Viewers were shocked to witness two climate protesters dumping cans of tomato soup on one of Van Gogh’s most famous paintings, “Sunflowers” to draw public attention and make a point.
These teens then used this attention to courageously convey an important message: it is time for the world to wake up and stop climate change. Climate change affects everyone, and unless society as a whole works towards lessening it, our planet will continue to face irreversible damage every day.
Although the teens’ action had the right intention to spark interest in the issue of climate change, it failed to effectively arouse the audience to take action because it attracted negative attention, did not use the right means to communicate their message, and lacked a clear call to action.
The climate protesters aimed to rile up people from all around the world in support of their cause. To an extent, these protesters were successful because they captured the attention of thousands of people across the globe.
However, the majority of viewers did not respond how they were expected to; comments on the youtube video are filled with disgust and disappointment in the teens for ruining a painting that has held tremendous value for over a century. Instead of successfully spreading their message, these teens attracted negative attention and actually drove the public away from supporting their cause.
Humans are materialistic; therefore, seeing deliberate harm being done to a priceless piece of art made many viewers angry at the protesters. One commenter of this video wrote that the teens are “destroying a work of art just to feel good about themselves and their ‘cause’” and labeled it as a “childish tantrum.”
As a result of being so upset with the teens for throwing soup on the painting, the viewers had no interest in listening to the words that the teens are saying. The video blew up on youtube not because of the message it conveyed, but because of the widespread hatred people felt towards the actions committed at the start of the video. This negative attention was the protesters’ first detriment to effectively promoting their message.
Beginning the act by destroying a precious painting contributed to the lack of productivity of this form of protest because it disappointed the audience from the start, making them more concerned about the painting than the climate change crisis. Individuals all around the world were immediately turned off after seeing such a valued painting be disrespected by the protesters, and they had little interest in hearing what the rebellious children had to say.
A more productive form of climate change protest would be one that seems more mature, so that the audience respects the protesters. For example, climate activists should give public speeches, start a movement on social media, or implement a climate change curriculum in schools to spread awareness in a more organized manner. That way, people will effectively learn about climate change and respect the information instead of looking down upon climate activists.
Not only did the climate change protesters negatively affect their cause by ruining the painting, they also did not deliver a strong message that would incite the audience to take action. Although the speech itself conveyed a strong sense of urgency, it was not convincing enough for the audience to feel like supporting the cause. The young climate activist spoke with passion, saying fuel is “unaffordable to millions of cold, hungry families,” and that “crops are failing” and “people are dying.”
While these appeals to the audience’s heartstrings may evoke sympathy, they fail to create determination for the individuals to take action against climate change, because the speech does not directly correlate with the audience’s personal lives. What does one viewer on youtube have to do with the “millions of cold, hungry families?”
The speech should emphasize how climate change is directly affecting public lives. It could mention how more and more extreme heat events and resulting deaths are caused by human action, or how our climate will face irreversible global warming by 2030 if we do not take preventative action. In other words, it should scare the audience into making an effort to stop climate change and global warming.
Furthermore, the speech also does not have a clear call to action that would inform the audience on how to help out. The speech delivers sad information about the realities of climate change, but it does not give any advice on how the audience can get involved in support of this message. In order to get the audience to start making a positive difference, the climate protesters should have included ways for the audience to reduce their carbon footprint and work towards a greener future.
Many recent attempts similar to this have been made in an effort to spread awareness of climate change, and they have all varied in their degrees of success. This particular video of throwing soup on a famous painting has not been very successful in gaining support because it disappointed the audience from the start and lacked the necessary components to make it convincing and productive.
Moving forward, we should strive to communicate the urgency of climate change in ways that empower others to take action for the common good. There has never been a better time to fight global warming than now; it is important that we figure out how to convince society to make a difference before it is too late.
