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

Protect This Place: Ladakh, the Planet’s ‘Third Pole’

Home to glaciers, snow leopards, and rich human cultures, Ladakh suffers from a lack of political representation, which has inspired recent protests. The post Protect This Place: Ladakh, the Planet’s ‘Third Pole’ appeared first on The Revelator.

The Place: Ladakh, India’s cold desert, is located to the east of Jammu and Kashmir at altitudes between 8,800 and 18,000 feet. This mountain enclave is geographically distinct, with unique climatic and ecological characteristics fostering a rich culture amidst towering peaks. Ladakh is marked by steep cliffs, deep valleys, arid plains, salt flats, and sparse vegetation. Situated between Pakistan and China, it nurtures a population of around 275,000 people, as well as rare and beautiful wildlife such as snow leopards and Tibetan antelopes. The people and wildlife here depend on the Hindu Kush ranges to the northwest for essential resources. The other mountain ranges surrounding the Ladakh, the Karakoram to the north and the Himalayan to the south, are some of the highest in the world. Together known as the Hindu Kush Himalaya, these ranges are often referred to as the “Third Pole.” They feature the world’s most renowned peaks, clad in over 30,000 square miles of glacial ice — the largest concentration of glaciers outside the Arctic and Antarctic. Why It Matters: High-altitude regions have fragile ecosystems and experience the effects of climate change more acutely and earlier, which also makes them indicators of broader climate trends. This allows scientists to study shifts in weather phenomena, migration, and ecosystem responses along with the tectonic processes involved in the region’s varied geology. A rich diversity of medicinal plants can be found here, such as Himalayan yew, known for cancer-fighting properties; ashwagandha, used for stress relief; and ginger, valued for anti-inflammatory benefits. Protecting these unique environments is essential to sustaining traditional medicine practices and preserving these invaluable resources. Ladakh is home to a rich tapestry of cultures, traditions, and religions, including Buddhism and Islam. Its monasteries, festivals, and unique lifestyles provide insights into how diverse ways of living have adapted to harsh conditions. The area’s unique wildlife play essential roles in nutrient cycling and maintaining ecological balance: Himalayan blue sheep, also known as bharal, graze on alpine meadows, while Himalayan marmots aerate the soil and serve as prey for other species. The Threat: The local ecosystems in Ladakh, and the more than 1.2 billion people downstream, depend on glaciers for their freshwater supply. As the permafrost thaws, concerns about potential pandemics from viral spillover have surfaced. Recently a collaborative effort of Ohio State’s Byrd Center and Chinese Academy of Sciences isolated 33 viruses from ice samples in the Tibetan Plateau, 28 of which were novel and estimated to be approximately 15,000 years old. The runoff from glacier melt has furthered the risk of introducing diseases into vulnerable communities. Recent examples of mega-scale flash floods and landslides underscore the impact of man-made disasters and the urgent need for new policies. Militarization has occurred in Ladakh due to its strategic location and geopolitical conflicts. Unregulated tourism, construction, global warming, and various forms of pollution are worsening the situation. Snow in the glaciers melts faster as black soot from fossil fuels settle on the snow and ice and absorb the sunlight they would normally reflect. Water contamination is another major concern, and flooding has altered soil functions, microbial communities, and soil redox potential. Floods cause soil erosion, nutrient loss, and siltation of water bodies, reducing the already constrained agriculture yield in the region. Ladakhis also lack access to essential healthcare facilities and services that reflect their needs and support their wellbeing. A decade of unfulfilled promises has left residents feeling politically marginalized and skeptical of policymakers, especially concerning healthcare and land rights. Recent amendments to forest laws allow forest land use for nonforest purposes, jeopardizing biodiversity and Indigenous livelihoods and deepening distrust. Who Is Protecting It Now: Ladakh activist Sonam Wangchuk and others have spent the past few months fasting, protesting, and educating the community, with the goal of bringing more autonomy to the region. Wangchuk’s dedication to innovation and sustainable development has earned him numerous accolades, including the Ramon Magsaysay Award, often referred to as Asia’s Nobel Prize, in 2018. His initiatives — including ice stupas, artificial glaciers that store water — highlight time-tested and Indigenous innovations in the face of climate challenges. While he envisions a future of innovative development and education for all, Wangchuk is particularly currently focused on preservation of ecosystem in Ladakh. With the extreme conditions and limited resources, the Ladakh protests are addressing the need for reforms to support the unique challenges faced by the region and he is the face of the protests. What This Place Needs: The ongoing protests in Ladakh reflect a desire for political representation and autonomy and are aimed at preserving ecological integrity and Tribal rights. Among the primary demands are full statehood within India, recognition as a Scheduled Tribe under the Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution for legislative and administrative control, and the implementation of policies aimed at safeguarding Ladakh’s fragile ecosystem while balancing developmental needs and local participation. Ladakhis have reason to be worried: The government of India has plans for massive solar and hydroelectric projects that come with substantial environmental and social costs, including biodiversity loss, land degradation from extensive solar farms, and alterations in local water flows. Socially these projects have the potential to displace communities and lead to external control over local resources, and eventually the influx of workers would pose a threat to the Ladakhi livelihoods and culture. Lessons From the Fight: The people of Ladakh teach us spiritual resilience. The unique demographics of the region, with its blend of Buddhist and Muslim populations, foster a sense of solidarity in advocating for local governance and sustainable development. As both groups confront external pressures from national policies and environmental changes, their collective efforts symbolize a shared commitment to protect their heritage and secure their futures in an increasingly complex geopolitical landscape. This collaboration highlights a broader geopolitical context, as both communities face common challenges related to resource management, healthcare access, and demands for statehood. Traditional practices, often overlooked, can play a crucial role in sustainability. Empowering small-scale and indigenous communities helps preserve their knowledge and ways of life. One possible answer is economic localization, which prioritizes local, sustainable practices like ecotourism that celebrate rather than exploit local culture. Small-scale green energy projects can reduce reliance on fossil fuels, protecting delicate ecosystems. Water conservation, forest management, and incentives for local businesses should replace resource extraction by large corporations. Fast-paced change often overlooks the science behind traditional practices that can help save our planet. Follow the Fight: Himalayan Institute of Alternatives Ladakh Students’ Educational and Cultural Movement of Ladakh (SECMOL) Do you live in or near a threatened habitat or community, or have you worked to study or protect endangered wildlife? You’re invited to share your stories in our ongoing features, Protect This Place and Species Spotlight.  Scroll down to find our “Republish” button Previously in The Revelator: Protect This Place: The Mountainous Ulu Masen Ecosystem The post Protect This Place: Ladakh, the Planet’s ‘Third Pole’ appeared first on The Revelator.

