How would you define artwashing? My spontaneous take would be that of “controversial sources of funds being invested openly or discreetly in the arts to launder one’s reputation or wealth”. Yet this definition falls short of truly understanding this complex phenomenon.
While the practice is not new, the term itself only originated during the high point of the culture war of the 2010s – or low point depending on one’s political affiliations [1]. What counts as “washing” rather reflects ideology more than broadly accepted ethical red lines. The distinction matters, for the future of the art and culture world might depend on it. The relevant question is who funds the art, for what purpose, and how to prevent obscure funds from creeping into the Art world, muzzling artists, curators and ultimately, freedom of speech [2]?
The art world is financed through various streams: governments, private partnerships, patrons and of course the wider public [3]. Yet since the 2008 Financial Crisis, public spending in Culture – one of the most important – has been constantly under threat, stagnating or decreasing [4]. For instance, a European Parliament report found that although Southern EU countries suffered a 9% decrease in GDP from 2009 to 2014, the contraction on public culture spending was over 30% [5]. Put another way, when economic hardship rears its ugly head, “non-essential” spending is put on the budgetary back-burner. In the UK, a similar pattern was observed by the Local Government Association in 2024, showing that “spending on culture and leisure services has fallen by £2.3 billion in real terms since 2010” [6].
If that trend was not worrying enough, the “polycrisis” governments are facing – from ageing population to climate change and defence spending – will only further constrain their finances. In that regard, France illustrates how some spending is reduced, like in pensions, healthcare services and culture, while others are prioritised such as in Security & Defence and the Justice system [7].
Add to that the global rise of not-so-art-friendly far-right parties and the outlook is even bleaker. Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil and Javier Milei in Argentina both exemplify the cheap yet highly effective populist rhetoric, of downsizing or outright disbanding “wasteful” culture ministries [8] [9]. In the US, the current administration has already started cutting National Endowment of the Arts (NEA) grants. An email was sent to the concerned programmes asking them “to focus funding on projects that reflect the nation’s rich artistic heritage and creativity as prioritised by the President” [10] – priorities which are subject to eternal redefinition due to President Trump’s inconsistent messaging. Europe’s most prominent illiberal democracy, Hungary, has similarly been consolidating state power and pressure on artists”, according to activist groups such as the Artistic freedom initiative [11].
As public funding recedes, the void created will be inevitably filled by private entities and the fast growing ultra-wealthy. This shift will increase public scrutiny on who finances the arts, and to what end. Hence the artwashing question. A 2018 article on the ArtReview journal plainly asked: “The ethics of sponsorship in art: is there such a thing as bad money?” [12]. To that I will answer: Yes. Yes there very much is. Differentiating between various types of patronages might be a way to draw the aforementioned “ethical red line” over which money should not be sourced nor accepted – where unethical becomes illicit.
Would you consider fossil fuel giant Shell sponsoring a climate change exhibition artwashing [13]? Or rather the Sackler’s family – responsible amongst others for the U.S opioid crisis – endowing whole galleries in their name [14]? How about investment company BlackRock being part of the MoMa’s board, who have been accused of investing in private prison companies [28]? Observers have rightly used a different term to describe such sources of funding: “toxic philanthropy” [15]. Those donations are scrutinised – and rightly so – but the discourse can quickly veer into partisanship territory, where it is less a matter of legality and more of opinion. Engaging in the debate is in itself fundamental, but could benefit from deeper analysis.
One form of funding however, clearly deserves the artwashing label: one that discreetly curtails freedom of speech and open debate. One that is not only laundering one’s image but also bloodstained money. Recently in Italy, I experienced this phenomenon first-hand.
A cultural centre that opened in Italy in 2017 quickly made headlines: it was founded by Leonid Mikhelson – sanctioned Russian oligarch by the UK since 2022 and a part of Putin’s inner circle – who according to OpenSanctions.org “controls companies that offer financial and organisational assistance to the Russian ministry of defence in recruiting contract soldiers for involvement in hostilities in Ukraine”. The premises were attacked by anarchists and environmentalists in 2022 at the onset of the full-scale invasion, prompting it to close and briefly be seized by Italian authorities. But in 2024, it reopened, removing any mentions of Russia or the name “Mikhelson”. Legally, it is no longer owned by Mr Mikhelson but by his daughter, Victoria, claiming her Foundation to be apolitical and having no links to her father – even though the source of her wealth squarely stems from the stakes she holds in her father’s main company, Novatek (also sanctioned by the US) [16] [17] [18].
Inside, one participative art piece represented the “mutable and porous” nature of European borders. The irony of a Russian oligarch-funded exhibition with art questioning border integrity during the ongoing war in Ukraine was not lost on me. So I – an occasional provocateur – could not resist the urge to inscribe with a provided white chalk “Slava Ukraini” (“Glory to Ukraine”) on the installation. Proud of my monthly transgression, I walked out discreetly. I came back the next day to see if my – and others’ – graffiti were still present. All but one was clearly erased: mine.
Intrigued as to why only my contribution was removed, I decided to undergo the same experiment again: writing “Slava Ukraini” and coming the following day to confirm that this was not simply a mistake on the curator’s side. Without much surprise, the only vanished contribution was mine, again.
