Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Billie Eilish vs. Taylor Swift: Is the feud real? Who’s dissing who?

News Feed
Saturday, June 1, 2024

NEW YORK, NEW YORK - MAY 15: Billie Eilish performs onstage during "Hit Me Hard And Soft" Album Release Listening Party at Barclays Center on May 15, 2024 in New York City. (Photo by Arturo Holmes/Getty Images for ABA) The recent epic drama between Kendrick Lamar and Drake may have made the brutal diss track trendy again, but in the pop realm, indirect shade-throwing seems to be the order of the day. When the clash involves two of the biggest pop stars alive, and their mighty fandoms are the ones decoding their insinuations, even subtle or unintentional slights can become amplified to the point of absurdity. Yet that also leaves the rest of us asking what is and isn’t real. Are Billie Eilish and Taylor Swift really feuding? From a certain angle, it certainly seems like Eilish has spent the past couple of months using her promotional cycle for her new album, Hit Me Hard and Soft, to drop casual but pointed criticism at Swift. From another angle, it seems like Swift may have retaliated in her own Swiftian way — by releasing bonus editions for her new album, Tortured Poets Department, timed to compete with Eilish’s album release. While Swift’s reputation for petty feuding is so well known that she made a whole album about it, this fight seems totally out of character for the notably laid-back Eilish. Yet it seems to have been Eilish whose thinly veiled barbs against Swift first gained notice and steadily fueled the fire. Have we entered an era where fans look to turn everything into an epic rivalry — and they’ll find a way to do it, even when there’s nothing there at all? Or is the Eilish/Taylor beef — with layered jibes leading to battles waged by fandom foot soldiers on social media feeds across the internet — just how pop stars fight these days?  The drama is all about which album tops the Billboard chart — but it’s also about shade At the heart of this feud is the Billboard album chart. Swift’s Poets has been at the top since its April 19 release, and Swifties have a single-minded goal of keeping it up there as long as possible. One of the ways artists gamify the charts in a highly competitive digital age is by releasing variant album editions — a trick Swift is well-known for using. For Poets, she released a standard album, then immediately expanded it to a double album with 30 songs, then suddenly dropped three more surprise, limited-time album variants on May 17.  To Eilish fans, the timing of these three new album drops was sus: They landed the same day as the release of Eilish’s own new album, Hit Me. Swifties argued the timing was purely coincidental — just one more way of boosting Swift’s goal of keeping her album at No. 1 for as long as possible. For Eilish stans (who don’t have a collective name, oddly enough), that explanation fell flat: If the timing didn’t matter, why did Taylor step on Eilish’s release date? Especially since they were limited editions, meaning fans had a narrow window of time to buy them — a window of direct competition with Eilish. For their part, Swift’s fans were side-eying Eilish’s camp: They soon realized Eilish’s manager, Danny Rukasin, had liked and retweeted (and hastily deleted) a tweet implying that Swift had a long history of intentionally “blocking” other artists’ paths to the top of the chart by strategically dropping her own releases. The calendar is finite, so Swift’s releases are likely to be less about spiting other artists and more about limited space, and Rukasin may have been motivated less by this particular gripe and more by a general dislike of Swift as an artist. Fans soon dug up another instance when he shaded Swift on social media, which fed the flames of hostility between the two camps.  Meanwhile, both artists waged a back-and-forth with competing bonus editions of new tracks throughout the week, in an effort to cinch the top. Ultimately, Swift retained the No. 1 spot, with Eilish slotting in at No. 2. Of course, all of this might easily have been chalked up to unfortunate coincidence, inevitable competition, and heated emotions rather than beef — nothing that really rises to the level of a full-blown, two-sided conflict.  But what fandom these days thrives on a lack of conflict? It’s easy to see why neither fandom has backed off the drama. You don’t have to dig deep to find evidence that the beef might be real, and that Swift might have intended to go head-to-head with Eilish. That’s because Eilish might have been sitting on some longtime animosity toward Swift — a resentment that could have started with another artist altogether.  If this feud exists, it might have started, not with Eilish or Swift, but with a man’s garden-variety sexism To find the source of this mess, we might have to jump back to 2022. Damon Albarn, the frontman of seminal British bands Blur and Gorillaz, kicked off the year by bizarrely bashing Taylor Swift’s songwriting ability. In a January interview with the Los Angeles Times, Albarn first flatly claimed that Swift “doesn’t write her own songs,” then doubled down by adding that she doesn’t even co-write her own songs. Since Taylor Swift’s primary claim to fame is her songwriting ability, this was a very odd — if not outright misogynistic — hill for Albarn to randomly die on.  But within almost the same breath, he took things in an even weirder direction, by comparing Swift’s music to that of Billie Eilish and her brother Finneas O’Connell, with whom Eilish frequently co-writes: I’m not hating on anybody, I’m just saying there’s a big difference between a songwriter and a songwriter who co-writes. Doesn’t mean that the outcome can’t be really great. … A really interesting songwriter is Billie Eilish and her brother. I’m more attracted to that than to Taylor Swift. It’s just darker — less endlessly upbeat. Way more minor and odd. I think she’s exceptional. For all we know, the incident could have ended there — Albarn apologized to Swift after massive backlash, blaming the Times for “clickbait”-editing whatever he actually said.  However, fast-forward a few months, and Billie Eilish herself took things a step further. During her history-making gig at Coachella, where she was the youngest headliner in history, Eilish brought out Albarn for a surprise guest performance. This could have been a purely fannish gesture on Eilish’s part. However, while Eilish was praising Albarn and the influence he had on her own music, an unidentified male voice on a hot mic could be heard on the concert livestream joking, “We’re getting sued by Taylor Swift.” At the time, Swifties leaned toward the culprit behind the voice being Eilish’s brother O’Connell. Fans seemed torn on whether or not to view this as deliberate shade toward Taylor on the part of Eilish and O’Connell: After all, O’Connell had previously praised Swift’s songwriting as “inspiring,” and he attended her birthday party in 2021. Still, it’s easy for things to get twisted in the cutthroat game of entertainment, and we know how Swift can hold a grudge when she feels her art has been disrespected. And judging by multiple comments Eilish has made in the promotional cycle for Hit Me Hard and Soft — comments that certainly seem to be directed at Swift — the vendetta might go both ways. Eilish can’t seem to stop shading Swift — or are fans just reading into things? On March 23, weeks before Swift’s Poets release, Billboard published an interview with Eilish in which she spoke of the “wasteful” practice of artists releasing vinyl albums primarily to garner more album sales and secure longevity or higher sales rankings on the Billboard charts. Although the entire interview was about Eilish’s broader efforts to promote environmental sustainability, she was especially sharp in her criticism of this (admittedly, yes, wasteful) practice: I find it really frustrating as somebody who really goes out of my way to be sustainable and do the best that I can and try to involve everybody in my team in being