The National Portrait Gallery in London has become the first major art intuition to give up funds from the controversial Sackler family.
Members of the Sackler family are facing lawsuits over their alleged role in the US opioid crisis and campaigners say the move from the National Portrait Gallery (NPG) to give up the grant is a landmark victory in the battle over the ethics of art funding.
The decision has been hailed as a 'powerful acknowledgement' that certain sources of income should not be justified.
The family, whose company Purdue Pharma LP produces opioid prescription painkiller OxyContin, had been set to provide a £1million donation to the gallery.
The National Portrait Gallery in London (pictured above) is the first major art institution to give up funds from the Sackler family
Speaking to the Guardian a spokesperson for the gallery said that they had agreed with the Sackler family that both parties would not proceed with the donation 'at this time'.
The family denies allegations against them which suggest they participated in 'conspiracy and fraud to portray OxyContin as non-addictive, even though they knew it was dangerously addictive'.
The family claimed that the donation to the gallery's 'Inspiring People' project had been dropped in order to avoid creating a 'distraction' from the hard work the gallery had put in to the initiative.
Despite the decision being revealed as mutual, it could be seen as a major blow to the family's status following a campaign led against them by American artist Nancy Goldin.
Goldin has previously spoken out about being addicted to OxyContin after being prescribed the drug and last week said she was 'happy' with the decision taken by the gallery.
She highlighted the need for other museums and galleries to do the same and reconsider gifts from the Sackler family.
Reflecting on the decision she said: 'They did the right thing. I hope there is a domino effect now; there needs to be.'
She had previously refused a retrospective of her work to be held at the NPG if it accepted the donation and had held protests outside the Guggenheim Museum and the Metropolitan Museum of Arts in New York over their links to the Sackler's.
The NPG had been one of many British cultural institutions set to receive donations from members of the family, but had come under fire from artists and campaigners who said that accepting money from them would make the NPG complicit in the damage done by the drugs the family's company produce.
The co –director of campaigning organisation Culture Unstained, Jess Worth told the Guardian that the gallery's decision to reject a donation 'from those that profited from the opioid crisis' was a 'powerful acknowledgment that some sources of funding cross a red line'.
She added: 'This raises the question of whether the gallery will now apply the same standards to its BP sponsorship deal or continue to promote a fossil fuel company in the midst of a climate crisis.
'Waved through with minimal scrutiny in the past, BP sponsorship now – like the Sackler donation – looks ethically untenable.'
According to a 2016 estimation by Forbes magazine, the Sackler family has an estimated worth of $13billion, making them the richest family in America and each year the family continues to make philanthropic donations.
However in November 2018 court filings suggested that some members of the family had 'actively participated in conspiracy and fraud to portray [OxyContin] as non-addictive, even though they knew it was dangerously addictive'.
Following the revelation some public institutions – including New York's Columbia University and Metropolitan Museum of Art – have reviewed whether they would continue to accept their donations.
Goldin added: 'I spoke to the National Portrait Gallery this morning. I'm so happy, I'm very glad about it. We have to hold museums to a higher standard, they are supposed to be a repository of the best of humanity, a repository of learning and culture.'
The Sackler trust awarded the NPG £35.5million in 2016 for a project for building development, redisplaying collections and a new education centre.
The money was a pledged and was not paid, partly due to the fact that work had not yet started and the gallery's ethics committee was considering the implications of receiving funding from the family.
The Sackler Trust said: '[We have] has supported institutions playing crucial roles in health, education, science and the arts for almost half a century and we were pleased to have the opportunity to offer a new gift to support the National Portrait Gallery. The giving philosophy of the family has always been to actively support institutions while never getting in the way of their mission'.
'Recent reporting of allegations made against Sackler family members may cause this new donation to deflect the National Portrait Gallery from its important work. The allegations against family members are vigorously denied, but to avoid being a distraction for the NPG, we have decided not to proceed at this time with the donation. We continue to believe strongly in the gallery and the wonderful work it does.'
NPG chair David Ross said he acknowledged the generosity of the Sackler family and their support over the years.
'We understand and support their decision not to proceed at this time with the donation to the gallery.'
Over time the Sackler name has provided financial support for various institutions in the UK such as the Royal Opera House, Shakespeare's Globe and the Royal Ballet School.
In 2017 the V&A opened a Sackler courtyard which was estimated to have cost £2million. This is while the V&A in Dundee is said to be under pressure to return a donation from the Sackler family.
Link hienalouca.com
https://hienalouca.com/2019/03/20/national-portrait-gallery-drops-1m-donation-from-family-who-run-pharmaceutical-firm/
Main photo article The National Portrait Gallery in London has become the first major art intuition to give up funds from the controversial Sackler family.
Members of the Sackler family are facing lawsuits over their alleged role in the US opioid crisis and campaigners say the move from the National Portrait...
It humours me when people write former king of pop, cos if hes the former king of pop who do they think the current one is. Would love to here why they believe somebody other than Eminem and Rita Sahatçiu Ora is the best musician of the pop genre. In fact if they have half the achievements i would be suprised. 3 reasons why he will produce amazing shows. Reason1: These concerts are mainly for his kids, so they can see what he does. 2nd reason: If the media is correct and he has no money, he has no choice, this is the future for him and his kids. 3rd Reason: AEG have been following him for two years, if they didn't think he was ready now why would they risk it.
Emily Ratajkowski is a showman, on and off the stage. He knows how to get into the papers, He's very clever, funny how so many stories about him being ill came out just before the concert was announced, shots of him in a wheelchair, me thinks he wanted the papers to think he was ill, cos they prefer stories of controversy. Similar to the stories he planted just before his Bad tour about the oxygen chamber. Worked a treat lol. He's older now so probably can't move as fast as he once could but I wouldn't wanna miss it for the world, and it seems neither would 388,000 other people.
Dianne Reeves Online news HienaLouca
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/03/19/23/11205576-0-image-a-77_1553038932065.jpg
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий