The attack by animal rights activists on the new portrait of King Charles, currently on display at the Philip Mould gallery in London, is both depressing and predictable. It is depressing because it suggests that any work of art, whether historic or contemporary, is now fair game for a bunch of privileged, often spoilt young men and women who wish to draw attention to their pet bugbear in as infantile and ostentatious a fashion as possible. And it is predictable because, in this country and overseas, there have been so many similar occurrences recently. Just a week and a half ago, Monet’s Coquelicots was defaced by a climate activist at Paris’s Musée d’Orsay; another sign that this regrettable trend shows no signs of ceasing.
Trustafarians and gap-year bohemians seem to make up the vast majority of the activists
France’s culture minister Rachida Dati responded robustly to that particular outrage, saying: ‘This destruction of art by delinquents cannot be justified in any way. It must stop!’ Our current government is no more tolerant of these ‘delinquents’ than any other. But the news that Jonathan Yeo’s much-discussed portrait of Charles has been ‘redecorated’ with a picture of the cartoon character Wallace from Wallace and Gromit – something the activists claimed was mere ‘lighthearted action’ – will lead to a mixture of despair and anger amongst anyone who cares about art. How will independently-owned galleries – such as Mould’s – be able to display a significant work without having to worry about extortionate insurance to guard against assaults such as this?
The organisation responsible for the vandalism, Animal Rising, might not have the name recognition of Just Stop Oil, but they are operating very much in the same vein. They describe themselves as ‘a nonviolent, people-powered, organisation working towards a sustainable future where humanity shares a positive relationship with animals and nature.’
‼️BREAKING: No Cheese Gromit! King Charles Portrait Redecorated‼️ @RoyalFamily
— Animal Rising (@AnimalRising) June 11, 2024
‼️Find out why King Charles, Patron of the RSPCA should ask them to drop the Assured Scheme -> https://t.co/pTneW0QCWf 👈 pic.twitter.com/jYLHFuxtHB
All very commendable. Yet King Charles’s commitment towards the environment and animal welfare, both through his ecological concerns and his work with the Duchy of Cornwall, has been sincere and lifelong. It is hard to think of any monarch who has had such a keen interest in all wildlife, rather than merely regarding them as beasts to be hunted, ridden or eaten. If he, as well as the RSPCA farms, was intended as a target in some way, it has backfired badly.
When the suffragette Mary Richardson hacked at Velazquez’s Rokeby Venus with a butcher’s knife in 1914, it was with the stated aim to ‘destroy the picture of the most beautiful woman in mythological history’ as a protest at the recent imprisonment of Emmeline Pankhurst. Her defence was that ‘Justice is an element of beauty as much as colour and outline on canvas’. Agree or demur, it at least represented a sincere stance, and Richardson’s incarceration for six months seemed a fair punishment; severe, but also a recognition that she had acted out of heartfelt principle rather than motiveless malignity.
Yet the trustafarians and gap-year bohemians who seem to make up the vast majority of the activists today have no such guiding morality behind them. Their childish and destructive stunts might attract attention for a few brief moments. But their actions also risk normalising a sense of philistinism in modern society that will inevitably result in higher insurance premiums, fewer works of art on public display, and far more security. Were it up to me, I’d send the lot of them to the Tower of London, chuck away the key, and see how many jokes about Wallace and Gromit they felt like making after that.
Comments