By — Manya Mittal
Abstract
On January 28, 2024 two protestors from Riposte Alimentaire hurled orange pumpkin soup at the armored glass encasing Leonardo Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa in the Louvre. By examining the group’s foundational manifesto which calls for a “Social Security for Sustainable Food”, we analyze how this act used France’s ultimate cultural icon to expose the dissonance of the State: a government that will deploy maximum security to preserve a Renaissance painting while allowing its social agricultural fabric and food security to collapse systematically. This piece connects the Louvre protest to psychological theories of eco-anxiety alongside studying why this particular piece was chosen and why only canned pumpkin soup was chosen to sully the art. Tony Bennett’s critique of museum neutrality creates a deeply engaging narrative to show how institutions that serve to preserve history end up perpetuating power imbalances in their work to do so.
Introduction
For centuries, the Mona Lisa has sat at the centre of global culture, housed in a controlled micro-climate, bulletproof glass sarcophagus in the Salle des Etats, the ultimate symbol of a civilization that preserves its history at all costs. When two women from Riposte Alimentaire bypassed the security ropes and threw pumpkin soup at the painting, asking “What is more important, art or the right to a healthy and sustainable food system?”, they fractured the passive gaze of the onlookers, bringing this issue directly into France’s notice. Riposte Alimentaire is an example of a non-state actor, established in 2024 aiming to assert their influence on the global stage. Their work is separate from that carried out by a government organization. With the world becoming increasingly global and inter-connected, the presence of non-state actors grows more relevant and impactful. This was done as a part of a food security and climate message. The protest occurred amidst broader unrest in French agriculture: there had been ongoing farmer protests across the European Union, in relation to rising costs and taxes, red tape, excessive environmental rules, competition from cheap food imports and perceived inadequate government support. Demonstrations had been taking place for weeks in countries including France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Italy and Greece. By shifting the view from civil disobedience directly to food, Riposte Alimentaire forced an international crisis into the halls of high art.
Why Mona Lisa?
Several people tried to answer the questions of why the Mona Lisa was chosen to be attacked. It is no unknown secret that this painting is one of the most famous pieces of art in modern culture, and it was worth noting that the protestors chose a painting that was protected behind a wall of bulletproof glass. Their aim was never to vandalize an art piece that holds as much importance as the Mona Lisa, it was rather to draw media attention and frenzy in a way that they knew would be impossible to ignore. Attacking the Mona Lisa got them what they wanted: a floor to get their message across. The protest channeled eco-anxiety and helplessness over a failing agriculture system in France into a ritualized act. The protest exemplified displacement as a core coping strategy. Displacement is a core defense mechanism in which emotions, impulses and behaviors are redirected from their original source to a safer or more acceptable substitute. Rage over dying farmers and a systemic sickness was redirected onto a safe iconic target like the painting. This ritualized act offered catharsis without true harm, even to the painting which was protected behind glass. This allowed the activists to externalize helplessness while preserving the object’s symbolic power.
According to a research paper published by Yale university, there exists a psychoterratic illness known as solastolgia: the pain caused by the inability to derive solace, comfort and support due to negative perception of the state of the environment. In the present context, this means that the simple act of the government willing to spend money to protect art inside a building over financing the food crisis disturbed the people. Deep interpersonal relationship anxiety sometimes manifests as physical space fears. This allows the mind to focus the conflict on manageable, physical environments rather than threatening social situations. Venting at safer targets temporarily reduces stress and anxiety, providing immediate emotional release. When the protestors attacked the painting instead of the government, they were expressing a form of solastolgia, and diverting their frustration on a safer target like the painting rather than the government itself not only served to provide a temporary emotional hit, it also manifested as a selection of a less threatening target to avoid potential punishment or damaging relationships.
Why Soup?
