Against Artwashing

The term is certainly catchy – ‘artwashing’ – bringing to mind an air of sour, privileged malevolence and meaning exactly that. While it was conceived as a term relating to art galleries' role in gentrification, it has now come to refer to reputation-bolstering donations by unfavorable corporate families to acclaimed art institutes. The documentary All the Beauty and the Bloodshed (2022), focusing on photographer Nan Goldin and her campaign to raise awareness of the Sackler family’s role in the opioid epidemic, has been thrust into the Hollywood limelight after being nominated for the Oscars’ best documentary award and winning the Golden Lion at the Venice Film festival. The Sackler family formerly owned Purdue Pharma, producers of the highly addictive drug oxytocin, which has played a notable role in America’s opioid epidemic; the family also funded an array of the world’s biggest art museums – the Louvre, the Met, the British Museum to name a few – with the ‘Sackler’ name displayed on various museum wings.

​Goldin’s protests over the past few years have thrown museums into a dilemma: some, like the American Museum of Natural History, entirely ignore the controversy; others, the Guggenheim, for example, pledged to no longer accept donations from the family yet still retain the family’s name; while recently, London’s Victoria and Albert Museum has dissociated from the family altogether, removing their name from galleries and promising to no longer accept donations. I imagine that the large majority of these institutions would jump at the opportunity to remove the staining name from their facilities, but many are likely bound by private agreements – they can’t annul agreements that they’ve already accepted. To those careful enough to spot the oft-overlooked benefactors’ board at any of these cultural displays, I’m sure the Sackler name will be listed, memorializing the history that dirty money has played in the peak of the art world.

​The critical success of All the Beauty and the Bloodshed will surely shine light on what was an incredibly successful, recent campaign by Goldin to force art institutions to begin cutting ties with the opioid industry. And with this extra attention, I’m sure activist groups will be inspired to take on similar targets. Just about every major art institution is funded by oil money; I think some name removals and tie-cuttings are called for. The ceding of major museums to activist demands has set a precedent for the art world; funding ought to come from ethical sources, or at least not from clearly destructive corporate entities. Perhaps the recent soup-flinging movement can clearly adopt and articulate such a message. The culture around philanthropy is changing; donations can no longer blot out the roots of dirty money.