sustainable — and then it’s some of the biggest artists in the world making f–king 40 different vinyl packages that have a different unique thing just to get you to keep buying more. It’s so wasteful, and it’s irritating to me that we’re still at a point where you care that much about your numbers and you care that much about making money — and it’s all your favorite artists doing that sh-t. Since, again, this is a tactic for which Swift is famous, fans read the entire sidebar as a swipe at Swift specifically. Eilish herself quickly responded via Instagram and denied that she’d intended to slight any specific artist. “It would be so awesome if people would stop putting words into my mouth,” she reportedly wrote. “I wasn’t singling anyone out.” If this had been a one-off statement, it would probably have been easier for fans to believe Eilish. Instead, this was just the beginning of a string of moments when Eilish’s general complaints could also be read as specific criticism of Taylor Swift. It’s worth noting that each of these subsequent interviews came after Swift’s May 17 “block” of Eilish’s album, so it’s also possible that what started out as pure coincidence on Eilish’s part quickly became personal. In a May 21 interview for Apple Music, Eilish drew still more attention for remarks that seemed to shade overtly autobiographical songwriting — you know, like the kind Swift is again notorious for.  “I really wanted the songs to not be like, ‘Oh, I know what that’s about,’” Eilish says.  I think that we live in such a world where everyone knows everything … Everyone is aware of the beef that happened and aware of the people that don’t like each other and aware of this and that. People put songs out, especially in the pop world — and I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with it necessarily, but it’s just, we live in a world of, like, somebody puts a song out and everyone’s like, ‘So this is who this is about and this is the entire story of what happened,’ and it’s like, it doesn’t even give the listener a chance to interpret it how they want to interpret it and how they naturally hear it. And that I find really frustrating. I don’t want to hear a song that I’m like, ‘Ooh, my god’ — every single lyric, I’m like, ‘Oh, my god, this is about that person.’ At this point, her brother, O’Connell, chimes in, agreeing, “No, it can be gross … I don’t listen to ‘The Luckiest’ by Ben Folds and think about his wife. I think about who I’m in love with.”  Taken by itself, this is all pretty innocuous kvetching about the creative process. But taken as part of an ongoing pattern of the siblings subtly shading Swift, her songwriting, and her production process, it feels a lot more damning.   Oh, and then Eilish apparently added Swift-style performances to the checklist of things she doesn’t like. It’s no secret that a celebrity rivalry like this one drives sales. But there’s something frustrating about the ephemeral nature of this one. Last year, Eilish called both Swift and Beyoncé “untouchable superstars” in the LA Times, referencing their epic stadium shows, which can each run three hours or more. “The fact that they can put on a show that long, and it’s filled with so many incredible moments, is really amazing,” she said. At the time she sounded admiring, not confrontational.  Following the album release clash, however, her tone changed dramatically. In a May 23 broadcast on social radio platform Stationhead, Eilish stated, “I’m not doing a three-hour show. That’s literally psychotic. Nobody wants that. I don’t want that … I don’t even want that as a fan. My favorite artist in the world, I’m not trying to hear them for three hours.” Once again, Swifties rushed to allege that Eilish was shading Swift specifically (and Beyoncé, but the Hive seems less pressed). We’ve never known Eilish to overtly antagonize Swift before, and indeed in 2019 she thanked Swift for “taking care of [her]” through her music when she was a child. Yet this wouldn’t be the first time a younger female artist found herself in opposition to Swift. Just look at Olivia Rodrigo, who borrowed liberally from Swift as a key influence in her music. Swift embraced the young singer, until the pair had a rumored falling-out over the issue of song credits. That kerfuffle may or may not have led Rodrigo to burn Swift in the scathing 2022 song “Vampire,” in which she depicts the titular fang-bearer as a significantly older figure who exploits the singer’s youth and naivete.  Have we mentioned Rodrigo and Eilish are good friends? And that Eilish has said she feels “very protective” of her? Indeed, in a May 22 interview with Stephen Colbert to promote her new album, Eilish riffed poetically about the need for young artists to have the freedom to copy other artists while they’re finding their own style. “Inspiration is going to turn into more inspiration is going to turn into more inspiration,” she said. Though Eilish was ostensibly talking about her own vocal development, some gawkers watching the unfolding beef interpreted it as Eilish commenting on the Swift-Rodrigo feud.  It makes sense; there’s some speculation that Swift tapped Sabrina Carpenter to open for her “Eras” tour in part because Carpenter and Rodrigo have a longstanding enmity over a messy love triangle. Rodrigo likewise has been teasing an upcoming remix of “Vampire” as a collaboration with Lana Del Rey — who’s allegedly currently on the outs with Swift. Other celebrities also seem to be taking sides in the dispute. Sza, who incidentally is one of the artists whose album Swift was previously accused of trying to “block,” had previously denied there was ever any beef between the two. She was recently spotted “liking” an Instagram post dinging Eilish for her high concert prices and short performance times — an apparent subtle shade on behalf of Swift. For her part, Swift has yet to comment on the ongoing war between her fandom and Eilish’s — though her PR team’s Twitter account did make a post on May 25 referencing the line “try and come for my job” from Swift’s song “I Can Do It With a Broken Heart” — a post that many fans interpreted as a diss against Eilish for being unable to swipe the No. 1 chart ranking from Swift. Is any of this real or is it all just a manufactured face-off? It’s hard to tell. But the animosity has certainly driven attention and renewed energy toward both artists. In the middle of the feud, Swift’s album Midnights reportedly became the fastest album by a woman in history to reach a whopping 9 billion streams on Spotify. Meanwhile, Eilish’s album lead, the racy bop “Lunch,” reportedly became her fastest single ever to reach 100 million Spotify streams.  It’s no secret that a celebrity rivalry like this one drives sales. But there’s something frustrating about the ephemeral nature of this one. On the one hand, there’s plenty of plausible deniability around each of the statements from Eilish that fans are up in arms about. On the other, the fact there are so many statements during an active press tour implies Eilish isn’t playing. She also hasn’t bothered to clarify that she’s not talking about Swift. (Vox has reached out to both camps for comment.) When hip-hop artists create diss tracks, the general sentiment is that the gripes create good music, and the music is what matters. We’ll undoubtedly hear Swift’s side of this latest dispute in her next album. But the vacuum of real information about what’s going on here has left a gap that fans have chosen to fill with a lot of finger-pointing and side-taking. It’s a familiar routine for anyone who’s spent time around stan culture, but the drama detracts from the accomplishments of both artists. It’s hard to feel served by this fight the way, for example, Kendrick’s beef with Drake doubled as a commentary on authenticity in hip-hop culture. If Eilish really does think Swift’s songs are too literal, her concerts too long, her release strategy too wasteful, and her feuds too petty, there must be better ways to air those grievances.  Perhaps she should write a song about it.

