The Russia-Ukraine conflict has risen all kinds of coverage in the media. Aside from updates on attacks and communications, the news has also provoked some artistic change. Galleries and museums have started to boycott artists who support Russian President Vladimir Putin in response to recent attacks on Ukraine. This is to both boycott the spread of pro-Putin views through artwork and to urge the refusal to boost Russia’s economy. I respect this tactic because it’s an admirable way for the art community to voice their support for Ukraine while bringing the global art world together to support those suffering from Russian violence.

I first want to bring light to some of the specific art institutions that have set these policies in place. The Metropolitan Opera, which has long featured top Russian singers, announced it will no longer engage with those who have expressed their support of Putin or have proof of being tied to him. This also applies to Russian artists who may not support Putin, but who are supported by Putin regardless. Peter Gelb, the general manager of the Metropolitan Opera, said they will continue to halt association with pro-Putin artists “until the invasion and killing has been stopped, order has been restored and restitutions have been made.” This will be a major step for the art community, as more than 800,000 people attend the seasonal performances at the Metropolitan Opera, according to their website. The resistance to encouraging Putin’s influence through opera performances gained my respect as someone with an outside perspective on artistic connection to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. However, not all of these organizations are stopping at merely supporters of Putin.

I want to discuss the distinction between pro-Putin artists and Russian artists in general, as some organizations are choosing to ban all Russian artists and performers, rather than just those who support the destructive Russian president. Some artistic organizations that have either banned or will not include any Russian representation include the Venice Biennale, the Eurovision Song Contest and the European Film Academy. They extended their exclusion of pro-Putin Russian artists to all Russian representation in performances. Some artists are choosing to cancel Russian performances completely. I entirely support the cancellation of pro-Putin appearances in shows and galleries, but I can’t ignore the empathy I feel for those unlucky Russian artists who do not support their president’s actions yet are banned nonetheless. There are personal circumstances that may keep innocent Russians tied to their country, perhaps financial or familial obligations, and the exclusion of their presence is silencing. This feels more like the protection of artistic organizations’ appearances rather than genuine support.

Some officials are also urging the boycott of Russian art partners. Nadine Dorries, the U.K. secretary of state for digital, culture, media and sport, has called culture “the third front in the Ukrainian war,” urging the U.K. to put “soft power” to full use. Other cultural commentators and spokespeople have been pushing institutions to partake in cultural sanctions as well. A more impactful message would be sent by only cutting ties with supporters of the Putin rather than all Russian artists. To further echo my thoughts, French artist Ségolène Haehnsen Kan recently defended her painting exhibition in Moscow by saying, “​​It’s important for Ukrainian artists to know that artists in Russia support them.”For this same reason, I think that organizations should further research which affiliated Russian artists support the actions of Putin, as there are many Russian individuals who disagree with current decisions and want to support Ukrainians.

Aside from lessening Putin’s influence through artwork and performances, the general boycott on Russian art is a shot at slowing their economic input. This is the most impactful outcome of artistic refusals, as it targets a more attainable form of leverage: economics. Jacqui Palumbo, a writer for CNN, stated that “much of the focus has turned to sanctions meant to cripple Russia’s economy.” The initial purpose of boycotting pro-Putin art may have been to halt a cultural push in favor of Russian attacks, but the jump to economy-related oppression is a clever way to stress the artistic influence on the Russia-Ukraine conflict and carry out impactful actions rather than simply stating support. This is also important because companies and organizations beyond the artistic world are practicing economic sanctions to hinder the growth of Putin’s money supply, and art organizations are playing a role in this effort.

I lastly want to discuss some of the other effects of the Russia-Ukraine conflict on the art world to illustrate Ukrainian struggles on the receiving end of the conflict’s influences. Aside from pushing cultural aid and hindering the growth of the Russian economy, the arts have had a share of suffering from current events. For example, Russian forces destroyed the Ivankiv Historical and Local History Museum that contained 25 works by famous Ukrainian artist Maria Prymachenko. In addition to this destruction of Ukrainian art, other galleries and museums are facing physical impacts as well. Some galleries are being forced to relocate their art, alter art deals or loans or even act as bomb shelters. I assume the physical blow on the art world may be another factor encouraging Russia-related bans to lessen cultural influence and Russia’s economic input.

Another reason for the mass artistic effort to relieve such drastic conflict may be due to previous periods of art history. The Counter-Reformation era is a good example of this. Art from the 16th and 17th centuries heavily reflected anti-Protestant perspectives in an attempt to reverse ideas that came about in the Protestant Reformation — this was a response to the rising individualism that formed and started to take away religious power. This period worked to shift public beliefs away from the budding Protestant takeover to strengthen traditional styles of Catholic art, which we can also see hints of in modern art. The ending to connections with pro-Putin artists suppresses the possibility of a similar reformation wave and allows artists and organizations to focus on dealing with more physical issues such as economic effects and attacks, relieving some of the stress that may form with another cultural reset in the art world.

It is important to recognize the effects of the Russia-Ukraine conflict that may not obtain as much coverage as other outcomes in trending news stories. There are countless sufferers working to use their inadequate amount of resources to create any kind of difference. I admire the effort the art community put into recessing Russia’s economy, and I believe the avoidance of previous artistic eras like that of the Counter-Reformation is beneficial for current times.

Alexis Fischer is a sophomore double-majoring in art and English.