AI isn’t about unleashing our imaginations, it’s about outsourcing them. The real purpose is profit

Artificial intelligence doesn’t just incrementally erode the rights of authors and other creators. These technologies are designed to replace creative workers altogetherGet our weekend culture and lifestyle emailBack in 2022, when ChatGPT arrived, I was part of the first wave of users. Delighted but also a little uncertain what to do with it, I asked the system to generate all kinds of random things. A song about George Floyd in the style of Bob Dylan. A menu for a vegetarian dinner party. A briefing paper about alternative shipping technologies.The quality of what it produced was variable, but it made clear something that is even more apparent now than it was then. That this technology wasn’t just a toy. Instead its arrival is an inflection point in human history. Over coming years and decades, AI will transform every aspect of our lives.Songs arise out of suffering … the complex, internal human struggle of creation … [but] algorithms don’t feel. Data doesn’t suffer … What makes a great song great is not its close resemblance to a recognisable work. Writing a good song is not mimicry, or replication, or pastiche, it is the opposite. It is an act of self-murder that destroys all one has strived to produce in the past.Sign up for the fun stuff with our rundown of must-reads, pop culture and tips for the weekend, every Saturday morning Continue reading...

Back in 2022, when ChatGPT arrived, I was part of the first wave of users. Delighted but also a little uncertain what to do with it, I asked the system to generate all kinds of random things. A song about George Floyd in the style of Bob Dylan. A menu for a vegetarian dinner party. A briefing paper about alternative shipping technologies.The quality of what it produced was variable, but it made clear something that is even more apparent now than it was then. That this technology wasn’t just a toy. Instead its arrival is an inflection point in human history. Over coming years and decades, AI will transform every aspect of our lives.But we are also at an inflection point for those of us who make our living with words, and indeed anybody in the creative arts. Whether you’re a writer, an actor, a singer, a film-maker, a painter or a photographer, a machine can now do what you do, instantly and for a fraction of the cost. Perhaps it can’t do it quite as well as you can just yet, but like the Tyrannosaurus rex in the rear vision mirror in the original Jurassic Park, it’s gaining on you, and fast.Faced with the idea of machines that can do everything that human beings can do, some have just given up. Lee Sedol, the Go Grandmaster who was defeated by DeepMind’s AlphaGo system in 2016 retired on the spot, declaring AlphaGo was “an entity that couldn’t be beaten”, and that his “entire world was collapsing”.Others have asserted the innate superiority of art made by humans, effectively circling the wagons around the idea that there is something in the things we make that cannot be replicated by technology. In the words of Nick Cave: Songs arise out of suffering … the complex, internal human struggle of creation … [but] algorithms don’t feel. Data doesn’t suffer … What makes a great song great is not its close resemblance to a recognisable work. Writing a good song is not mimicry, or replication, or pastiche, it is the opposite. It is an act of self-murder that destroys all one has strived to produce in the past. It’s an appealing position, and one I’d like to believe – but sadly, I don’t. Because not only does it commit us to a hopelessly simplistic – and, frankly, reactionary – binary, in which the human is intrinsically good, and the artificial is intrinsically bad, it also means the category of creation we’re defending is extremely small. Do we really want to limit the work that we value to those towering works of art wrought out of profound feeling? What about costume design and illustration and book reviews and all the other things people make? Don’t they matter?Perhaps a better place to begin a defence of human creativity might be in the process of creation itself. Because when we make something, the end product isn’t the only thing that matters. In fact it may not even be the thing that matters most. There is also value in the act of making, in the craft and care of it. This value doesn’t inhere in the things we make, but in the creative labour of making them. The interplay between our minds and our bodies and the thing we are making is what brings something new – some understanding or presence – into the world. But the act of making changes us as well. That can be joyous, and at other times it can be frustrating or even painful. Nonetheless it enriches us in ways that simply prompting a machine to generate something for us never will.What’s happening here isn’t about unleashing our imaginations, it’s about outsourcing them. Generative AI strips out part of what makes us human and hands it over to a company so they can sell us a product that claims to do the same thing. In other words the real purpose of these systems isn’t liberation, but profit. Forget the glib marketing slogans about increasing productivity or unleashing our potential. These systems aren’t designed to benefit us as individuals or a society. They’re designed to maximise the ability of tech corporations to extract value by strip-mining the industries they disrupt.This reality is particularly stark in the creative industries. Because the ability of AI systems to magic up stories and images