The recent epic drama between Kendrick Lamar and Drake may have made the brutal diss track trendy again, but in the pop realm, indirect shade-throwing seems to be the order of the day. When the clash involves two of the biggest pop stars alive, and their mighty fandoms are the ones decoding their insinuations, even […]

NEW YORK, NEW YORK - MAY 15: Billie Eilish performs onstage during "Hit Me Hard And Soft" Album Release Listening Party at Barclays Center on May 15, 2024 in New York City. (Photo by Arturo Holmes/Getty Images for ABA)

The recent epic drama between Kendrick Lamar and Drake may have made the brutal diss track trendy again, but in the pop realm, indirect shade-throwing seems to be the order of the day. When the clash involves two of the biggest pop stars alive, and their mighty fandoms are the ones decoding their insinuations, even subtle or unintentional slights can become amplified to the point of absurdity.

Yet that also leaves the rest of us asking what is and isn’t real. Are Billie Eilish and Taylor Swift really feuding? From a certain angle, it certainly seems like Eilish has spent the past couple of months using her promotional cycle for her new album, Hit Me Hard and Soft, to drop casual but pointed criticism at Swift. From another angle, it seems like Swift may have retaliated in her own Swiftian way — by releasing bonus editions for her new album, Tortured Poets Department, timed to compete with Eilish’s album release.

While Swift’s reputation for petty feuding is so well known that she made a whole album about it, this fight seems totally out of character for the notably laid-back Eilish. Yet it seems to have been Eilish whose thinly veiled barbs against Swift first gained notice and steadily fueled the fire. Have we entered an era where fans look to turn everything into an epic rivalry — and they’ll find a way to do it, even when there’s nothing there at all?

Or is the Eilish/Taylor beef — with layered jibes leading to battles waged by fandom foot soldiers on social media feeds across the internet — just how pop stars fight these days? 

The drama is all about which album tops the Billboard chart — but it’s also about shade

At the heart of this feud is the Billboard album chart. Swift’s Poets has been at the top since its April 19 release, and Swifties have a single-minded goal of keeping it up there as long as possible. One of the ways artists gamify the charts in a highly competitive digital age is by releasing variant album editions — a trick Swift is well-known for using. For Poets, she released a standard album, then immediately expanded it to a double album with 30 songs, then suddenly dropped three more surprise, limited-time album variants on May 17. 

To Eilish fans, the timing of these three new album drops was sus: They landed the same day as the release of Eilish’s own new album, Hit Me. Swifties argued the timing was purely coincidental — just one more way of boosting Swift’s goal of keeping her album at No. 1 for as long as possible. For Eilish stans (who don’t have a collective name, oddly enough), that explanation fell flat: If the timing didn’t matter, why did Taylor step on Eilish’s release date? Especially since they were limited editions, meaning fans had a narrow window of time to buy them — a window of direct competition with Eilish.

For their part, Swift’s fans were side-eying Eilish’s camp: They soon realized Eilish’s manager, Danny Rukasin, had liked and retweeted (and hastily deleted) a tweet implying that Swift had a long history of intentionally “blocking” other artists’ paths to the top of the chart by strategically dropping her own releases. The calendar is finite, so Swift’s releases are likely to be less about spiting other artists and more about limited space, and Rukasin may have been motivated less by this particular gripe and more by a general dislike of Swift as an artist. Fans soon dug up another instance when he shaded Swift on social media, which fed the flames of hostility between the two camps. 

Meanwhile, both artists waged a back-and-forth with competing bonus editions of new tracks throughout the week, in an effort to cinch the top. Ultimately, Swift retained the No. 1 spot, with Eilish slotting in at No. 2.

Of course, all of this might easily have been chalked up to unfortunate coincidence, inevitable competition, and heated emotions rather than beef — nothing that really rises to the level of a full-blown, two-sided conflict. 

But what fandom these days thrives on a lack of conflict? It’s easy to see why neither fandom has backed off the drama. You don’t have to dig deep to find evidence that the beef might be real, and that Swift might have intended to go head-to-head with Eilish. That’s because Eilish might have been sitting on some longtime animosity toward Swift — a resentment that could have started with another artist altogether. 

If this feud exists, it might have started, not with Eilish or Swift, but with a man’s garden-variety sexism

To find the source of this mess, we might have to jump back to 2022. Damon Albarn, the frontman of seminal British bands Blur and Gorillaz, kicked off the year by bizarrely bashing Taylor Swift’s songwriting ability. In a January interview with the Los Angeles Times, Albarn first flatly claimed that Swift “doesn’t write her own songs,” then doubled down by adding that she doesn’t even co-write her own songs. Since Taylor Swift’s primary claim to fame is her songwriting ability, this was a very odd — if not outright misogynistic — hill for Albarn to randomly die on. 

But within almost the same breath, he took things in an even weirder direction, by comparing Swift’s music to that of Billie Eilish and her brother Finneas O’Connell, with whom Eilish frequently co-writes:

I’m not hating on anybody, I’m just saying there’s a big difference between a songwriter and a songwriter who co-writes. Doesn’t mean that the outcome can’t be really great. … A really interesting songwriter is Billie Eilish and her brother. I’m more attracted to that than to Taylor Swift. It’s just darker — less endlessly upbeat. Way more minor and odd. I think she’s exceptional.

For all we know, the incident could have ended there — Albarn apologized to Swift after massive backlash, blaming the Times for “clickbait”-editing whatever he actually said. 

Eilish holding a camera, filming O'Connell on the floor of the Kia Forum.

However, fast-forward a few months, and Billie Eilish herself took things a step further. During her history-making gig at Coachella, where she was the youngest headliner in history, Eilish brought out Albarn for a surprise guest performance. This could have been a purely fannish gesture on Eilish’s part. However, while Eilish was praising Albarn and the influence he had on her own music, an unidentified male voice on a hot mic could be heard on the concert livestream joking, “We’re getting sued by Taylor Swift.”

At the time, Swifties leaned toward the culprit behind the voice being Eilish’s brother O’Connell. Fans seemed torn on whether or not to view this as deliberate shade toward Taylor on the part of Eilish and O’Connell: After all, O’Connell had previously praised Swift’s songwriting as “inspiring,” and he attended her birthday party in 2021.

Still, it’s easy for things to get twisted in the cutthroat game of entertainment, and we know how Swift can hold a grudge when she feels her art has been disrespected. And judging by multiple comments Eilish has made in the promotional cycle for Hit Me Hard and Soft — comments that certainly seem to be directed at Swift — the vendetta might go both ways.

Eilish can’t seem to stop shading Swift — or are fans just reading into things?

On March 23, weeks before Swift’s Poets release, Billboard published an interview with Eilish in which she spoke of the “wasteful” practice of artists releasing vinyl albums primarily to garner more album sales and secure longevity or higher sales rankings on the Billboard charts. Although the entire interview was about Eilish’s broader efforts to promote environmental sustainability, she was especially sharp in her criticism of this (admittedly, yes, wasteful) practice:

I find it really frustrating as somebody who really goes out of my way to be sustainable and do the best that I can and try to involve everybody in my team in being sustainable — and then it’s some of the biggest artists in the world making f–king 40 different vinyl packages that have a different unique thing just to get you to keep buying more. It’s so wasteful, and it’s irritating to me that we’re still at a point where you care that much about your numbers and you care that much about making money — and it’s all your favorite artists doing that sh-t.

