The ethics of the art world have been under the microscope over the past few months, with several major institutions put under pressure regarding the suitability of their patrons, their employment practices and their approach to sustainability. This week, things seem to have reached breaking point.
First up, the Tate declared a “climate emergency”, pledging to switch to green electricity across all four of its UK galleries, to adopt a train-first policy for staff and reduce its carbon footprint by 10% by 2023. In a statement, the Tate’s directors said, “We have reached a defining moment in the history of our planet and the cultural sector has a unique part to play in effecting change… There are…some hard truths to face about how we operate; about the sustainability of public institutions, like our museums, and about the future of culture.”
The announcement is just the start of a “long-term commitment ambitious in scope”, which will see the gallery rethink how it moves work around the world and balances serving the public with using resources. “We will interrogate our systems, our values and our programmes, and look for ways to become more adaptive and responsible,” the statement continues. It comes just a week after the opening of an exhibition dedicated to artist Olafur Eliasson, whose work often addresses environmental issues and ethical challenges.
Over at the British Museum, one of its trustees, Egyptian writer Ahdaf Soueif, resigned this week because of a range of issues, including the museum’s position on repatriating looted artefacts and its sponsorship from oil company BP. Soueif said that her resignation was “a cumulative response to the museum’s immovability on issues of critical concern to the people who should be its core constituency: the young and the less privileged,” the Guardian reports.
Both the National Portrait Gallery and the Royal Shakespeare Company have both received criticism for receiving sponsorship from oil companies, with the actor Mark Rylance publicly resigning as an associate artist from the latter institution in the wake of the decision.
Finally, as we reported yesterday, the Louvre Museum has removed the Sackler name from its galleries, following protests led by photographer Nan Goldin. The Sackler family has come under fire for its involvement in the US opioid crisis. It owns opioid manufacturer Purdue Pharma, which according to a Forbes report has generated $13 billion net worth from highly addictive painkillers like OxyContin. Goldin, who spearheads P.A.I.N. (Prescription Addiction Intervention Now) has long been a critic of the billionaire family’s patronage of the arts. Given the large number of UK institutions funded by the Sackler, we wait with baited breath to see whether others follow suit.
- Podcast company Gimlet’s new identity by GrandArmy is designed not to be too “slick”
- Utopia and dystopia collide in Bysanz Baisen Zhou’s other-worldly creations
- Who are the people with the power to design the system we live in? Digital artist Peter Burr investigates
- Design studio de_form on its exhibition identity for Erik Kessels’ latest show
- Traditional fashion photography, fine art and 3D renders combine in Olya Oleinic's portfolio
- Cabeza Patata on finding the right way to represent the diversity of the world around us
- Led By Donkeys is crowdfunding £50,000 for “honest” No Deal Brexit ad campaign
- Taschen’s recent release celebrates “the greatest cat photographer of the 20th Century”
- Introducing the It’s Nice That Graduates of 2019!
- Suzy Chan’s portfolio boasts original graphic design, animation, typography and so much more
- A logo costs $1200 in 2019, according to Folyo’s graphic design pricing list
- Juuso Westerlund’s tender photographs of his sons capture the essence of childhood