I contacted the artist to confront her with my observations. Even though she acknowledged that her art piece was “apolitical”, “[she] spoke to the director of the foundation”, and got told that “despite clear instructions from the curatorial department to not erase any drawings or messages on the board before the Christmas holidays, the foundation’s staff had erased some writings and drawings on the boards on their own initiative”. The artist asserted she “was unaware” alterations were made without her consent, and “strongly condemn[s] Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, as well as any form of violence and imperialism in general”.
Censoring lawful, harmless dissent is alarming enough, but the artist seemed herself a victim, collateral damage of true artwashing, her work commodified in the process. One can only wonder what else is being silenced in these types of art Foundations…
Opaque money seeping its way to the art world is nothing new. After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, much ink was spilled in culture magazines to understand if “the art world would survive without Oligarchs” [19]. That is particularly true of the Fine arts and antiquities market, where regulations and proper due diligence are lackluster [20]. Even with anti-money laundering schemes such as the 2024 EU-wide cash payment cap of €10,000, circumventing them through shell companies or simply third parties – as in Mikhelson’s daughter’s case – remains too easy [21]. That is both true of art accessible to the public as it is for secretive collections stashed in high security facilities like the Geneva Freeport complex, by some accounts housing some $100 billion worth of art [19]. These loopholes are indicative of the broader sanction regime imposed on Russia itself. They have had limited success due to the ease with which money can flow opaquely in and out of the country, thanks to private and state actors bridging the outcast nation to the globalised economy.
How then can the public fight this most pernicious type of artwashing while waiting for regulations to catch up?
The first step is to demand public scrutiny and curatorial transparency. Journalism plays an important role in following the money to its source, often uncovering controversy and holding wealthy individuals and corporations accountable. That entails investigative work, and not tapping into public outrage. Secondly, governments could offer small artists income like Ireland’s Basic Income for the Arts program, providing creative practitioners up to €17.000 a year [23]. That measure can shield vulnerable artists from questionable projects that prey on precarity [22]. Lastly, civil society and solidarity-based practitioner-driven activist movements can both help artists in need and use collective strength to rebalance power against institutions accepting dubious funds [23].
More broadly, it is for the public to recognise that the art world is not the virtuous bulwark against power and wealth it is too often portrayed as. Joanna Walsh from ArtReview puts it bluntly: “art is not an alternative to capitalism; it is embedded in it” [2]. Since art became a profession, powerful individuals have commissioned works that project their strengths to friends and foes alike. Would one consider the Birth of Venus by Botticelli controversial because it was ordered by the mighty Florentine Medici family [24]? The culture war and the outrage era we seem to be living in should not muddy the water by branding every sponsorship as “artwashing” – nor greenwashing, sportwashing and all the other “washing” suffix offshoots – without proper evidence and real harm caused by it. Discussions on semantics are important in this context, overusing the term has real-world implications.
In this polarised age of social media and instant public opprobrium, there is palpable fear amongst benefactors of being accused of artwashing as their contributions can backfire. In 2024, the Financial Times released an enlightening email exchange between a critical communication strategist and an investment house executive seeking to partner with a book festival [25]. The strategist mentions how “under no circumstances whatsoever should [she] sponsor a literary festival”, even though in the past he would have advised it valuable “linking [her] company to culture”. After the executive expressed her intent on sponsoring regardless, he warned her in the strongest terms: “your investment house is not a fossil fuel firm […] nor exporting arms to Israel or drones to Russia, [but] any investment will indirectly link back to something these people don’t like”. He then concludes, “I know from our many conversations, your deep and abiding passion for literature and the arts. […] But political protest groups don’t recognise good intentions or a desire to spread culture. They simply accuse you of artwashing. […] The danger is you will find your offices targeted, your name trashed” [25].
This exchange underlines that earnest sponsorships do indeed exist, and that not all are cynical ploys to virtue-signal and sane-wash debatable business practices. Though, as corporations worldwide are jettisoning their diversity, ESG and CSR commitments in a heartbeat to avoid provoking the Oval Office’s wrath, the “earnest business” argument is increasingly difficult to defend [26].
Instead of “reaching for our pistols” whenever we hear “artwashing” – to misquote the infamous 1933 saying – we should collectively pause and assess what kind of artwashing it is, what financial and physical harm it may be causing, and how transparently the art was curated [27].
Edited by Justine Dukmedjian.
