Museums are going though tough times, to say the least. Beyond the dramatic drop in ticket sales since the beginning of the pandemic, recent years have shown difficulties in raising donations. The main reason stems from a change in public standards, which relates to the source of philanthropic funds. Over the years, the art world has become a comfortable space for cultural whitewashing – raising the status of companies that have not really benefited the world, to say the least, through donations to prestigious art institutions. For example, the National Portrait Gallery’s annual Portrait Gallery in London was funded by the fuel company BP, which also donated to the Tate in the past and continues to donate to the British Museum. A protest group called bp or not bp (paraphrasing Shakespeare), organized demonstrations in front of museums, that accept sponsorship from the company that is contributing to the destruction of the planet.
The great fall
Almost three years ago, one of the richest families in America made headlines, after donating billions to many museums, including the Louvre, the Royal Academy, the Smithsonian Museum, the Metropolitan and the Guggenheim and many more. This is the Sackler family – their deteriorating public image is proving to be a serious threat to their cultural philanthropist legacy. The reason is that they own the largest company in the United States for the production of addictive painkillers – opiates – that are responsible for the deaths of half a million Americans.
Arthur Sackler, a Jewish psychiatrist, made his fortune from marketing drugs, and was a pioneer in the field. in the 1980s, together with his two brothers (also doctors), they acquired a pharmaceutical company. This company is responsible for the production of oxycontin, a drug from the opiate family, for pain relief and one of the most addictive drugs in this field. In the 1990s, drug manufacturers misled doctors about the level of risk for opiate addiction and thus encouraged their consumption. The United States is currently in a major crisis of opiate addiction, to the extent of an epidemic that has claimed many lives.
One of the victims is Nan Goldin, an American artist who a few years ago revealed her personal story, of a severe addiction to oxycontin following surgery. She founded P.A.I.N, a protest movement, aiming to raise awareness to the responsibility of the Sacklers for the opiate epidemic, while trying to get their descendants to take responsibility and correct the injustice by investing in research.
Despite organizing protests in various museums, they failed to mobilize enough force to claim the Sackler family’s responsibility for the opiate epidemic.
In September 2021 the court approved a bankruptcy settlement for the Sackler family drug company but ruled that the heirs would be protected from lawsuits over opiate addiction. In return, the family will pay $ 4.5 billion in community aid and rehab from the addictive drugs.
Personae non gratae
The new awareness of the impact of the Sacklers on the opiate crisis puts cultural and academic institutions in a difficult dilemma and so, the National Portrait Gallery in London decided to reject a contribution of the Sackler Foundation for the amount of 1.3 million dollars. The ethics committee of the museum’s board of trustees decided that this was the right thing to do and thus many protests were certainly avoided, although the refusal to accept the donation obviously hurt the museum’s development plans. The Tate Museum has also decided that no more donations will be received from the Sackler Foundation. In July 2019 the Louvre decided to remove all the donation signs relating to the Sackler family and even removed any mention of them from the museum website. In this case, the funds have already been received and will not be refunded. That same year the Metropolitan Museum also announced that it would no longer accept donations from the Sackler family but was in no hurry to remove their names from seven exhibition halls at the museum. Just this week it finally happened and not without compromise, as a joint announcement from the museum and the family was released, ostensibly, giving its blessing to the removal of their name to allow the museum to give credit to new donors. “Our families have always been very supportive of the Met, and we believe it is for the benefit of the museum and the important mission it serves. Our earliest donations were made almost fifty years ago, and now we are passing the torch to others who may want to step forward to support the museum.” The museum, for its part, thanked the family for the kind gesture that gives the museum permission to remove the signs.
A lifeline
This is a fascinating issue to me, a consequence of social changes in our present time, which evokes a moral awareness of corporate policy. Just like the #metoo movement, that seeks to claim responsibility for past actions, which in the perspective of time have become illegitimate.
This ethical stance should be especially appreciated in a time of cultural budget cuts in many countries. Private donations are the lifelines for art institutions that suffer from insufficient budgets.
In Israel, the situation is even more difficult, with regard to the dependence of art institutions on external donations. Two years ago, we were informed of the comprehensive renovation that will be done at the Helena Rubinstein Pavilion thanks to a donation from Eyal Ofer. The Helena Rubinstein Foundation ceased to operate in 2011 and the Eyal and Marilyn Ofer Foundation donated five million dollars for the renovation of the pavilion, which belongs to the Tel Aviv Museum. After the renovation, the pavilion will change its name to reflect the current donor.
Would you care to share this post? Sharing is caring. Thanks
[addthis tool=”at-below-post”]