Since, again, this is a tactic for which Swift is famous, fans read the entire sidebar as a swipe at Swift specifically. Eilish herself quickly responded via Instagram and denied that she’d intended to slight any specific artist. “It would be so awesome if people would stop putting words into my mouth,” she reportedly wrote. “I wasn’t singling anyone out.”

If this had been a one-off statement, it would probably have been easier for fans to believe Eilish. Instead, this was just the beginning of a string of moments when Eilish’s general complaints could also be read as specific criticism of Taylor Swift. It’s worth noting that each of these subsequent interviews came after Swift’s May 17 “block” of Eilish’s album, so it’s also possible that what started out as pure coincidence on Eilish’s part quickly became personal.

In a May 21 interview for Apple Music, Eilish drew still more attention for remarks that seemed to shade overtly autobiographical songwriting — you know, like the kind Swift is again notorious for

“I really wanted the songs to not be like, ‘Oh, I know what that’s about,’” Eilish says

I think that we live in such a world where everyone knows everything … Everyone is aware of the beef that happened and aware of the people that don’t like each other and aware of this and that.

People put songs out, especially in the pop world — and I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with it necessarily, but it’s just, we live in a world of, like, somebody puts a song out and everyone’s like, ‘So this is who this is about and this is the entire story of what happened,’ and it’s like, it doesn’t even give the listener a chance to interpret it how they want to interpret it and how they naturally hear it. And that I find really frustrating. I don’t want to hear a song that I’m like, ‘Ooh, my god’ — every single lyric, I’m like, ‘Oh, my god, this is about that person.’

At this point, her brother, O’Connell, chimes in, agreeing, “No, it can be gross … I don’t listen to ‘The Luckiest’ by Ben Folds and think about his wife. I think about who I’m in love with.” 

Taken by itself, this is all pretty innocuous kvetching about the creative process. But taken as part of an ongoing pattern of the siblings subtly shading Swift, her songwriting, and her production process, it feels a lot more damning.  

Oh, and then Eilish apparently added Swift-style performances to the checklist of things she doesn’t like.

It’s no secret that a celebrity rivalry like this one drives sales. But there’s something frustrating about the ephemeral nature of this one.

Last year, Eilish called both Swift and Beyoncé “untouchable superstars” in the LA Times, referencing their epic stadium shows, which can each run three hours or more. “The fact that they can put on a show that long, and it’s filled with so many incredible moments, is really amazing,” she said. At the time she sounded admiring, not confrontational. 

Following the album release clash, however, her tone changed dramatically. In a May 23 broadcast on social radio platform Stationhead, Eilish stated, “I’m not doing a three-hour show. That’s literally psychotic. Nobody wants that. I don’t want that … I don’t even want that as a fan. My favorite artist in the world, I’m not trying to hear them for three hours.” Once again, Swifties rushed to allege that Eilish was shading Swift specifically (and Beyoncé, but the Hive seems less pressed).

We’ve never known Eilish to overtly antagonize Swift before, and indeed in 2019 she thanked Swift for “taking care of [her]” through her music when she was a child. Yet this wouldn’t be the first time a younger female artist found herself in opposition to Swift. Just look at Olivia Rodrigo, who borrowed liberally from Swift as a key influence in her music. Swift embraced the young singer, until the pair had a rumored falling-out over the issue of song credits. That kerfuffle may or may not have led Rodrigo to burn Swift in the scathing 2022 song “Vampire,” in which she depicts the titular fang-bearer as a significantly older figure who exploits the singer’s youth and naivete. 

Have we mentioned Rodrigo and Eilish are good friends? And that Eilish has said she feels “very protective” of her? Indeed, in a May 22 interview with Stephen Colbert to promote her new album, Eilish riffed poetically about the need for young artists to have the freedom to copy other artists while they’re finding their own style. “Inspiration is going to turn into more inspiration is going to turn into more inspiration,” she said. Though Eilish was ostensibly talking about her own vocal development, some gawkers watching the unfolding beef interpreted it as Eilish commenting on the Swift-Rodrigo feud. 

It makes sense; there’s some speculation that Swift tapped Sabrina Carpenter to open for her “Eras” tour in part because Carpenter and Rodrigo have a longstanding enmity over a messy love triangle. Rodrigo likewise has been teasing an upcoming remix of “Vampire” as a collaboration with Lana Del Rey — who’s allegedly currently on the outs with Swift. Other celebrities also seem to be taking sides in the dispute. Sza, who incidentally is one of the artists whose album Swift was previously accused of trying to “block,” had previously denied there was ever any beef between the two. She was recently spotted “liking” an Instagram post dinging Eilish for her high concert prices and short performance times — an apparent subtle shade on behalf of Swift.

For her part, Swift has yet to comment on the ongoing war between her fandom and Eilish’s — though her PR team’s Twitter account did make a post on May 25 referencing the line “try and come for my job” from Swift’s song “I Can Do It With a Broken Heart” — a post that many fans interpreted as a diss against Eilish for being unable to swipe the No. 1 chart ranking from Swift.

Is any of this real or is it all just a manufactured face-off? It’s hard to tell. But the animosity has certainly driven attention and renewed energy toward both artists. In the middle of the feud, Swift’s album Midnights reportedly became the fastest album by a woman in history to reach a whopping 9 billion streams on Spotify. Meanwhile, Eilish’s album lead, the racy bop “Lunch,” reportedly became her fastest single ever to reach 100 million Spotify streams. 

It’s no secret that a celebrity rivalry like this one drives sales. But there’s something frustrating about the ephemeral nature of this one. On the one hand, there’s plenty of plausible deniability around each of the statements from Eilish that fans are up in arms about. On the other, the fact there are so many statements during an active press tour implies Eilish isn’t playing. She also hasn’t bothered to clarify that she’s not talking about Swift. (Vox has reached out to both camps for comment.)

When hip-hop artists create diss tracks, the general sentiment is that the gripes create good music, and the music is what matters. We’ll undoubtedly hear Swift’s side of this latest dispute in her next album. But the vacuum of real information about what’s going on here has left a gap that fans have chosen to fill with a lot of finger-pointing and side-taking. It’s a familiar routine for anyone who’s spent time around stan culture, but the drama detracts from the accomplishments of both artists. It’s hard to feel served by this fight the way, for example, Kendrick’s beef with Drake doubled as a commentary on authenticity in hip-hop culture. If Eilish really does think Swift’s songs are too literal, her concerts too long, her release strategy too wasteful, and her feuds too petty, there must be better ways to air those grievances. 

