This summer, climate activists gathered collectively to rally against New York’s Museum of Modern Art, as they aim to hold the institution accountable for its negligence towards the environment. Activists criticised the museum as Henry Kravis, husband of the chair, invests continuously in fossil fuels. This ultimately calls into question the museum’s priorities and could subsequently threaten the integrity of other institutions. How can such a prestigious centre of culture tolerate such action within its very board?
As the climate crisis progresses into a dire state of urgency, it can only be assumed that artists and galleries should respond accordingly. However, how galleries function in the exchange and transportation of artworks often results in a tremendous carbon footprint. Is it appropriate to host exhibitions despite these superfluous levels of consumption?
However, unlike the Museum of Modern Art, some galleries have been proactive in implementing sustainable operations. For example, the Omenka Gallery in Lagos has reduced their art fair participation and increased their online presence on digital platforms thus lowering their carbon footprint.
The Gallery Climate Coalition highlights the impact of exchanging artwork in their sustainable shipping campaign. They state that air freight is the highest cause of emissions, using 435g of carbon dioxide per tonne of cargo, shipped across one kilometre. This is exponentially higher than that of sea freight, as transportation by air is calculated to have sixty times more climate impact. The targets of this campaign are for example, to ensure artworks are transported via non-air methods with an overall reduction in volume by 2028. The Coalition’s goals sound realistic and achievable, restoring optimism that galleries will, in time, thrive sustainably.
As galleries begin to consider their impact, the artworks hosted within them begin to reflect the intensity and complexity of the crisis. For example, this summer, Dear Earth, hosted by the Hayward Gallery, located in London’s Southbank Centre, focuses primarily on the climate crisis. The exhibition draws together 15 international artists, dissecting the various political, social and economic issues, with nature at the core of every theme investigated. In the words of the gallery, the exhibition hopes to “deepen our psychological and spiritual responses to the climate crisis,” thus we can see galleries and artists administering an effort to affect a positive impact.
The National Museum of Scotland, based in Edinburgh, welcomed the Rising Tide exhibition this summer. This exhibit delves into mankind’s most pressing crisis, but more specifically, represents Australia and the Pacific Islands as the sea level rises exponentially, continually filling with plastic. In the exhibition indigenous artists investigate humanity’s relationship with nature, revealing the vulnerabilities that Oceanic countries face as a result of climate change. Here we can see yet another museum welcoming the topic on the gallery floor, raising much-needed awareness.
However, does eco-art evoke action in the public? Malcolm Miles, an art theorist, argues that “if the eco-narrative becomes entertainment, the message may be lost. Bad art doesn’t communicate much.” Therefore, it can be said that if art is to activate an effective response, the work must remain of a high standard, reserving a sense of severity and clarity, and not becoming too saturated with the showmanship factor.
With an influx of environmentally conscious exhibitions, it is ironic and disheartening to see the behaviour of galleries, at times, acting as the very antithesis of what it is to be sustainable. Yet, with the Gallery Climate Coalition initiating campaigns and targets, activists holding institutions accountable and artists inspiring responses and raising awareness, we can be optimistic that we are making progress and in time the climate may begin to recover.
Illustration by Kate Granholm