Artwashing: When Brands and Cities Use Art to Clean Their Image

What Is Artwashing, Really?

Once a buzzword whispered by activists and critics, artwashing has now entered the mainstream cultural conversation.

A portmanteau of "art" and "whitewashing", the term refers to the strategic use of art or cultural projects to distract from unethical practices, whether environmental, social, or political.

It’s not always easy to spot, but once you know where to look, it’s everywhere.

From luxury brands partnering with street artists, to oil giants sponsoring exhibitions, or real estate developers commissioning murals in gentrifying neighborhoods, art becomes not a mirror of society, but a cloak.

But who benefits? And who pays the price?

The Corporate Makeover: From Oil to Luxury

Let’s start with a powerful example: BP (British Petroleum).

For over 30 years, BP has sponsored major UK cultural institutions like the Tate Modern, the British Museum, and the National Portrait Gallery. While this allowed institutions to fund blockbuster exhibitions, many critics argued that BP was using the arts to “buy social legitimacy” after environmental disasters like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010.

The backlash grew.

In 2019, the National Galleries of Scotland cut ties with BP.

By 2022, the Tate and National Portrait Gallery followed.

Yet BP is far from alone.

In France, TotalEnergies was one of the most visible sponsors of cultural events until mounting pressure, particularly from climate-focused artists and NGOs, forced a withdrawal from several partnerships.

“It’s not just greenwashing. It’s cultural laundering,” said a campaigner from BP or not BP?, an activist theatre group.

Meanwhile, luxury brands, especially in fashion, are also stepping into this space.

Think of Louis Vuitton’s Fondation d'entreprise, or LVMH’s presence in major biennales. While some support truly innovative work, others serve to redirect attention from labor issues, tax controversies, or sustainability concerns.

The Urban Face-Lift: Cities Using Art to Gentrify

Artwashing isn’t just about brands. Cities use it too.

In neighborhoods facing gentrification, city councils or developers often fund street art festivals or creative hubs. At first glance, these projects seem like genuine support for culture. But often, they coincide with rising rents, evictions, and the displacement of long-term communities.

Take Wynwood in Miami, once a warehouse district turned into an open-air gallery. While its murals became iconic on Instagram, the neighborhood saw residential rent increase by 55% between 2012 and 2020, pricing out many local families and small businesses.

In London’s Hackney Wick, a similar story unfolded. Artists were invited to occupy abandoned spaces, only to see those same buildings transformed into luxury flats once the “creative cool” had been established.

“Art was the bait, now we’re being evicted,” said one artist in a 2021 open letter published by The Guardian.

The Art of Distraction

Artwashing is difficult to quantify directly, but some figures point to the scale of the phenomenon:

• In 2022, 70% of the UK’s top 20 polluting companies had ongoing cultural sponsorships.

• According to a 2023 study by Culture Unstained, 1 in 3 museum-goers aged 18-35 said they reconsider attending exhibitions linked to controversial sponsors.

• A 2021 European survey found that 56% of cultural workers feel pressured to self-censor or "soften" activist messages to avoid conflict with funders.

• 
  

These numbers hint at an underlying tension: artists and institutions are caught between ethical positioning and financial survival.

The Dilemma, Can Art Afford to Be Clean?

Here lies the paradox. Cultural institutions need money. Public funding is shrinking in many countries, down by 11% in France since 2018, and more in the UK. Private partnerships, even with problematic donors, can make the difference between survival and closure.

But audiences, especially Gen Z and Millennials, are becoming more vigilant.

The age of passive consumption is fading.

Transparency, ethics, and coherence now matter more than ever.

Artists, too, are resisting.

In 2023, the French collective “Décrochez-moi ça” launched actions against corporate artwashing, staging symbolic "cleaning" performances in museums partnered with polluting companies.

The impact? Discussions in the media, boardroom debates, and, in some cases, actual sponsorship withdrawals.

What’s Next? Toward Ethical Partnerships

The solution isn’t simple. But some paths are emerging:

• Clear ethical charters for sponsorships (like those adopted by the Van Gogh Museum or the National Theatre in London).

• New funding models, including cooperative patronage, crowdfunding, and artist-led foundations.

• Stronger voices from within institutions, staff, curators, and even interns pushing for more transparent, value-driven decisions.

In an age where image is currency, art has become more than a cultural expression. It’s a public relations tool. Whether through street art commissions in gentrifying neighborhoods, flashy exhibitions backed by ethically questionable corporations, or “inclusive” campaigns launched by brands with opaque labor practices, art is increasingly co-opted not to challenge the system, but to beautify it and to cover for corporate or political agendas. It risks becoming part of the problem it once sought to expose.

The question is no longer whether art can change the world but whether we can still tell when it’s being used to keep things exactly as they are.