Perhaps she should write a song about it.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

"They're not shortcuts": How weight loss drugs became the business of shame

Fat-shaming drove people to Ozempic. Now its competitors are using shame to try to lure them away

As New Year's resolutions kick into high gear, weight loss goals top many people's lists. Like clockwork, advertisements for weight loss programs and supplements are popping up on social media, ready to pounce on the demand. The weight loss drug market is exploding, with new products entering the scene to compete with big names like Ozempic. It is no surprise, considering the millions of people worldwide struggling with obesity, PCOS and diabetes. The medications' promise of weight loss without a complete lifestyle overhaul has sparked hope and controversy, and the market shows no signs of slowing down. Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro and other GLP-1 drugs have transformed how obesity is treated and have corresponded with a 25% decrease in weight-loss surgeries. Sixteen new drugs are set to enter the market in the coming years, per Reuters, and analysts estimate the overall market could expand to $200 billion by 2031. There's an ongoing debate about how GLP-1 drugs fit into a comprehensive strategy for managing obesity, their potential side effects and costs.  The growing market also has revealed societal attitudes that include complicated layers of stigma and misunderstanding.  How shame boosted GLP-1 drugs Fat-shaming is not a new concept. "In western society, fatphobia and anti-fatness are so ingrained in how we think about body size, health and self-worth," said Katherine Metzelaar, dietitian and owner at Bravespace Nutrition. "There's this belief that being thin equals being beautiful, disciplined and healthy while being fat is often unfairly linked to laziness or a lack of self-control." "It all leads to this idea that fat people are somehow less deserving of respect or dignity," she said. "Diet culture plays a significant role in pushing this, too, making people believe that anyone in a larger body is just not trying hard enough, leading to the scorn and derision we see.” The use of GLP-1 drugs sparked the term "Ozempic shaming" to describe the negative perceptions faced by those who choose medical interventions for weight management. Some critics argue that using the drugs is akin to "taking a shortcut," overlooking the complex factors that contribute to obesity.  "Some people think weight loss has to be grueling to be 'real' or 'earned' and see things like surgery or medication as taking shortcuts," said Dr. Raj Dasgupta, chief medical advisor for Garage Gym Reviews. "This belief overlooks how tough those options are and ignores that everyone's journey is different. It's an outdated mindset that simplifies a very complicated issue." Joshua Collins, licensed clinical social worker at SOBA New Jersey, said "medications like Ozempic (Semaglutide) help address underlying metabolic and hormonal issues, such as insulin resistance and appetite regulation." "They're not shortcuts; they're tools — much like using medication to manage diabetes or high blood pressure," he said. "Criticizing someone for using Ozempic reflects a misunderstanding of weight science and reinforces harmful stereotypes about health and effort." "Criticizing someone for using Ozempic reflects a misunderstanding of weight science and reinforces harmful stereotypes about health and effort" GLP-1 competitors also use shame The rest of the weight loss-market has tried to capitalize on this criticism through a marketing approach that devalues GLP-1 medications. Advertisements tout over-the-counter supplements as “Nature's Ozempic," and warn that “GLP-1 meds are effective but come at a steep price." “My doctor thinks I am being scammed,” some ads say, with the taglines "This is NOT Ozempic, but Your Metabolism Will Love It," "Ozempic Power In a Capsule” and "Works 3x Faster than Ozempic." Dr. Michael Chichak, medical director at mental health clinic MEDvidi, said GLP-1 medications come with benefits and risks like any other treatments, but "fear-mongering tactics and misinformation are done to further a certain agenda." "The weight loss industry already preys on individuals, using fear and shame as they are known to be more emotional triggers as opposed to using scientific evidence when marketing their product," he said. "These companies begin by diffusing trust in the medical and pharmaceutical industry, advertising themselves as a safer option, highlighting how GLP-1 medications are more dangerous and encouraging using ‘natural’ alternatives." This can discourage people from seeking treatment altogether, experts said. Many patients may feel pressured to justify their treatment choices, which can lead to stress and feelings of inadequacy, affecting their overall well-being. Treating obesity as a moral failing rather than a medical condition has been "immensely harmful to patient care," said Dr. Rehka Kumar, chief medical officer at online weigh loss program Found. "The weight loss industry already preys on individuals, using fear and shame, as they are known to be more emotional triggers as opposed to using scientific evidence when marketing their product" "As a physician, I find it deeply troubling when patients are shamed for using evidence-based treatments, whether anti-obesity medications or bariatric surgery," Kumar said. "This stems from the persistent but incorrect view that body weight is a matter of willpower. Science shows that weight regulation involves genetic, environmental, hormonal and neurological factors. This bias results in inadequate care, with less than 10% of eligible patients being offered evidence-based medical treatments for weight management and insurance coverage for obesity treatment being denied at rates three to four times higher than other chronic conditions." Combating the stigma requires increased awareness and education about the legitimate medical purposes of these medications while providing evidence-based, personalized care that considers the patient's unique circumstances and goals and treats them with dignity, experts said. "We have the opportunity to reshape the culture and impact a realistic symbol of beauty which is based on healthier standards and body types, genetics, among other factors," said Max Banilivy, clinical psychologist and vice president of education, training & client/staff well-being at WellLife Network. "We need to teach children and families and the media to have accurate and healthy messages. Not all bodies are the same." Read more about this topic

The Southwest as a cautionary tale for our hot future

In his book “American Oasis,” Kyle Paoletta explores the region’s environmental and cultural struggles and what they mean for the rest of the nation.

