About the vandalism in museums. Art expression and militantism
Anne Bessette has a doctorate in sociology and is a research associate at CERLIS. In addition to several scientific articles, in 2021 she published a book entitled “Du vandalisme d’œuvres d’art: Enjeux et réceptions. Destructions, dégradations et interventions dans les musées en Europe et en Amérique du Nord depuis 1970”, and co-edited a book entitled ‘À la Recherche du Musée: Réflexions Croisées en Histoire de l’art, Muséologie et Sociologie’, published in 2023.
This year there have been several artistic interventions, militant actions, vandalism, carried out in museums: actions which have made headlines around the world. This is a phenomenon that Anne Bessette, doctor in sociology, has studied and published in her book, “Du vandalisme d’oeuvres d’art: Destructions, dégradations et interventions dans les musées en Europe et en Amérique du Nord depuis 1970” (an english translation of this book is to be published by Routledge in 2024 under the title “On Art Vandalism”). She talked to us about the context.
Is there a difference between artistic or militant vandalism and just vandalism in the museum context?
It’s complicated because there is no official definition that has established what artistic or militant vandalism would be. But when the intention is not to degrade or destroy, but to convey a message or to bring something artistic or creative to the work, there is no intention to vandalise per se. This could be a way to differentiate perhaps different types of action. We should ask the question, is there an intention to vandalise or an intention to create? In my study, where I talked about the action around works exhibited in museums in 2022-2024 by the ecological civil resistance collectives, such as Riposte Alimentaire in France and Ultima Generazione in Italy, for example in these cases, that it is not vandalism of works of art, it is vandalism of the exhibition infrastructure, the walls or sometimes, the frames that they are touching that are the collateral victims, or the glass that is protecting the works of art. In fact, the works are chosen because they are protected. We can say that there is really an intention not to degrade the work or art, but to set up a scene that resembles vandalism, but without actually harming the work. In this action we found a common intention not to affect the physical integrity of the works.
While there is no damage to the works, the backlash against these actions is substantial.
The actions that are carried out in museums are to make even more visible specific demands. But it’s true that there is a side that is a little bit sacrilegious in harming or attempting to harm these objects. We can see that in the works that are chosen, which are very well known, for example Van Gogh’s ‘Sunflowers’, aroused a lot of emotion when there was action linked to this painting. And so, there is a kind of damage, of outrage to the collective feeling of attachment, of what the work of art represents socially as collective heritage, especially if it is placed in a museum. And they are also treated as public goods, considered as treasures, and that they should be preserved for future generations. So symbolically, these actions are a form of sacrilege.
Do you think it is an easy platform to express something?
I know that to do this type of action takes time to think strategically how to carry on. But an easy way? I don’t know if it’s the right word, because there are a lot of complications. For example, in France, the Penal Code provides 7 years in prison and a 100,000 euros fine for the degradation of a work of art in a museum. So, it’s still a big threat to choose to do this, knowing that there is a chance to come in front of a court; maybe not necessarily being given a year in prison but at least you will get a fine. From this point of view, it’s still a big decision to make. And also, the social reception of these actions is far from positive. In both cases militant and artistic “vandalism” is a well-thought-out, well-strategic action, where the purpose it is to obtain a bigger platform.
Is the high visibility that you get from this action overshadowing the message behind it?
Most of the time, whether it’s in the media or in the reaction from the public, the comments are very negative. The reception is not at all good and that makes it hard. This is a constraint with the danger that they will receive negative comments. It is definitely an effective way of gaining visibility. These are actions that quickly make big headlines in newspapers. I think that often the images that are a bit shocking, are highlighted with a big headline but the information is not well explained in the article and it can create a lot of misunderstanding. Most of the time there is an emphasis on the image of the gesture but the explanations or context of the intentions fall under the radar. So, it’s rather complicated, but also an effective way to gain attention.
We are seeing more and more of these actions. Do you think there is already fatigue in the public?
It’s a bit complicated to answer in a certain or scientific way because we don’t have an opinion survey to know if people are tired of it or if the media is reacting less. In any case, there is a sense of accumulation. It has been going on for a long time and we have seen dozens of cases in the last two years. I imagine that inevitably it creates a repetitive effect. Having said that, I don’t know if everyone has seen all the cases or only the most famous ones. The surprise, of course, is perhaps less strong the more this happens but there is also the exasperation of the people who are against it, who see that this keeps going and nobody does anything against it. That, though, is more of a hypothesis. I can’t confirm anything because we do not have data on it.
The level of exasperation can change according the work of art, the museum or the artist reputation?
Yes, completely. In my thesis, which later became a book, on vandalism of art in museums between 1970 and 2020, I studied cases in which there was a real degradation of art works, and the judicial consequences varied a lot depending, for example, on the type of work that was targeted. Basically, I saw that when classical art was targeted, people tended to be taken into custody in psychiatric institutions. When there was modern art that was targeted, it had more to do with justice, with judicial proceedings, prison sentences and fines; and when there were contemporary works of art were targeted, there was a tendency to have no pursuit at all. So it was quite interesting, it said things about how works of art were looked at socially. Another thing that came to mind was the status of the person who was doing the attack. For example, when they were artists, who were behind an intervention or an act of vandalism in a museum, they tended to be less pursued than others. That said, something interesting about the data is that artists often targeted more contemporary art. It’s hard to know if it’s because artists know that contemporary art vandalism is less often pursued, but in any case, there is a phenomenon like that.
Also the treatment from the media is different depending on the artist or the museum.
Yes, exactly. There is a double standard and, indeed, a social importance that was given because the media also reacted differently if it was a contemporary or a classic work that was taken as a target. We can say that there is a hierarchy. In 2007, there was a painting by Cy Twombly that had been taken as a target at the Lambert collection in Avignon and there was clearly no reaction from the government. And I think a few years later, there was an attack at the Musée d’Orsay and there, the Minister of Culture said that we needed to change the law (on art vandalism). So, while these two works of art are in museums and should have the same status, we can see that they are looked differently, and that will depend on their antiquity, how well-known is the creator, etc.
These types of actions (artistic vandalism) are not unique in art history. In time, will they be recognised in this way?
I think that there are things that evolve over time, mentalities, ways of looking at people who were supported by very few, very small circles, and today are icons. We can think of Monet who was at the Salon des Refusés, or even Duchamp, for whom there were misunderstandings about their work at the time. That said, time has meant that more and more groups recognise them as icons, but the time alone is not enough. It is also about the people who were supporting them, inserting them into artistic networks, that later became more influential and got to legitimise these actions. Time alone will not be enough to legitimise these practices.
From the museums’ side, do you see them being proactive to counteract these practices?
It’s a little hard to answer because there are more than 100 000 museums around the world, and they all react individually. In Europe, for example, the museums are really aware of the increase in these actions, especially the eco-activism in museums, and have taken measures of security but, in any case, big museums know that they are potential targets.
I believe that the museums may want to evolve into other things than being simple conservators of heritage. If they want to propose debates, reflections, it must come from them, from their programming, but there is no real opening to influences, to debates that come from outside, from the civil society that wants to take over that place. There is a desire, I don’t know if it’s real, but in some ways there is an intention to make the museum a place of social dialogue, of reflection, but all that is only according to its conditions.
Interview by by Susana Navarro H.
Festival Life creates shared moments of audiences and artists, eye-to-eye