The paper also talks about Moula et tal (2022): a systematic view of arts based intervention data which establishes the relationship between nature and art to be one of cyclical benefits and interconnectedness. A publication by the National Library of Medicine states that the growing awareness of the magnitude and complexity of climate and environmental risks induce feelings of helplessness, anger, fear, anxiety, and worry. These indirect consequences of increasing climate changes, sometimes referred to as eco-emotions, have been proven to pose a challenge to psychological and collective well-being. The Mona Lisa is one of the most famous paintings hanging in a museum today. While oil paint is a popular art medium, it is not the most environmentally friendly- something that would be of importance to the climate activists. There is also the fact that millions of dollars are being spent to protect these artworks, dollars that could be spent onpreventing climate change instead. The ironic use of canned pumpkin soup should also be talked about. The use of canned soups like these alludes to Andy Warhol’s infamous “Campbell’s Soup Cans”, a series of nearly identical paintings depicting various Campbell’s soups. The artwork highlights the absurdity of modern consumerism and mass production. When protestors use canned goods as their weapons, the message being conveyed is essentially that art is being destroyed by the epitome of consumer culture and mass production.
The soup represents a basic human right gate kept from millions by capitalist inflation and corporate agriculture. Climate fluctuations mean that the food thrown at the glass will soon become a scarce luxury, yet people only take notice and panic when it is thrown at a rare artifact.
The Institutional Response & Museum Neutrality
The protest by Riposte Alimetaire explicitly linked the painting to a “sick” agricultural system and farmers dying at work, occurring amid broader farmers protests and anxiety over climate driven food insecurity in Europe. Sociologists and ethicists note that museums are not neutral, they are historically tied to elite taste, national identity and colonial collecting, making them powerful stages for protests. Cultural theorist Tony Bennett’s arguments about museum neutrality become of immense relevance here. He states that museums are not neutral repositories of all history, they are all some sort of post-choice history: often the version of the victor, the ruler, the dominant culture. They help construct national identity, legitimize imperial narratives and regulate public memory. Museums implicitly support systems of hierarchy through their funding structures, which make them highly dependent upon the support of the 1% the “winners” in our capitalist system. By throwing soup at the glass protecting a piece like the Mona Lisa, activists symbolically confront a hierarchy where protected and priceless arts appear more carefully defended than farmers and ecosystems, asking the public to reframe what they consider to be sacred. The Mona Lisa becomes a screen onto which competing ethical claims are projected: protection of heritage versus protection of food systems becomes the inherent debate that viewers are forced to confront.
The armored glass protecting the painting is not just a physical barrier, but also an ideological mirror. Within seconds of soup touching the glass, museum staff came rushing in to erect large black screens to hide the view from the public and their cameras. This rapid institutional response demonstrates that the ruling class will move with terrifying efficiency to conceal systemic crises, while dragging its feet on meaningful environment and agricultural legislation.
Conclusion
From the point of view of Riposte Alimentaire, the protest was an act of love for humanity and defence of life itself. The entire event was studied from a psychological angle as well, providing insights into how government policies have an impact that goes beyond economics side-effects. People experiencing severe eco-anxiety and a disconnect from their environments develop methods to express these emotions and bring global attention to problems that manifest themselves but are not acknowledged. This protest was far more than a simple climate protest: it was a symbol of mass consumerism and a call against the government turning a blind eye to the plight of their public. It brought into discussion the long held debate about museums being neutral grounds rather than sites of control and asserting supremacy. The orange soup dripping down the bulletproof glass protecting one of the priciest paintings in the world serves as a visual warning: when the agricultural systems collapse and shelves in the market sit devoid of basic food necessities, one will not be able to eat the Mona Lisa to fill their stomach, and her iconic smile will serve to offer no salvation to a starving world.
About The Author:
My name is Manya Mittal, and I am a second-year student in Jindal Global Law School. Writing articles on history, art and cultural topics gives me the opportunity to combine my creative interests with research and learning, and allows for my views to be shared with other people.
Image Source: https://in.pinterest.com/pin/223702306487523265/