Living in the Southwest means being routinely scolded by outsiders. How can you live in a place so unsustainable? With that kind of politics? With that kind of culture, or, rather, the lack of it? Rarely does a summer pass in my home city without somebody standing up a roundtable with a title like “Should Phoenix Exist?”Subscribe for unlimited access to The PostYou can cancel anytime.SubscribeIn his book “American Oasis,” journalist and Albuquerque native Kyle Paoletta does a little bit of scolding, too. Yes, the region’s development outpaces its resources. And it is indeed a gaudy and strange place — he’s not wrong to liken Las Vegas to “a pop-up ad the country didn’t mean to click on.”But Paoletta also understands that we underestimate and segregate the Southwest at our peril. No part of the country is immune from drought or reckless development, which is to say that the Southwest’s critics are often committing an epic feat of projection. The region is not America’s weird cousin but its starkest mirror. And, if we’re willing to see it clearly, a source for solutions.Making that case means rejecting some of the region’s most familiar origin stories. The Southwest story, for Paoletta, is a tale not of Wild West frontiersmen but mistreatment of Indigenous peoples and willful neglect of their legacy — Puebloans in New Mexico exploited and massacred by conquistadors, Phoenician settlers who reused abandoned ancient canal lines but removed Native tribes from any discussion of water rights. In the centuries since the region was first visited by non-Native settlers, he notes, it has been marketed as a blank (read: White) slate — the better for resort developers to draw visitors. That vision is bolstered by a softly romantic vision of “a prelapsarian world where comely doñas gamboled about the estates their princely families established along the Rio Grande.”Paoletta lays bare the hypocrisy that drove the region’s development, where Dwight Heard, Phoenix’s most dedicated collector of Indigenous Southwestern art (an excellent museum near downtown bears his name) ran redlined property developments that ensured tribal descendants wouldn’t live near him. In border cities like El Paso, the Border Patrol relies on humanitarian groups to support migrants awaiting processing but dedicates none of its $17 billion budget to maintain shelters. Such contradictions exemplify what Paoletta calls the “Southwest Syndrome: delusions of grandeur mixing with the pursuit of pleasure to disastrous results, all of it amplified by the extremity of its desert setting.”Still, Paoletta is right to note that the region’s reputation for environmental recklessness and cultural know-nothingism isn’t entirely deserved. Since the 1990s, Las Vegas and Phoenix have practiced much-improved water stewardship, maintaining consistent levels of consumption even while the population has exploded. They’ve achieved it through a mix of carrots (subsidies to households that tear out their lawns and farmers who let their fields go fallow) and sticks (jacked-up water rates in summer). As the whole of the United States slides into drought, their lesson will be worth heeding.As for culture, Paoletta argues that the Southwest, by burying its Native past, has risked polishing itself into nothingness. Surprisingly but not wrongly, one of the places he makes a point to visit in Arizona isn’t a dry well or a water-sucking cotton farm but the offices of Arizona Highways, a magazine that has persistently celebrated the state’s natural (and tourist-drawing) wonders. For Paoletta, this idealism offers a scapegoat: So long as there’s a field of saguaros somewhere, we can run roughshod over everything else. That kind of boosterism, bundled with willful neglect, defines the region and ignores its realities — Natives still live here; life on the border need not be a function of surveillance and demonization. But dismiss Vegas at your peril: It “has become one of the few cities in America where service work is a sustainable career, one that can provide a home, health insurance, and a comfortable life.”So forget “Should Phoenix exist?” It does, and will. But thriving requires a kind of reckoning with itself that the region (and the country) is only intermittently interested in. Violent protests in 2020 in Albuquerque over a statue of conquistador Juan de Oñate are, for Paoletta, a signal of the battles ahead, as people whom developers wish away won’t magically disappear. The same thinking afflicts the border, where hyper and bigoted “invasion” rhetoric complicates the tense relationship between residents, humanitarian nonprofits and the Border Patrol. (The incoming Trump administration’s threats to remove restrictions on Immigration and Customs Enforcement from entering sanctuary spaces like churches could further roil the region.)Living in a humanitarian way, and within one’s means, is the Southwest’s constant challenge. That, Paoletta notes, will require more than a few water policy and development changes, a slow-moving prospect at best. Here in Arizona, water managers are forever squabbling with other states over its apportionment from an ever-thinning Colorado River, agreeing just enough to fend off federal intervention. Paoletta rightly recommends that Phoenix address its sprawl issues by promoting denser housing, but lobbying groups have stood in the way for years; laws addressing the matter passed in 2024 but will be slow to take effect and will be fought tooth and nail by municipalities and developers. The blank slate is too appealing, too profitable.What Paoletta suggests is something closer to an existential transformation. “How different would the contemporary Southwest be if, when Anglos arrived, they’d simply accepted that the desert was hot?” he writes. It’s a good question, and not a regional one — a whole country on a heating planet will have to reckon with it.Mark Athitakis is a critic in Phoenix and the author of “The New Midwest.”American OasisFinding the Future in the Cities of the Southwest

An abundant phytoplankton feeds a global network of marine microbes

New findings illuminate how Prochlorococcus’ nightly “cross-feeding” plays a role in regulating the ocean’s capacity to cycle and store carbon.

