Art and Unethical Money

[Conchis]

Ethics? Isn't that the county next door to Suffolk?

[doversoul1]

Has anyone mentioned 'The Princes of the Church' in Renaissance Italy? A good job their arguably unethical disregard for the poverty and humility which the Gospels proclaim hasn't proscribed Michelangelo, Bernini...etc

Something like this has been mentioned (#3)

pointing out that the Renaissance was funded by the Medici family

[pastoralguy]

This seems to have arisen because of the parent company being accused of being partly responsible for an opioids crisis in the USA involving a drug called Oxy-Contin. I have to say that I regularly dispensed Oxy-Contin in my profession capacity and found it to be an extremely effective drug for those in severe pain. It sounds as if it's less the manufactures fault than those dispensing and regulating it. (This is a society where Michael Jackson's 'physician' was able to prescribe Propofol, a short acting anaesthetic that is used in post.op for patients undergoing major surgery!)

If you REALLY want any drug in the US, (or plastic surgery for that matter!), then it's usually possible since money talks whereas in the UK it's much more tightly regulated. At least at the moment...

[Bryn]

This seems to have arisen because of the parent company being accused of being partly responsible for an opioids crisis in the USA involving a drug called Oxy-Continue. I have to say that I regularly dispensed Oxy-Contin in my profession capacity and found it to be an extremely effective drug for those in severe pain. It sounds as if it's less the manufactures fault than those dispensing and regulating it. (This is a society where Michael Jackson's 'physician' was able to prescribe Propofol, a short acting anaesthetic that is used in post.op for patients undergoing major surgery!)

If you REALLY want any drug in the US, (or plastic surgery for that matter!), then it's usually possible since money talks whereas in the UK it's much more tightly regulated. At least at the moment...

Thank you for that. Like a certain referendum outcome, we should always be wary of incompletely informed 'mob-rule' decisions.

[oddoneout]

This seems to have arisen because of the parent company being accused of being partly responsible for an opioids crisis in the USA involving a drug called Oxy-Contin. I have to say that I regularly dispensed Oxy-Contin in my profession capacity and found it to be an extremely effective drug for those in severe pain. It sounds as if it's less the manufactures fault than those dispensing and regulating it. (This is a society where Michael Jackson's 'physician' was able to prescribe Propofol, a short acting anaesthetic that is used in post.op for patients undergoing major surgery!)

If you REALLY want any drug in the US, (or plastic surgery for that matter!), then it's usually possible since money talks whereas in the UK it's much more tightly regulated. At least at the moment...

Which adds another layer to the mix as it were, and one about which I have mixed views. If this is a USA issue is it reasonable for the person leading the campaign to have such power over decisions in the UK where arguably the issue isn't the same( if indeed it is present, or greatly more of a problem than other abused/misused prescription drugs)? Raising awareness is one thing, but this seems to me to go beyond that. In my mind it is not the same as, for instance, the tobacco industry, where deleterious effects are not the result of the way one country's usage differs from another, and international consensus and action seems appropriate.

[MrGongGong]

pointing out that the Renaissance was funded by the Medici family

My Granny has new wallpaper


(that's my entry for "Non Sequitir of the day" )

[vinteuil]

.

"since every commodity disappears when it becomes money it is impossible to tell from the money itself how it got into the hands of its possessor, or what article has been changed into it. 'Non olet', from whatever source it may come." Karl Marx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecunia_non_olet

.

[doversoul1]

I almost wish the Tate would tell Nan Goldin, the campaigner, that they are no longer able to exhibit her works, as there is no fund available. Maybe she could have a garage exhibition back at home?

[MrGongGong]

I almost wish the Tate would tell Nan Goldin, the campaigner, that they are no longer able to exhibit her works, as there is no fund available. Maybe she could have a garage exhibition back at home?

Do you think (and I don't know enough about this particular case to have an informed opinion) that there are NO ethical considerations worth considering?
Plenty of rather nasty people have used funding art as a way of trying to create a public face that is more appealing. When Suharto was in power in Indonesia there was much funding of traditional music and dance promoted to the west. "How can we be so horrible when are music and dance is so beautiful?" being the message.... as long as you didn't live in East Timor

and so on and so on

I do think comments about the Medici's are a total red herring

[doversoul1]

Do you think (and I don't know enough about this particular case to have an informed opinion) that there are NO ethical considerations worth considering?
Plenty of rather nasty people have used funding art as a way of trying to create a public face that is more appealing. When Suharto was in power in Indonesia there was much funding of traditional music and dance promoted to the west. "How can we be so horrible when are music and dance is so beautiful?" being the message.... as long as you didn't live in East Timor

and so on and so on

I do think comments about the Medici's are a total red herring

Here is (part of) the ‘context’ of the Medici reference. Why do you think it’s a red herring?

The decision to turn down cash was easy, said Frayling, the chair of Arts Council England between 2005 to 2009, when it came from “a tobacco company or a tyrannical regime”. “But it is very difficult to lay down principles more generally,” he added, pointing out that the Renaissance was funded by the Medici family [...] .

