashing Artwork Is Bad, But Young Environmentalists Deserve To Be Heard

In the past few weeks, there have been a number of instances of environmentalists vandalizing paintings in an effort to bring attention to global climate change and other social issues. In the first, two young activists in the United Kingdom splashed tomato soup on a Van Gogh. In another, this time in Germany, a Monet was splashed with mashed potatoes. And most recently, an activist glued his head to a Johannes Vermeer painting in the Netherlands. In all instances, fortunately, the paintings had glass covers, so the artwork was not destroyed.

It’s easy to ridicule these rebellious young punks for not understanding how the world works. Very few people will respond to these spectacles by saying, “You know what, now I’m going to take climate change more seriously.” If anything, the opposite is more likely. People will be so turned off by the activists’ tactics, some will be less likely to act or vote in an environmentally conscious way.

Many commentators have piled on to criticize these protests, including some in the environmental movement. And while I am sympathetic to the criticisms, there’s another lesson here worth thinking about. If these eco-activists really believe in their message so passionately—which is essentially that without urgent action the world as we know it is going to end in the not-too-distant-future—can you really blame them for doing whatever it takes to get people’s attention? After all, what other course of action is available to them?

It isn’t like teenagers are routinely given a public platform with which to express their policy views. They aren’t even allowed to vote until they are 18 in the United States. And while the internet does provide an outlet for venting, TikTok and SnapChat aren’t exactly driving our political discourse.

In fact, those in positions of influence usually won’t take you seriously unless you have credentials. That means a degree from a fancy university, a high-profile job, or publications and citations in peer-reviewed journals. While these things do signal status, they don’t guarantee wisdom. Moreover, securing certain elite credentials often requires a certain amount of allegiance to the establishment, which is precisely what these young activists are fighting against.

One exception is Greta Thunberg, the 19-year-old Swedish environmental activist. Whatever one thinks about her—she has also been known to use abrasive tactics—she wields rare influence for someone the age of a college freshman.

Thunberg offers a glimpse to us of the internet’s potential to be a great equalizer in of the realm of status and influence. With more than 14 million Instagram and 5 million Twitter followers, she can count herself among the most popular public intellectuals today.

Of course, the world of social media influencers in some ways represents the worst elements of human status-seeking. Twitter and Instagram are a lot like American high schools, where everything is one big popularity contest. Except online, unlike in school, everyone is competing for the most likes or the all-coveted blue check mark.

These silly status competitions resemble the Dr. Seuss Story “The Sneetches,” where there are two classes of fuzzy, yellow bird-like creatures that walk upright. One group of “elite” Sneetches has green stars on its bellies, while the other, more lowly class, is without such a mark. A clever entrepreneur eventually figures out he can take advantage of this situation, and he invents a star-making machine. It makes him rich, but ruins the value of the star brand in the process.

The story sounds funny, except fiction is not that far off from reality. EthereumETH
founder Vitalik Buterin recently shared a screenshot of a Twitter-verified account that was using his picture, highlighting how check-marked scam accounts might be more common than you think. Blue-check mark verification schemes have even been caught charging as much as $25,000 for a verified Instagram account.

These examples demonstrate how valuable having influence is to people, and how far those without it are willing to go to obtain it. Some status-seekers just want attention, but others want attention to promote a cause. And they are willing to give up not only money but freedom too to get it, as evidenced by the activists willing to break the law to have their message heard.

Anonymous and Wikileaks are organizations that have sought to disrupt the establishment, while bringing attention to their causes. The objectives of these movements are sometimes questionable, but it’s easy to sympathize with their emphasis on the corruption of existing institutions and their willingness to take on the upper echelons of power that stifle minority viewpoints. Is it any surprise these groups’ messages resonate with young people who feel they have no voice?

We don’t need to embrace the tactics of the young rebellious punks. Indeed, the older generation is often right that some of their demands are unreasonable. And yet, their passion for their cause, their optimism about the prospects for change, and their willingness to take on the institutions of power deserve our respect. Young people are screaming out to be heard and too many of us respond back with ridicule. It’s time we gave them a voice.