and videos didn’t come out of nowhere. In order to be able to make these things, AIs have to be trained on massive amounts of data. These datasets are generated from publicly available information: books, articles, Wikipedia entries and so on in the case of text; videos and images in the case of visual data.Exactly what these works are is already highly contentious. Some, such as Wikipedia and out-of-copyright books, are in the public domain. But much – and possibly most – of it is not. How could ChatGPT write a song about George Floyd in the style of Bob Dylan without access to Dylan’s songs? The answer is it couldn’t. It could only imitate Dylan because his lyrics formed part of the dataset that was used to train it.AI-generated artworks by Mario Klingemann that were auctioned at Sotheby’s. Photograph: Malcolm Park/AlamyBetween the secretiveness of these companies and the fact the systems themselves are effectively black boxes, the inner processes of which are opaque even to their creators, it’s difficult to know exactly what has been ingested by any individual AI. What we do know for sure is that vast amounts of copyright material has already been fed into these systems, and is still being fed into them as we speak, all without permission or payment.But AI doesn’t just incrementally erode the rights of authors and other creators. These technologies are designed to replace creative workers altogether. The writer and artist James Bridle has compared this process to the enclosure of the commons, but whichever way you cut it, what we are witnessing isn’t just “systematic theft on a mass scale”, it’s the wilful and deliberate destruction of entire industries and the transfer of their value to shareholders in Silicon Valley.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Saved for LaterCatch up on the fun stuff with Guardian Australia's culture and lifestyle rundown of pop culture, trends and tipsPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionThis unconstrained rapaciousness isn’t new. Despite ad campaigns promising care and connection, the tech industry’s entire model depends upon extraction and exploitation. From publishing to transport, tech companies have employed a model that depends upon inserting themselves into traditional industries and “disrupting” them by sidestepping regulation and riding roughshod over hard-won rights or simply fencing off things that were formerly part of the public sphere. In the same way Google hoovered up creative works to make its libraries, filesharing technologies devastated the music industry, and Uber’s model depends on paying its drivers less than taxi companies, AI maximises its profit by refusing to pay the creators of the material it relies on.Meanwhile the human, environmental and social costs of these technologies are kept carefully out of sight.Interestingly the sense of powerlessness and paralysis many of us feel in the face of the social and cultural transformation unleashed by AI resembles our failure to respond to climate change. I don’t think that’s a coincidence. With both there is a profound mismatch between the scale of what is taking place and our capacity to conceptualise it. We find it difficult to imagine fundamental change, and when faced with it, tend to either panic or just shut down.But it’s also because, as with climate change, we have been tricked into thinking there are no alternatives, and that the economic systems we inhabit are natural, and arguing with them makes about as much sense as arguing with the wind.In fact the opposite is true. Companies like Meta and Alphabet and, more recently, OpenAI, have only achieved their extraordinary wealth and power because of very specific regulatory and economic conditions. These arrangements can be altered. That is within the power of government, and we should be insisting upon it. There are currently cases before the courts in a number of jurisdictions that seek to frame the massive expropriation of the work of artists and writers by AI companies as a breach of copyright. The outcome of these cases isn’t yet clear, but even if creators lose, that fight isn’t over. The use of our work to train AIs must be brought under the protection of the copyright system.And we shouldn’t stop there. We should insist upon payment for the work that has been used, payment for all future use and an end to the tech industry practice of taking first and seeking forgiveness later. Their use of copyright material without permission wasn’t accidental. They did it on purpose because they thought they could get away with it. The time has come for them to stop getting away with it.For that to happen we need regulatory structures that ensure transparency about what datasets are being used to train these systems and what is contained in those datasets. And systems of audits to ensure copyright and other forms of intellectual property are not being violated, and that enforce meaningful sanctions if they are. And we need to insist upon international agreements that protect the rights of artists and other creators instead of facilitating the profits of corporations.But most of all, we need to be thinking hard about why what we do as human beings, and as creators and artists in particular, matters. Because it isn’t enough to fret about what is being lost, or to fight a rearguard action against these technologies. We have to begin to articulate positive arguments for the value of what we do, and of creativity more broadly, and to think about what form that might take in a world where AI is a pervasive reality.

