A Just Stop Oil activist who flung tomato soup over Van Gogh’s priceless Sunflowers is prepared to be jailed for her cause, a court hears.
Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland – both 22 – threw two tins of Heinz soup at the Dutch artist’s 1888 masterpiece while it was on display at the National Gallery on October 14, 2022.
The defendants then proceeded to glue themselves to the wall following the attack on the priceless painting, where they asked visitors: ‘What is worth more, art or life? Is it worth more than food? Worth more than justice?
‘Are you more concerned about the protection of a painting or the protection of our planet and people?
Although the oil-on canvas worth up to £72.5m was protected by a glass cover and went unharmed, its 17th century Italian frame was damaged, Southwark Crown Court heard.
Giving evidence today, Plummer said she was prepared to ‘risk the consequences’ as well as time behind bars for her cause.
‘I am willing to risk the consequences. I am willing to risk time in prison… That is how serious it is,’ she said.
‘We have experienced the wettest 18 months since records began. All our food security is at risk.’
She also told the court that she has a ‘deep fear’ of climate change and felt ‘let down’ by a government who she said weren’t taking ‘appropriate action’.
‘Anna and I are both young people motivated by a deep, deep fear of what we know is to come,’ she said.
‘We are motivated by a love of life. We are motivated by being let down by our government who refuse to take appropriate action.
She added: ‘I’m sure I’m not the only one who remembers how all our energy bills soared.
‘I am not the only one who wore a coat and gloves inside the house to avoid putting the heating on.’
Plummer claimed that she knew the painting would be well protected by ‘robust’ glass glazing because it was a ‘precious’ and ‘priceless’ piece of art.
‘How did you know that the glass was robust?’, asked Judge Christopher Hehir.
Plummer replied: ‘Because as I said it is a priceless work of art. You can look up online the measures to protect priceless works of art.
‘I love that painting. I know it is a valuable, precious thing. That is why it is protected.’
‘I didn’t think about the frame. I have never heard of anyone going to a gallery to look at frames and not the paintings they encase.’
‘I didn’t think the members of the public who gasped were thinking about the frame either. I didn’t think the art curators were thinking about the frame either.’
She added: ‘I heard the art curators talk about the painting. They didn’t talk about the frame.’
When cross-examined by Francesca Kolar, prosecuting, asked Plummer if she had taken instructions from anyone.
‘I wouldn’t say I took instructions. I wasn’t coerced, or told I had to do something,’ she answered.
‘I was presented with a plan and was asked if I thought it was a good idea. I don’t act on the instructions of anyone else.’
The prosecutor said: ‘You intended to damage the frame in which the painting was housed.’
Plummer replied: ‘Not at all. Of course I didn’t intend to damage the frame.
‘I don’t think it would be an effective form of protest to go with the intention of damaging a frame.’
The prosecutor continued: ‘If you throw paint on a wall, do you agree that it will drip down the wall?’
Plummer: ‘Yes’
Ms Kolar: ‘So you knew [the soup] was going to drip down?’
Plummer: ‘Yeah that’s what’s going to happen, that’s gravity. I am not hugely concerned about a frame in an art gallery.
‘Maybe that’s callous. We had an expert in yesterday who spends a lot of time thinking about frames, but I don’t think many members of the public do.’
Earlier the court also heard how a curator was left ‘shocked and dismayed’ by the corrosive damage caused to an antique picture frame housing Van Gogh’s Sunflowers.
National Gallery frame conservator Isabelle Kocum said in a statement read to jurors: ‘I was shocked and dismayed by the extent of corrosion this tomato soup had caused to the exquisite antique frame.
‘The frame was specifically chosen for Van Gogh’s painting because of the matching coloration.’
‘I remain amazed at how corrosive the soup was to the frame.’
Plummer’s co-defendant Anna Holland revealed she met Phoebe Plummer five days before they hurled the two tins of tomato soup over the painting.
When cross-examined by Ms Kolar, prosecuting, Holland was asked who she and Plummer were taking instructions from, to which she replied: ‘I don’t know. Someone else in Just Stop Oil.’
She was then asked where she and Plummer had purchased the tomato soup, she added: ‘ We just bought it from the supermarket. Tesco, I think, in central London.’
Holland told the court that they wanted to get as much media attention as possible, adding: ‘We need media attention to have success in our demands.’
When asked by Raj Chada, defending, if she had ‘personally’ selected the ‘Sunflowers’ she said no, she also claimed to not know who chose to attack the painting.
They were also queried as to why they used tomato soup, to which Holland replied: ‘The first reason is that it would stand out more and it is different to paint.
‘The second reason being that tomato soup symbolised the link between the climate crisis and the cost of living crisis.’
Holland was also asked if she understood that the painting could be damaged.
She said: ‘No, I understood that the painting was protected. The frame didn’t occur to me at all. I never thought the painting would be damaged.
‘I have been concerned about the climate crisis from a very young age. I know that climate change will affect my generation and every generation younger than me the worst.
‘It really scares me. I was also really concerned about the cost of living crisis.’
On Monday, Plummer and Holland appeared in court where they accepted throwing the soup, but denied causing criminal damage to the frame.
In her closing speech Francesca Kolar told jurors: ‘I ask you to keep in the back of your mind the video of the protest itself, how the tomato soup spattered and splashed onto the painting and then dripped down onto the frame… Damage to the frame was obvious and clear.
‘What was never retouched post-incident was that middle section of the frame; the flat section referred to as the yellow-painted flat section.
‘It was an original surface from 350 years ago. The fact that it is a 350 year old frame made it more sought after, made it more special.
‘Even if it was retouched it would never be the same original surface again… The Crown says that that is permanent damage.
‘The defendants have to have known that there was a risk, at the time of the protest, a plain and obvious risk that if tomato soup was thrown onto a priceless piece of art and it splatters onto the glass covering the painting, the tomato soup can splatter onto the frame, the wall, the skirting, the floor.
‘It drips down because of the laws of gravity. There is a clear risk of damage to all that the tomato soup touches.
‘Tomato soup is a luminescent, bright orange colour. It is a substance that obviously carries great risk if thrown over a piece of artwork and drips onto an antique frame.’
Ms Kolar said the two activists had been to the gallery the day before the protest to look at the painting.
‘The suggestion that they never thought about the frame is, I suggest, farcical. They saw the painting, they saw the frame, they must have thought about it.’
Defending Holland, Raj Chada, referred to the video of the protest uploaded onto Just Stop Oil’s Twitter page minutes after the protest in his closing speech.
‘Nobody was shouting “Save the frame! We’ve got to save the frame!” The focus throughout was about the painting.
‘Just because damage was caused by the defendants it does not mean that they are automatically guilty.
‘Ms Holland is not charged with damaging the painting itself because there was no damage.
‘After throwing the soup she did not seek to leave. She did not seek to evade responsibility for her actions.’
Mr Chada reminded the jury that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and that Holland does not need to prove her innocence.
Holland, of Newcastle, and Plummer, of Lambeth, deny damaging property
The trial continues.