The National Portrait Gallery loses a £ 1 million grant from the Sackler family | Art and design

The National Portrait Gallery has become the first major arts institution to forgo a grant from the controversial Sackler family, in a move that activists say would be a historic victory in the battle over the ethics of arts funding.

In a decision described as "powerful recognition" that some sources of revenue could not be justified, a spokesman for the gallery said that it had "jointly agreed" that it "would not proceed for the first time. 39 "instant" with a donation of £ 1m from the family, of which US pharmaceutical company Purdue Pharma LP manufactures OxyContin, a highly addictive prescription opioid pain reliever.

The spokesman added, "We fully respect and support the decision of the Sackler family."

As prominent members of the Sackler family faced increasing prosecutions for their alleged role in the deadly opioid crisis in the United States, the family – who vigorously denies the allegations – claimed that the donation had been abandoned for avoid creating a "distraction" for the Gallery.

But while both parties insisted that the decision was mutual, the decision to abandon the donation to the gallery's Inspiring People project will be seen as a blow to the status of the family as philanthropists and as the evidence that a campaign against the Sacklers, led by American artist Nan Goldin has been effective.

Goldin, an art photographer who talked about becoming addicted to OxyContin after being prescribed drugs, told the Guardian Tuesday that she was "so happy" with the decision " important "taken by the National Portrait Gallery.

She said she hoped this would have an influence on other museums and cultural and educational institutions in the UK, US and elsewhere that would accept gifts from the Sackler family to re-examine.

"They did the right thing," she said of the National Portrait Gallery's decision. "I hope that there is a domino effect now, it must."

NPG is one of many British cultural institutions seeking substantial donations from family members, but it has been under intense pressure from artists and activists who have argued that accepting funds from the owners of the company that makes OxyContin would be an accomplice. night.

Reacting to the announcement, Jess Worth, co-director of the Unstained Culture Campaign organization, told The Guardian: "The gallery's decision to reject a donation from those who have taken advantage of the opioid crisis is a powerful recognition that some funding sources cross a red line. .

And she argued that the same approach should now have wider consequences. "This raises the question of whether the gallery will now apply the same standards to its sponsorship deal with BP or will continue to promote a fossil fuel business in the midst of the climate crisis," she said.

"In the past, BP's sponsorship, like Sackler's donation, seemed morally unsustainable."

The Sackler family has an estimated value of $ 13 billion, making it the 19th richest family in America, according to a 2016 estimate from Forbes magazine. They have long been making huge philanthropic donations every year.

But after the cases were heard by the court, some family members "actively participated in conspiracies and frauds to portray [OxyContin] not addictive, even if they knew it was dangerously addictive, "some public institutions – including Columbia University and the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York – began to wonder whether they would continue to accept their donations .

Goldin said Tuesday: "I spoke at the National Portrait Gallery this morning. I am so happy, I am very happy. We must force museums to meet higher standards. They are supposed to be a repository of the best of humanity, a repository of learning and culture. "

She wants the institutions to commit to no longer taking money with Sackler and removing the family name from the facades and galleries.

The Sackler Trust grant to the National Portrait Gallery was awarded in 2016 for the £ 35.5 million real estate development project, a new training center and the redistribution of the collection. The money remained a promise and was not paid, in part because the work had not started yet and the gallery's ethics committee was reviewing the implications of funding from the multibillion dollar family.

Goldin, 65, had threatened to refuse a retrospective of her work at the gallery if she accepted the donation. She had already organized demonstrations at the Guggenheim Museum and at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York for their links with art philanthropists.

In a statement, the Sackler Trust stated "to support institutions playing a vital role in health, education, science and the arts for nearly half a century and we are pleased to be able to do so". have the opportunity to offer a new gift to support the National Portrait Gallery. "

"The philosophy of the family has always been to actively support institutions without ever hindering their mission."

According to the statement, "the recent report of allegations concerning members of the Sackler family could make this new donation divert the National Portrait Gallery from its important work."

"The allegations against family members are vigorously denied, but to avoid distracting the NPG, we decided not to proceed now with the donation. We continue to believe strongly in the gallery and its remarkable work. "

David Ross, President of the National Portrait Gallery, said, "I recognize the generosity of the Sackler family and their support for the arts over the years. We understand and support their decision not to proceed for the moment to donate to the gallery. "

The Sackler name has provided financial support to many British institutions, including the Royal Opera House, National Gallery, National Theater, Shakespeare's Globe, Royal Ballet School, Tate, Old Vic and the Royal College of Art. In 2017, the V & A unveiled a £ 2m Sackler court.

At the same time, V & A Dundee is under pressure to donate to the Sackler family, according to a report released Sunday in Scotland.