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/...ollege-gallery

I more than believe there are ethical considerations worth considering. This particular case, however, looks to me to be simplistic to the point of self-publicity. As it has been said on this thread, patronage of art is not simple. This campaigner, as far as I can see, has no realistic or practicable alternative to the system (or call it something else if you like) that has been in place more or less from the time of the Medici family and before.

Having re-read your post, I’m not sure if we are not talking at cross-purposes.

[David-G]

This seems to have arisen because of the parent company being accused of being partly responsible for an opioids crisis in the USA involving a drug called Oxy-Contin. I have to say that I regularly dispensed Oxy-Contin in my profession capacity and found it to be an extremely effective drug for those in severe pain. It sounds as if it's less the manufactures fault than those dispensing and regulating it. (This is a society where Michael Jackson's 'physician' was able to prescribe Propofol, a short acting anaesthetic that is used in post.op for patients undergoing major surgery!)

If you REALLY want any drug in the US, (or plastic surgery for that matter!), then it's usually possible since money talks whereas in the UK it's much more tightly regulated. At least at the moment...

That's very interesting, thank you.

[MrGongGong]

Here is (part of) the ‘context’ of the Medici reference. Why do you think it’s a red herring?

The decision to turn down cash was easy, said Frayling, the chair of Arts Council England between 2005 to 2009, when it came from “a tobacco company or a tyrannical regime”. “But it is very difficult to lay down principles more generally,” he added, pointing out that the Renaissance was funded by the Medici family [...] .

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/...ollege-gallery

I more than believe there are ethical considerations worth considering. This particular case, however, looks to me to be simplistic to the point of self-publicity. As it has been said on this thread, patronage of art is not simple. This campaigner, as far as I can see, has no realistic or practicable alternative to the system (or call it something else if you like) that has been in place more or less from the time of the Medici family and before.

Having re-read your post, I’m not sure if we are not talking at cross-purposes.

Probably

I was more pointing out that folks often go on about Wagner's anti-semitism, Gesualdo killing his wife and so on.

But, I don't think that people have to come up with an alternative in order to criticise something they think is wrong.
And, as others have said, the "art market" has very little to do with Art.

[doversoul1]

Probably

I was more pointing out that folks often go on about Wagner's anti-semitism, Gesualdo killing his wife and so on.

But, I don't think that people have to come up with an alternative in order to criticise something they think is wrong.
And, as others have said, the "art market" has very little to do with Art.

No, people don’t always need to have alternatives to protest against something but when an artist is protesting against a practice of art galleries, one thing s/he can do is to refuse to take part and call to other artists to join him/her. Well, we all know that artists have to pay the bills etc., so have galleries. So what is this artist’s campaign about? Having a cake etc.? Or am I missing something?

[oddoneout]

from https://www.theguardian.com/artandde...rtrait-gallery

“I will not do the show,” Goldin told the Observer this weekend. “I have been invited to have a retrospective at the National Portrait Gallery and I have told them I would not do it if they take the Sackler money.”

I really feel it’s so important museums listen to their artists, rather than their philanthropists. What is the museum for? Art is transcendent and that makes it very, very dirty if they take the money; it’s failing the whole idea of a museum as a place to show art.

While it is right that there should be debate about such matters it concerns me that this particular instance seems to be very much about the individual rather than the principle. Sackler is not the only company to manufacture opioids as far as I know, and the part that prescribing practice plays surely is also just as important, so is that being addressed - either in general or by this particular protest?
Art in general, and the institutions that house and display it, are all subject to the charge of taint, whether from the origins of the money that commissioned the art or buildings, or the manner in which the art was acquired for, or by, a given institution. Rightly, more consideration is now given to such issues, but I can't help feeling it's beginning to go too far in the other direction and decisions are being taken out of the hands of the institutions, not least for security concerns above and beyond those which attach to any 'valuable' or vulnerable item. The acceptance of donations from, or involvement with, any given organisation then becomes a case of whether there is a high profile protest attached to it(squeaky wheel/most oil) rather than the merits or otherwise of the offer. Perhaps we should just employ the allergens protocol and state at the entrance to all such places that 'may contain material purchased with tainted money', provide a list/information on request, and allow the public to make up its own mind free from(impossible unfortunately) the influence of the current cause du jour where opinion tends to take preference over fact.

[doversoul1]

Thank you for pointing out the (first) quote.

Maybe it’s time art institutions publicised what goes behind the door for which the money is needed and let the public decide what it choose to see? (I know this is far too simplistic. It's just a thought)

Yet the mechanisms required to get that bronze from Taipei to St Ives – loan agreements, insurance, packing, couriering, shipping, handling, installation – are delicate, expensive and complex. Behind every exhibition is an intricate logistical web that reaches across the globe.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2019/mar/21/how-to-move-a-masterpiece-secret-business-shipping-priceless-artworks-art-handling