The National Portrait Gallery (NPG) in London is embroiled in a “nepotism” controversy after hosting a photography exhibition by Zoë Law, a former celebrity make-up artist turned photographer who was also a major donor to the museum’s recent £40 million refurbishment. Law’s exhibit, titled Legends, opened in late 2024 and features black-and-white portraits of famous figures like Noel Gallagher, Sir Rod Stewart, and Kim Cattrall. Critics have pointed out that Law has close ties to the gallery: she was married to hedge fund manager Andrew Law, and their family charitable foundation contributed significantly to the NPG’s renovation fund.
Though Zoë Law resigned from the foundation’s board amid her divorce in 2024, the financial link between a current exhibitor and a key donor has raised eyebrows.
Criticism of 'Pedestrian' Work and Ethical Questions
Prominent figures in the art community have openly questioned the merit of Law’s exhibition and whether her donor status influenced its prominence. Some described Law’s photography as “pedestrian at best,” suggesting the exhibition would be “difficult to defend” on artistic grounds alone. One Turner Prize-nominated artist, speaking anonymously, argued that the only remarkable aspect of Law’s work was her access to high-profile subjects, implying the showcase resulted from “a nepotism thing” rather than exceptional talent. Photographer Jesse Darling was even more blunt, commenting that “art is a rich man’s game made up of rich hobbyists who keep their money circulating among themselves” in a pointed critique of how wealth and connections can overshadow artistic quality. These criticisms highlight a broader unease that the gallery may have bent its standards to favor an insider. Many in the photography world see this situation as emblematic of a larger issue where lucrative donors might receive prestigious art opportunities that others do not, thereby blurring the line between patronage and curation.
Gallery Response and Conflict of Interest Policies
The National Portrait Gallery has defended its handling of the Law exhibition, emphasizing that it adhered to established protocols. According to an NPG spokesperson, the gallery’s ethics committee was consulted and approved the donation from the Law Family Charitable Foundation and was “aware of the display” featuring Zoë Law’s work. The NPG maintains that the decision to host Legends followed its standard grants and donations policy, which is designed to prevent donors from receiving undue advantages. In an official statement, the gallery noted that Law’s exhibit was one of several free displays (separate from major paid exhibitions) and that it fit the NPG’s mission of featuring prominent figures in British culture. The gallery also pointed to compliance with legal frameworks like the UK Bribery Act, which requires ensuring that no donation results in inappropriate benefits for the donor. Essentially, NPG’s leadership insists there was no special treatment: they argue that Law’s project had been in discussion since 2019, well before the refurbishment was completed, and that the content of Legends stands on its own merits. However, the perception of a conflict of interest has been harder to dispel. Museum ethics experts note that even the appearance of favoritism can damage public trust. Maurice Davies, a cultural consultant, commented that museum ethics committees may need to scrutinize donor-related exhibitions more closely to “avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest as well as conflicts themselves.”
He and others suggest that clearer guidelines could help institutions navigate situations where major benefactors are also aspiring artists or exhibitors. The NPG case has thus sparked reflection on how museums can balance gratitude toward donors with a duty to independent curation.Broader Debate on Donors and Exhibition Ethics
This controversy has ignited a wider discussion about the role of private funding in the arts. With public funding for cultural institutions in decline, galleries increasingly rely on wealthy patrons to sponsor projects. Those donors, in turn, may expect a degree of influence or recognition. Critics argue that museums must set firm boundaries to ensure that donations do not effectively purchase exhibition space or curatorial decisions. The Legends uproar has highlighted the need for transparency: if a donor’s contribution is linked to programming, that relationship should be openly disclosed and justified.
The episode also underscores a delicate reality in the art world: who gets a platform can sometimes depend as much on connections and resources as on artistic innovation. Even if no explicit rules were broken in the NPG’s case, the notion that a donor’s work earned a coveted gallery spot — and even accession into the permanent collection — has fueled calls for reforms. Proposals from observers include stricter recusal policies (where decision-makers with personal ties to contributors step aside) and independent panels to review exhibitions for potential conflicts.
"So, remember, every picture tells a story, don't it"
This is hardly shocking, the arts and cultural sector has a long history of "looking within" when it comes to access to opportunities. There was a study last year which found that only 1 in 10 employees across the sector came from a working class background. This is after huge calls to reform and diversify hiring practices. There is still a long way to go, but diverse does mean including some close connections to the gallery within its schedule - how else will they keep the donations coming in?
I once entered the world of photography, and soon discovered that getting shows and often work in the public sector, has nothing to do with talent.
This pretty much a non story.