Activist Convicted for Degas Sculpture Protest Cites Motivation as Protecting His Two Children
Climate Activism at the National Gallery of Art: A Controversial Act of Protest
In April 2023, a dramatic act of climate activism at the National Gallery of Art (NGA) in Washington, DC, drew national attention and sparked debate over the limits of protest in defense of the planet. Two activists from the environmental group Declare Emergency targeted Edgar Degas’s bronze sculpture “Little Dancer, Age Fourteen” (1878–1881), smearing it with black and red paint to deliver a message about the growing climate crisis. Protected by a glass case, the artwork itself remained unharmed, yet the action resulted in federal charges and convictions.
The Act of Protest
On April 27, 2023, Timothy Martin, a 55-year-old architect from North Carolina, and Joanna Smith, a 54-year-old from Brooklyn, entered the NGA and proceeded to smear the protective casing around the sculpture. According to videos and witness accounts, the protest was peaceful and calculated. The pair used their fingers to paint two images: a house overwhelmed by a wave and a tree engulfed in flames — stark reminders of climate-induced disasters. The black paint symbolized carbon emissions, while the red paint represented the “blood of our children’s future.”
They then sat in front of the sculpture, issuing statements about the lack of government action on climate change. “We’re adults, we should be at home working,” Martin said. “I have a job that requires health and safety, but I can’t do my job unless I have a government that looks out for the health and safety of our children.”
Legal Ramifications
The stunt resulted in $4,000 worth of property damage, mainly to the sculpture’s protective glass casing. Though the artwork was never directly touched or harmed, authorities treated the incident seriously.
Both activists were charged with federal offenses. Smith pleaded guilty in December 2023 and received a 60-day prison sentence with 24 months of supervision. Martin, opting for trial, was convicted on April 7, 2024, of conspiracy to commit a crime against the United States and injury to National Gallery of Art property, a law that protects federally funded buildings.
Court documents revealed that Martin allegedly coordinated with media outlets prior to the event and smuggled paint into the museum using repurposed water bottles — actions cited by prosecutors as evidence of conspiracy. His sentencing is scheduled for August 2024 and carries potential penalties of up to five years in prison and fines reaching $240,000.
Reactions from the Gallery and the Public
While the sculpture remained intact, NGA Director Kaywin Feldman told NPR that the attack’s impact cannot be underestimated. “I cannot overemphasize how the violent treatment of her protection barrier, repeated slamming, and vibrations, have forever jeopardized her stability,” she said. However, video footage shows the protesters carefully applying paint with their hands, not forcefully striking the glass as initially feared.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office hailed the verdict as part of a broader effort to uphold laws protecting cultural heritage, noting that the action aligned with the Trump-era executive order “Making the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful.” Although it remains unclear if this directive will influence Martin’s sentencing, its invocation highlights the federal government’s stance on preserving public monuments and artworks.
Declare Emergency’s Justification
The group Declare Emergency, which organized the protest, has a history of bold and disruptive actions to draw attention to the climate emergency. Their members have claimed responsibility for other high-profile demonstrations, including dumping red powder on the U.S. Constitution display at the National Archives—an act that resulted in even harsher prison sentences of up to two years.
Martin expressed that the protest was not just a political message, but a deeply personal one. “I did what I did out of love for my two children and all children of the world who deserve to live in dignity,” he shared.
Balancing Activism and Accountability
The case highlights the tension between civil disobedience and the protection of cultural property. Supporters of Martin and Smith argue that peaceful, symbolic actions are necessary when governments fail to adequately address existential threats like climate change. Critics contend that targeting artworks, even symbolically, undermines public support for environmental causes and disrespects shared cultural heritage.
As climate protest tactics grow more creative — and polarizing — the legal system continues to respond firmly, raising questions about the risks activists are willing to take to make their voices heard.
Conclusion
The protest at the National Gallery of Art is emblematic of a larger movement of climate advocacy that is becoming increasingly urgent — and confrontational. Whether these acts inspire policy change or backlash, they undeniably challenge both lawmakers and the public to reconsider what levels of protest are acceptable in the face of looming global catastrophe. As Timothy Martin awaits sentencing, his case will likely remain a touchpoint in debates around activism, accountability, and the protection of cultural institutions in a climate-conscious world.