Justifying bad behaviour

A few weeks ago, the artist Francesca Galeazzi travelled to the Arctic, to one of the world's most beautiful, unspoiled places, a snowfield on the Jakobshavn Fjord, and deliberately, wantonly, turned the valve and released 6kg of pure CO2 into the atmosphere.

A few weeks ago, the artist Francesca Galeazzi travelled to the Arctic, to one of the world's most beautiful, unspoiled places, a snowfield on the Jakobshavn Fjord, and deliberately, wantonly, turned the valve and released 6kg of pure CO2 into the atmosphere.

It was an act of environmental vandalism. Or maybe not? Afterwards she announced that she had offset the CO2 by paying the appropriate sum to a Gold-standard carbon off-setting scheme. In its entirety, the piece of work - offsetting included - was called Justifying Bad Behaviour.

Understandably, the piece provoked some hurt and angry reactions immediately among her fellow travellers on the Cape Farewell project, which took her and her ominous-looking black cylinder there in the first place. As Arts & Ecology were partly-responsible for funding her voyage, it seems reasonable to ask, was Justifying bad behaviour justifiable? Is it OK to deliberately despoil the environment to make a point - even if, as Francesca points out - 6kg is the equivalent to only a 25-mile car journey?

Or maybe, just how much carbon should she have released, in order for the world to sit up and notice? This was art as provocation.

Next month, when the new Arts & Ecology website  launches, we'll be running a major interview with Francesca about her piece of work and her views on the responsibility of the artist.

Thanks to Nathan Gallagher for the photograph