One of the hardest-working organisms in the ocean is the tiny, emerald-tinged Prochlorococcus marinus. These single-celled “picoplankton,” which are smaller than a human red blood cell, can be found in staggering numbers throughout the ocean’s surface waters, making Prochlorococcus the most abundant photosynthesizing organism on the planet. (Collectively, Prochlorococcus fix as much carbon as all the crops on land.) Scientists continue to find new ways that the little green microbe is involved in the ocean’s cycling and storage of carbon.Now, MIT scientists have discovered a new ocean-regulating ability in the small but mighty microbes: cross-feeding of DNA building blocks. In a study appearing today in Science Advances, the team reports that Prochlorococcus shed these extra compounds into their surroundings, where they are then “cross-fed,” or taken up by other ocean organisms, either as nutrients, energy, or for regulating metabolism. Prochlorococcus’ rejects, then, are other microbes’ resources.What’s more, this cross-feeding occurs on a regular cycle: Prochlorococcus tend to shed their molecular baggage at night, when enterprising microbes quickly consume the cast-offs. For a microbe called SAR11, the most abundant bacteria in the ocean, the researchers found that the nighttime snack acts as a relaxant of sorts, forcing the bacteria to slow down their metabolism and effectively recharge for the next day.Through this cross-feeding interaction, Prochlorococcus could be helping many microbial communities to grow sustainably, simply by giving away what it doesn’t need. And they’re doing so in a way that could set the daily rhythms of microbes around the world.“The relationship between the two most abundant groups of microbes in ocean ecosystems has intrigued oceanographers for years,” says co-author and MIT Institute Professor Sallie “Penny” Chisholm, who played a role in the discovery of Prochlorococcus in 1986. “Now we have a glimpse of the finely tuned choreography that contributes to their growth and stability across vast regions of the oceans.”Given that Prochlorococcus and SAR11 suffuse the surface oceans, the team suspects that the exchange of molecules from one to the other could amount to one of the major cross-feeding relationships in the ocean, making it an important regulator of the ocean carbon cycle.“By looking at the details and diversity of cross-feeding processes, we can start to unearth important forces that are shaping the carbon cycle,” says the study’s lead author, Rogier Braakman, a research scientist in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences (EAPS).Other MIT co-authors include Brandon Satinsky, Tyler O’Keefe, Shane Hogle, Jamie Becker, Robert Li, Keven Dooley, and Aldo Arellano, along with Krista Longnecker, Melissa Soule, and Elizabeth Kujawinski of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI).Spotting castawaysCross-feeding occurs throughout the microbial world, though the process has mainly been studied in close-knit communities. In the human gut, for instance, microbes are in close proximity and can easily exchange and benefit from shared resources.By comparison, Prochlorococcus are free-floating microbes that are regularly tossed and mixed through the ocean’s surface layers. While scientists assume that the plankton are involved in some amount of cross-feeding, exactly how this occurs, and who would benefit, have historically been challenging to probe; any stuff that Prochlorococcus cast away would have vanishingly low concentrations,and be exceedingly difficult to measure.But in work published in 2023, Braakman teamed up with scientists at WHOI, who pioneered ways to measure small organic compounds in seawater. In the lab, they grew various strains of Prochlorococcus under different conditions and characterized what the microbes released. They found that among the major “exudants,” or released molecules, were purines and pyridines, which are molecular building blocks of DNA. The molecules also happen to be nitrogen-rich — a fact that puzzled the team. Prochlorococcus are mainly found in ocean regions that are low in nitrogen, so it was assumed they’d want to retain any and all nitrogen-containing compounds they can. Why, then, were they instead throwing such compounds away?Global symphonyIn their new study, the researchers took a deep dive into the details of Prochlorococcus’ cross-feeding and how it influences various types of ocean microbes.They set out to study how Prochlorococcus use purine and pyridine in the first place, before expelling the compounds into their surroundings. They compared published genomes of the microbes, looking for genes that encode purine and pyridine metabolism. Tracing the genes forward through the genomes, the team found that once the compounds are produced, they are used to make DNA and replicate the microbes’ genome. Any leftover purine and pyridine is recycled and used again, though a fraction of the stuff is ultimately released into the environment. Prochlorococcus appear to make the most of the compounds, then cast off what they can’t.The team also looked to gene expression data and found that genes involved in recycling purine and pyrimidine peak several hours after the recognized peak in genome replication that occurs at dusk. The question then was: What could be benefiting from this nightly shedding?For this, the team looked at the genomes of more than 300 heterotrophic microbes — organisms that consume organic carbon rather than making it themselves through photosynthesis. They suspected that such carbon-feeders could be likely consumers of Prochlorococcus’ organic rejects. They found most of the heterotrophs contained genes that take up either purine or pyridine, or in some cases, both, suggesting microbes have evolved along different paths in terms of how they cross-feed.The group zeroed in on one purine-preferring microbe, SAR11, as it is the most abundant heterotrophic microbe in the ocean. When they then compared the genes across different strains of SAR11, they found that various types use purines for different purposes, from simply taking them up and using them intact to breaking them down for their energy, carbon, or nitrogen. What could explain the diversity in how the microbes were using Prochlorococcus’ cast-offs?It turns out the local environment plays a big role. Braakman and his collaborators performed a metagenome analysis in which they compared the collectively sequenced genomes of all microbes in over 600 seawater samples from around the world, focusing on SAR11 bacteria. Metagenome sequences were collected alongside measurements of various environmental conditions and geographic locations in which they are found. This analysis showed that the bacteria gobble up purine for its nitrogen when the nitrogen in seawater is low, and for its carbon or energy when nitrogen is in surplus — revealing the selective pressures shaping these communities in different ocean regimes.“The work here suggests that microbes in the ocean have developed relationships that advance their growth potential in ways we don’t expect,” says co-author Kujawinski.Finally, the team carried out a simple experiment in the lab, to see if they could directly observe a mechanism by which purine acts on SAR11. They grew the bacteria in cultures, exposed them to various concentrations of purine, and unexpectedly found it causes them to slow down their normal metabolic activities and even growth. However, when the researchers put these same cells under environmentally stressful conditions, they continued growing strong and healthy cells, as if the metabolic pausing by purines helped prime them for growth, thereby avoiding the effects of the stress.“When you think about the ocean, where you see this daily pulse of purines being released by Prochlorococcus, this provides a daily inhibition signal that could be causing a pause in SAR11 metabolism, so that the next day when the sun comes out, they are primed and ready,” Braakman says. “So we think Prochlorococcus is acting as a conductor in the daily symphony of ocean metabolism, and cross-feeding is creating a global synchronization among all these microbial cells.”This work was supported, in part, by the Simons Foundation and the National Science Foundation.

Ghosts of the landscape: how folklore and songs are key to rewilding Finland’s reindeer

For ecologists restoring the vast bogs of remote Karelia, wild reindeer are not just part of the environment but entwined with the ancient culture of the boreal forestsThe Finnish folk musician Liisa Matveinen lives in a mustard-coloured house in Ilomantsi, 12 miles (20km) from the Russian border. Large books of folk songs line her walls. Sitting in her kitchen, Matveinen sings a about a humble hunter going into the woods to find reindeer.The song tells us how they were “honoured” providers of food, clothing and a sense of place, says Matveinen, who is recognised as a doyenne of Finnish folk music. Continue reading...

