The National Portrait Gallery has decided to reject a grant from the Sackler Foundation, but its continued acceptance of money from oil giant BP suggests its ethical principles are as muddled as ever, argue Culture Unstained.
Yesterday morning it was announced that, after facing growing controversy, the National Portrait Gallery (NPG) had rejected a £1 million grant from the Sackler Trust. Concerns had been raised over how the Sackler family’s profits had been generated; largely through its ownership of Purdue Pharma, a company that fuelled and then profited from the opioid crisis in the US through its manufacture of the drug Oxycontin. Renowned artist and former opioid addict Nan Goldin significantly escalated the pressure on the gallery after she threatened to pull out of a planned retrospective if it were to accept the donation.
But should the NPG be celebrated for demonstrating leadership and drawing an ethical red line? Or has it simply bowed to private and public pressure? Meanwhile, is the application of its ethical principles as muddled as ever... Keep reading on Culture Unstained
Yesterday morning it was announced that, after facing growing controversy, the National Portrait Gallery (NPG) had rejected a £1 million grant from the Sackler Trust. Concerns had been raised over how the Sackler family’s profits had been generated; largely through its ownership of Purdue Pharma, a company that fuelled and then profited from the opioid crisis in the US through its manufacture of the drug Oxycontin. Renowned artist and former opioid addict Nan Goldin significantly escalated the pressure on the gallery after she threatened to pull out of a planned retrospective if it were to accept the donation.
But should the NPG be celebrated for demonstrating leadership and drawing an ethical red line? Or has it simply bowed to private and public pressure? Meanwhile, is the application of its ethical principles as muddled as ever... Keep reading on Culture Unstained