References
[1] Jones, J. (2016, July 18). ‘Artwashing’ is the new watchword for anti-gentrification protesters. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2016/jul/18/artwashing-new-watchword-for-anti-gentrification-protesters
[2] ArtReview. (2018, September). The ethics of sponsorship in art: Is there such a thing as bad money? https://artreview.com/ar-september-2018-feature-aesthetic-judgement/
[3] Artsper. (n.d.). Who finances art? Artsper Blog. https://blog.artsper.com/en/lifestyle/who-finances-art/
[4] The Art Insider. (2020, March 3). Budget cuts & funding halts: When governments turned their back on artists. https://www.art-insider.com/budget-cuts-funding-halts-when-governments-turned-their-back-on-artists/6820
[5] European Parliament. (2018, February 21). Public spending on culture in Europe 2007–2015. Committee on Culture and Education. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/139228/ALMEDA_Public%20spending%20on%20culture%202007-2015%20-%2021F%20-%20EP%20-Cuture%20Commission%2021%20FEB.pdf
[6] Local Government Association. (n.d.). LGA infographics reveal fragmented culture funding needs reform. https://www.local.gov.uk/about/news/lga-infographics-reveal-fragmented-culture-funding-needs-reform
[7] Le Monde. (2025, February 5). Impôts, taxes, enveloppes en baisse : ce que contient finalement le budget 2025. Les Décodeurs. https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2025/02/05/impots-taxes-enveloppes-en-baisse-ce-que-contient-finalement-le-budget-2025_6533445_4355770.html
[8] The Art Newspaper. (2023, December 15). Javier Milei does away with Argentina’s culture ministry. https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2023/12/15/javier-milei-does-away-argentina-culture-ministry
[9] Hyperallergic. (2019, January 3). Brazil dissolves its Ministry of Culture. https://hyperallergic.com/481163/brazil-dissolves-its-ministry-of-culture/
[10] Hawkins, A. (2025, May 3). Sweeping cuts hit NEA after Trump administration calls to eliminate the agency. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/05/03/nx-s1-5385888/sweeping-cuts-hit-nea-after-trump-administration-calls-to-eliminate-the-agency
[11] Vertigo, A. (2022, March 21). Hungary tightens its grip on art and freedom of expression. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2022/03/21/1087824790/hungary-arts-freedom-suppressed
[12] ArtReview. (2018, September). The ethics of sponsorship in art: Is there such a thing as bad money? https://artreview.com/ar-september-2018-feature-aesthetic-judgement/
[13] Davis, N. (2021, April 21). Science Museum accused of taking “dirty money” from Shell for climate exhibition. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/21/science-museum-shell-money-exhibition-climate
[14] Museums Association. (2021, December). Metropolitan Museum of Art drops Sackler name. Museums Journal. https://www.museumsassociation.org/museums-journal/news/2021/12/metropolitan-museum-of-art-drops-sackler-name/
[15] Financial Times. (2024, July 11). Artwashing and corporate sponsorship: A conversation between culture and commerce. https://www.ft.com/content/ca34bd07-9276-4e6b-af5e-8a3d3e084dc5
[16] United States Department of State, Office of the Spokesperson. (2025, January 25). Sanctions to degrade Russia’s energy sector. https://2021-2025.state.gov/office-of-the-spokesperson/releases/2025/01/sanctions-to-degrade-russias-energy-sector/
[17] Desk Russie. (2024, December 22). Comment l’argent souillé de sang ukrainien infiltre le monde de l’art. https://desk-russie.eu/2024/12/22/comment-largent-souille-de-sang-ukrainien.html
[18] OpenSanctions. (n.d.). Leonid Mikhelson [Q1819424]. https://www.opensanctions.org/entities/Q1819424/
[19] FineArtMultiple. (2019, June 20). Can the art world survive without oligarchs? https://fineartmultiple.com/blog/oligarchs-art-basel/
[20] Munnelly, A. (2021, October 27). Compliant or complicit? Security implications of the art market [Brief 23/2021]. European Union Institute for Security Studies. https://www.iss.europa.eu/publications/briefs/compliant-or-complicit-security-implications-art-market
[21] European Commission. (n.d.). EU cash controls. Taxation and Customs Union. https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/customs/prohibitions-restrictions/eu-cash-controls_en
[22] Matteson, S. (2014, March 27). Artists are vulnerable. Walker Art Center. https://walkerart.org/magazine/artists-are-vulnerable
[23] Walsh, J. (2023, September). Can we ever stop artwashing? ArtReview. https://artreview.com/can-we-ever-stop-artwashing-opinion-joanna-walsh/
[24] The Collector. (2022, November 8). The Medici: How a powerful family shaped art and architecture. https://www.thecollector.com/medici-commissioned-work-art-architecture/
[25] Financial Times. (2024, February 3). Art, ethics and reputation: When sponsorship backfires. https://www.ft.com/content/59f5faf4-5ffd-4946-9f68-b330b994e752
[26] Meyer, G. (2025, February 20). Citi becomes latest US company to abandon diversity targets. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/7ab931b7-482d-42ae-bd8e-53451ddc7578 (Financial Times)
[27] Oxford Reference. (n.d.). Whenever I hear the word culture, I reach for my revolver. In Oxford Reference of Quotations. https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191843730.001.0001/q-oro-ed5-00006044
[28] Hakim Bishara (2019). Activists Crash Private Party at the Museum of Modern Art to Demand Prison Divestment. In Hyperallergic. https://hyperallergic.com/523358/activists-infiltrate-moma-party/%5BCover image] “Silouhette de personne assise sur un banc”, n.d. (https://www.pexels.com/fr-fr/photo/silhouette-de-personne-assise-sur-un-banc-277054/) by Pixabay (https://www.pexels.com/fr-fr/@pixabay/). Licensed under Pexels.
Leave a comment