Protest art vs. protesting with art
Plus, the Philharmonic goes to the desert.
Hello. Since the last time we’ve spoken, I have:
Finished reading Roberto Bolaño’s 2666(!!!) and finished reading Jhumpa Lahiri’s The Namesake. I also read Jhumpa Lahiri’s Whereabouts.
Watched The Red Shoes (1948) and Sunset Boulevard (1950).
Acquired a large, framed Moses Soyer painting at the thrift store that I believe to be a serigraph; authentication tbd.
In case you missed it, here is my gift guide for aspiring patrons of the arts. Now, on to the news.
You’ve probably seen the stories about climate protesters putting on demonstrations in museums—and sometimes ending up with jail time as a result, as happened with the two Just Stop Oil activists who threw soup at Vincent Van Gogh’s (glass-covered) Sunflowers in 2022. More recently, two climate protestors received jail time (and had to pay a nearly $59k fee) for dumping red powder on the case covering the U.S. Constitution at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. Notably, none of these famous climate protests have damaged invaluable artwork or documents themselves. But that’s not to say that the protests have been accident-free; the $59k fee to the National Archives will go to fixing the damage done to the Constitution’s display case. And, of course, the protestors have targeted famous items for a reason: They want their cause—the ongoing climate crisis—to get attention.
Well, what do the museums think? Conrad Landin explores this in a recent piece for Apollo, which explains how the protests have already changed museum security practices and what impact continued protests could have on the art world. It’s a complex issue. While a large number of artists and art historians have expressed their support for the protestors, gallerists and curators have been quieter on the matter; the majority of curator sources Landin spoke to did so on the condition of anonymity. The thing is, even if these curators share the protestors’ sentiments about climate change, these protests could also greatly reduce the public’s access to art. Already, some museums have hired plainclothes security guards who are tasked with watching people, rather than artwork. But there are some simple solutions, like banning photography in exhibits (the thinking: if there’s no one to photograph a protest, a protest is unlikely to occur…but on the flip side, if a museum cannot stop a protest before it happens, it also can’t stop visitors from whipping out their phones).
While damage to frames and the like has not driven up insurance costs, the demonstrations have led institutions to look into ways they can better protect their displays; invariably, this is more expensive. The task of protecting art becomes even more treacherous when considering the fact that many institutions borrow and loan art. Could continued protests limit the frequency of such loans? (Well—you may think—that does cut down the carbon cost of shipping).
Some galleries believe that the protestors are targeting the wrong institutions and should instead focus on governments and corporations. But in fairness to the protestors, consider this example: the British Museum, which receives U.K. government funding, announced last December a 10-year £50M partnership with BP, a corporation. (Nicholas Cullinan…what’s all this then?)
Others suggest that gallerists and curators could instead work with climate activists, using art as a tool to foster engagement. That is, after all, a focus of the PST: Art program currently on display throughout Los Angeles. Can art shift the discourse around climate change?
It’s a compelling idea. One that can make us feel good about humanity. But there remains the fact that many institutions rely on donations, and many of those donations come from corporations or individuals who have a vested interest in fossil fuel production (and geopolitical conflict, etc.). And while some have divested—like Britain’s Tate Modern—many have not. And you see cultural institutions, like Paris’s Centre Pompidou, struggling to finance their remodeling and turning increasingly to sponsored exhibits. And you see that the U.S. House of Representatives has recently passed a bill that allows the government to declare nonprofits “terrorist organizations.” And you remember how in Hungary, far-right prime minister Viktor Orbán has effectively taken control of and stifled the country’s arts and cultural sector. And you think of how much it is all endlessly intertwined and how it seems, at this moment, there may not be one singular solution, and it is so maddening that you might feel, at the end of the day, there is nothing more you can do but throw a bunch of paint or some tomato soup at the wall.
Thinking about going to Coachella only so I can listen to the Los Angeles Philharmonic, which will become the first orchestra to play the music festival this year. The Phil will be led by artistic director Gustavo Dudamel, who has made quite the name for himself, working with artists like Billie Eilish, Coldplay, and Nas, earning a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, conducting the score to Steven Spielberg’s West Side Story, and more. A Millennial (currently 43 years old), Dudamel became the music director of the LA Phil when he was just 26 years old, and during his time with the orchestra, he’s toured worldwide. He is also the music and artistic director of the Simón Bolívar Symphony Orchestra in his native Venezuela. Simply put…if there are any contemporary conductors you should know about, it is Gustavo Dudamel. And in 2026, New Yorkers will get a treat when he joins the New York Philharmonic as music and artistic director…following in the footsteps of Gustav Mahler and Leonard Bernstein. Step aside, Lydia Tár.
Here’s another way to make sure museum visitors aren’t bringing in contraband. At five showings of the “Naturist Paradises” exhibit, which opened in July at the Museum of the Civilizations of Europe and the Mediterranean in Marseille, visitors attended completely nude. Call it going method.
Surely this will end well. A startup called Spines alleges it will publish around 8,000 books next year by charging “authors between $1,200 and $5,000 to have their books edited, proofread, formatted, designed and distributed with the help of AI,” The Guardian reported, with plenty of commentary from writers proclaiming the stupidity of such a venture. Because we all know that AI is famously error-free and writes in a comprehensive, human-sounding way!
Meanwhile, in the real world, Authors Against Book Bans released an open letter to the CEOs of more than 90 publishers, highlighting the coalition’s concerns ahead of the second Trump presidency. It highlighted a number of threats named in Project 2025 (such as the criminalization of authors and librarians, among other things) and asked publishers to stand unequivocally with their authors, continuing to support and acquire books by LGBTQIA+ and writers of color, guaranteeing the safety of author personal information, and several other points that aim to ensure the most vulnerable and marginalized writers and publishing staff are protected. You can read the full letter here.
Notre Dame is opening up to the public again on December 8, five years after the more-than-850-year-old church caught on fire in 2019. You can take a look at the restoration here.
Here’s another reason why libraries are important: They provide critical resources to their communities beyond books and information. Increasingly, libraries across the U.S.—despite their ever-limited resources!!—are providing health and wellness classes and tools through partnerships, like the American Heart Association’s Libraries with Heart program, which supplies libraries with blood pressure stations and take-home blood pressure kits. These efforts often include mental health resources; Jarrell Community Library and Resource Center, located in a small Texas town, has brought in an expert on end-of-life planning to talk to library patrons and helped several women learn how to file restraining orders against their husbands, the AP reported. Libraries, simply put, are a lifeline.
In less good news, a new report by the University of Glasgow found that artists in the U.K. are making nearly 40% less than they were in 2010, with an average income of $15,600. The report was commissioned by the Design & Artists Copyright Society, which, along with 26 other arts groups, petitioned the U.K. government earlier this year to better support artists with AI regulation, financial assistance, changes to copyright law, and more through the Visual Arts Manifesto.
Has streaming damaged our knowledge of classical music? This is something that The Times chief music critic Richard Morrison ponders, noting that the streaming era has led to the demise of the album booklet (though he points out that Apple Music’s Classical app offers 50,000 digital “album booklets”) and that many listeners appreciate classical music track by track, rather than by listening to a whole concerto or symphony or ballet or what have you all at once. I get where he is coming from. But at the same time, I think we have greater access to classical music than ever before, and that is a great thing. I would argue that even during the era of CDs and vinyl, a whole lot of folks probably weren’t reading album booklets, either.
If people get into it from the “Clair de Lune” reference in Twilight, that’s something to celebrate. The music comes first—context can deepen an appreciation, but there’s always time for it later. ▲