The Finnish folk musician Liisa Matveinen lives in a mustard-coloured house in Ilomantsi, 12 miles (20km) from the Russian border. Large books of folk songs line her walls. Sitting in her kitchen, Matveinen sings a about a humble hunter going into the woods to find reindeer.The song tells us how they were “honoured” providers of food, clothing and a sense of place, says Matveinen, who is recognised as a doyenne of Finnish folk music.Singing takes Matveinen back to a vanished world of hunting and fishing in the Finnish and Russian region of Karelia, where she was brought up and now lives.The folk singer Liisa Matveinen, whose repertoire reflects the role of wild reindeer in the traditions of Karelia. Photograph: Salla Seeslahti/The Guardian“I always come back here like a boomerang,” says Matveinen. She has a deep love for this remote part of eastern Finland, a place covered in vast peatlands and rivers where the oral poetry tradition stretches back 3,000 years.Few people now know these songs. And along with the songs, the reindeer themselves have disappeared. The last wild forest reindeer was shot in the Koitajoki area in 1919. Its horns are on display in a local restaurant, not far from Matveinen’s house.Now, a plan is being hatched to reintroduce them. The peatland has been restored and the first wild reindeer will be released here in 2028. The aim is to eventually have a herd of 300. Scouting animals – known as “ghost reindeer” – are already coming back down from their range farther north to look at these peatlands, suggesting the habitat could be suitable for them.Bringing back reindeer, however, is only one part of this rewilding project. The other components are part of an approach called “deep mapping”, which includes rejuvenating the culture and folklore associated with these animals to rebuild people’s connection to the land around them.The Rune Singer’s House near Ilomantsi, which records the traditional Karelian culture and way of life. Photograph: Salla Seeslahti/The GuardianWestern organisations that protect wildlife have tended to overlook biodiversity’s links with culture and language. Recently, there has been criticism of species reintroduction projects for not thinking enough about the people who live alongside them.“Deep mapping appreciates an understanding of linguistic, cultural and biological diversity as all being important,” says Tero Mustonen, who is leading the reintroduction. He is a professional fisher and a lead climate scientist on the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.“We are the guardians of the reindeer and they are the symbol of the boreal forest,” says Mustonen.Rejuvenating culturesThe hope of the project is that once reindeer are reintroduced, communities will want to preserve them, and understand why they are important animals culturally and ecologically.The Finnish climate scientist Tero Mustonen has been leading efforts to reintroduce wild reindeer to Karelia. Photograph: Salla Seeslahti/The GuardianFor more than 24 years, the Finnish environmental non-profit organisation Snowchange, founded by Mustonen and his wife, Kaisu, has been carrying out research on oral histories among reindeer-hunting communities.The way people think about their responsibility to animals is important, says Mustonen, who would want people to hunt the reintroduced reindeer once again – provided it is done in the traditional way, with respect and in sustainable numbers. “Oral poems represent hundreds of years of knowledge,” says Mustonen. “They are just like a compass. We’re trying to rebuild culture and ecosystems as best as we can.”For reindeer to thrive here again, however, they must have habitat to return to. Close to 3,500 hectares (9,000 acres) of boreal peatlands are being restored by Snowchange, thanks to funding from the University of Cambridge’s Endangered Landscapes and Seascapes Programme.Restoration of this peatland in Rahesuo landscape will help the wild reindeer population as they need the open spaces to give birth safely. Photograph: Salla Seeslahti/The GuardianOne of these landscapes is the peatland in Rahesuo. Two years ago, 160 hectares of this land began to be restored and ditches were filled in to raise the water level. Sphagnum moss is now starting to proliferate – a sign that this site is in recovery. Black-tailed godwits, northern lapwings and ptarmigans are among the bird species that bred on this bog last year. “The birds tell us it is recovering,” says Tero Mustonen.Reindeer can give birth on these peatlands, which should be relatively devoid of trees so they can see and smell predators. It will be 15 or 20 years before this peatland is fully restored (quicker than usual because the damage was only done in the 1970s).Peatland in Rahesuo. Tiina Oinonen, a biologist, left, and Kaisu Mustonen, whose organisation Snowchange has been leading restoration efforts. Photograph: Salla Seeslahti/The GuardianReindeer are not the only ghosts of this landscapes. Old societies would have taken advantage of the birthing grounds and used this area to hunt. “This landscape is filled with knowledge, if you can find it,” says Mustonen, who describes peatlands as “our cultural memory”.Protecting the futureMaking people care about landscapes – and understanding their connection to them – could also help protect them in the future. In the past, these fragile, carbon-rich places have been destroyed for forestry plantations.Siberian jays (Perisoreus infaustus) vanished from southern Finland as old-growth forests were felled. Photograph: AlamyIn the early 1900s industrial logging and pulp companies saw these landscapes as empty spaces and so they took them over. Old-growth forests, peatlands and wetlands were lost as commercial forestry spread.Today, despite 76% of Finland being forested, woodland birds are declining because of the replacement of ancient forests with plantations. Few trees are more than 100 years old. The Siberian jay has already disappeared from southern Finland because it requires old-growth forests.Kesonsuo bog is one of the largest intact mires. You can see for a couple of miles in every direction: a flat landscape covered in brownish grasses, small trees and little ponds that glisten blue under a big sky.It is late September and the boreal winter is approaching. A flock of 200 geese fly clumsily in to land on their journey down from the Arctic tundra. Much of the Koitajoki region would have looked like this before industrial forestry was introduced, but now only 20% of the original peatland is left.“It’s a big symphony to live in the boreal with these dark forces and dramatic seasonal changes. Now we have this last burst of light before the boreal winter,” says Mustonen.Despite providing such inspiration for painters, musicians and writers, this landscape is vulnerable to extractive industries, he says. Adding meaning and revitalising people’s connection to the land is another way to protect it in the future.Mustonen does not want the past to repeat itself: “Without people, nature and culture, this land is empty for the taking.”

Why Has Gold Dazzled So Many Cultures Throughout History?

An exhibition in Brooklyn examines gold's ubiquitous appeal across thousands of years through art, artifacts, paintings, sculptures and fashion

This gold wreath thought to be from Corinth, Greece, dates to the third to second century B.C.E. Brooklyn Museum From ancient Egyptian jewelry to contemporary fashion, gold has been linked to opulence and wealth for millennia. A new exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum is exploring why this particular metal has transfixed so many cultures throughout history and how its meaning has changed over time. Titled “Solid Gold,” the show explores gold’s ubiquitous appeal through art, fashion, film, music and design. “‘Solid Gold’ will transport visitors through the many worlds of gold, its joyful, though at times heartbreaking, histories,” says Matthew Yokobosky, the show’s senior curator, in a statement. “As a museum dedicated to bringing art and people in shared experiences, audiences will find inspiration, opening them to unexplored realms of beauty in their world.” The show opens with a video of the 2018 launch of NASA’s Parker Solar Probe, the first spacecraft to fly into the sun’s upper atmosphere. This footage “sets the tone for an expansive, trippy show dedicated to the precious metal the Incas poetically called ‘the tears of the sun,’’’ as Artnet’s Raquel Laneri writes. An installation view of "Solid Gold" at the Brooklyn Museum Paula Abreu Pita The elaborate showcase, which includes items from around the world, is part of the museum’s 200th birthday celebrations. About half of the 500 items in the exhibition come from the Brooklyn Museum’s collections, including historic coins, Greek jewelry, Japanese screens and Renaissance altarpieces. “I based the exhibition checklist on our impressive permanent collection,” Yokobosky tells Vogue’s Christian Allaire. “In reviewing our holdings, nearly 4,000 works are gold or have a gold aspect and span thousands of years, from ancient times to today.” The show’s opening galleries display an impressive array of artifacts that demonstrate the ancient world’s interest in gold, such as a sarcophagus dating to between 945 and 740 B.C.E. decorated with golden pigments—which are meant to mimic gold inlays. A golden ballgown from Balenciaga's haute couture spring/summer 2020 collection © Pari Dukovic / Trunk Archive The exhibition’s ancient artifacts are contrasted with contemporary artworks, films and designs. For instance, pieces of gold facial jewelry made in Panama around the first millennium C.E. are shown alongside examples of grills made in recent decades. As the New York Times’ Aruna D’Souza writes, “This is ultimately a show about fashion.” “Among the highlights are splendid couture gowns from the Blonds, Christian Dior, Yves Saint Laurent, Pierre Cardin, Hubert de Givenchy, Marc Bohan, Azzedine Alaïa and John Galliano while he was at the helm of Christian Dior,” writes Vogue. Other items on view include a prototype of a necklace made for Elizabeth Taylor to wear in the film Cleopatra (1963) and a variety of Cartier jewels. A Roman bracelet from 379 to 395 C.E. decorated with gold, emeralds, sapphires and glass The J. Paul Getty Museum, Villa Collection, Malibu, California Museumgoers will also learn about gold’s origins, as well as the consequences connected to its production. Through artworks and artifacts, one section of the exhibition “tells a global story of ecological transformation, environmental impact and the human repercussions that result from the search for this precious metal,” per the statement. Nearby, a display of gold coins explores how currency was used to spread propaganda images of powerful rulers. In addition to gold’s cultural appeal, the exhibition also spotlights the lasting nature of the material itself. When it survives, gold provides researchers and archaeologists a window into the lives of cultures throughout history. “Even though it doesn’t corrode or tarnish, and thus can last a really long time, gold was commonly reused in the ancient world—melted down and shaped into new forms,” writes the Times. “When it endures, it feels a little bit miraculous.” “Solid Gold” is on view at the Brooklyn Museum through July 6, 2025. Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.