You’ll have heard the name of the organisation “Just Stop Oil” recently, whether you want to or not. The environmental activist group has taken part in a series of high-profile stunts around the world aimed at drawing attention to the activities of oil companies by damaging properties and, regrettably, paintings. Some of the most famous paintings in the world have been targeted. Memorably, members of the group attempted to attack the Mona Lisa in the Louvre last May. More recently, they turned their attention to works by Vincent Van Gogh. An attack on Sunflowers was mostly unsuccessful, but an attack on the Dutch artist’s lesser-known painting Peach Trees in Blossom resulted in permanent damage to the painting’s frame. For this offence, one of them has been jailed for three weeks.

The attack, which happened in June, represented a change in approach from the activists. The organisation is well known for defacing buildings, roads, paintings and other surfaces with bright orange paint. In the case of Peach Trees in Blossom, protesters Emily Brocklebank and Louis McKechnie glued themselves to the centuries-old frame of the painting. The canvas itself was undamaged, but permanent damage was caused to the wooden frame by the glue. Experts estimated the cost of the damage to be in the region of two thousand pounds. Brocklebank received a suspended sentence for her part in the attack, but McKechnie was jailed because previous offences were taken into account.

An unusual defence
In passing sentencing, District Judge Neeta Minhas said that substantial damage had been caused to an object of significant artistic and historical value and that the damage meant the frame could not be returned to its original state. She also said the pair had caused reckless and criminal damage with no lawful excuse to do so. She found McKechnie's part in the "protest" particularly egregious as he'd already been involved in a high-profile protest in March this year when he tied himself to a goalpost during a Premier League football match between Everton and Newcastle United, bringing play to a halt for several minutes so security could cut the zip ties he'd attached himself to the posts with. In the past, he's also taken part in illegal road blockades.

The attempts made by the protestors - or rather, by their lawyer - to file a defence caused some discussion in the art world. Francesca Cociani, tasked with defending McKechnie and Brocklebank, argued that the unique nature of the damage and the high-profile nature of the incident could potentially increase the value of the Van Gogh painting. This question was put to Karen Serres, one of the curators at the Courtauld Gallery in London, England, which is where the painting is on display. Serres gave the idea short shrift, saying there was no chance that the incident could increase the value of the piece and stating that in any event, the painting was never likely to be sold, and so any such value would never be realised.

When that defence was rejected, McKechnie and Brocklebank tried to defend themselves on moral grounds. Brocklebank said it was the duty of "any good human" to attempt to sustain life on Earth through any means necessary. "By any means necessary" was, of course, the battle cry of Malcolm X. By contrast, McKechnie compared himself to Martin Luther King, stating that the civil rights leader was the most hated man in America during the 1960s, but the movement he led was still victorious in the end. Brocklebank added that she wasn't aware that the glue they used would cause permanent damage and argued that protests of such a nature were necessary because the media doesn't report on climate-related causes for any other reason.

Would Van Gogh approve?
The idea of a Van Gogh painting being targeted is heinous, but is there a possibility that the wild man of Provence would have approved of the activists or their cause? The majority of people associated with the notorious group are held in contempt by the general public, but Van Gogh knows a thing or two about how that feels. He, too, was hated during his lifetime, only to become revered after his death. Also, he was no stranger to defacing his own paintings. Many of his most famous works are painted over the top of older ones because he was short of canvases and materials. Van Gogh never attached as much value to his artwork as we do today. He might well have found the idea that someone could be jailed for tampering with one of them absurd and amusing.

Going further, Van Gogh might have approved of this act because he'd likely disapprove of what he's become in death. Van Gogh never asked for or expected to be idolised. He was a libertine and a bohemian and - to an extent - an anti-authoritarian. Now he's dead, his paintings change hands for millions of dollars between one rich person and the next, and even his name has become commercialised. You'll find not one but two online slots and casino games attracting hundreds of players at casino sites. There aren't many art-themed slots out there, but the casino comparison site Sister Site believes them to be among the most popular in their category. There's no way of knowing how Van Gogh may have felt about that. The man wasn't a saint and certainly had his vices, but we don't know his thoughts on gambling, and he probably wouldn't enjoy the thought of gambling companies making money out of his name.

With all of the above taken into account, perhaps, in a strange way, if Van Gogh were aware of all this, he'd approve. He'd understand the cause of the activists, and he'd enjoy the thought of one of his works of art being used as a vehicle for protest rather than something to be stuck on the walls of a clinically clean museum and idolised. We'll never know because we can't ask him - but in the meantime, we suggest art gallery security teams want to review their safeguarding measures around his other famous works.