Chinese Study Recommends Region-Specific Diets, Amid Rising Obesity Risks

HONG KONG (Reuters) - Chinese scientists have recommended a region-specific diet they say is crucial to improving eating habits in the country amid...

HONG KONG (Reuters) - Chinese scientists have recommended a region-specific diet they say is crucial to improving eating habits in the country amid a rise in obesity and lifestyle diseases, and as a means to conserve natural and environmental resources.China in October published its first set of guidelines to standardise the diagnosis and treatment of obesity, with more than half of China's adults already overweight and obese, and the rate expected to keep rising. The government has said that healthier diets are important to treat and prevent obesity.A group of scientists from the School of Public Health at Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou, in China's affluent southern Guangdong province, said its study adheres to a "Planetary Health Diet" and advocates a reduced consumption of dairy products and red meat.Published in the Nature Food journal in August and reported in state media last week, the study recommended that in China's north, which is characterised by a high intake of dairy products but low consumption of vegetables, people need to eat more fruits and whole grains.In the southwest, which has a harsher environment and severe water scarcity, the region could focus on a high intake of legumes and vegetables rather than its existing very high consumption of red meat, the study said.In the east, known for its "affluent agricultural culture and developed aquaculture", a higher intake of whole grains, seafood and vegetables was recommended for its residents.China's health commission did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment.The recommended diets work for the prevention of "obesity and cardio-metabolic diseases," said Liu Yan, one of the authors of the study, adding that they help reduce premature mortality and disability, and ensure nutritional requirements for residents.Not only China but also other developing nations facing similar health and environmental challenges could benefit from the roadmap for the diet, the scientists said in the study.Brent Loken, global food lead scientist for the World Wildlife Fund, said the study provided a promising way forward for developing countries, including India and Kenya."Adopting these planetary health diet variants could serve as a viable strategy for dietary shifts in China to achieve both human health and environmental sustainability goals... with lessons translatable to other countries around the world," he said.(Reporting by Farah Master; Editing by Muralikumar Anantharaman)Copyright 2024 Thomson Reuters.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

Sweden abolishes tax on plastic bags despite warnings usage could rise

Levy that reduced usage by more than three-quarters in four years fell victim to rightwing culture wars, say criticsA tax that has reduced plastic bag consumption in Sweden by more than three-quarters in four years is being abolished on Friday, despite warnings that the move could lead to usage rising back towards previous levels.Since the introduction of the 3 kroner (£0.21) tax in May 2020, plastic bag usage in the country has slumped. In 2019, before the levy was introduced, people in Sweden used an average of 74 plastic bags (15-50 micrometres thick) per person each year each. In 2023 that number had dropped to 17. Continue reading...

A tax that has reduced plastic bag consumption in Sweden by more than three-quarters in four years is being abolished on Friday, despite warnings that the move could lead to usage rising back towards previous levels.Since the introduction of the 3 kroner (£0.21) tax in May 2020, plastic bag usage in the country has slumped. In 2019, before the levy was introduced, people in Sweden used an average of 74 plastic bags (15-50 micrometres thick) per person each year each. In 2023 that number had dropped to 17.The law was introduced after the EU’s 2015 plastic bag directive required member states to dramatically cut usage.Among those to criticise the end of the tax in Sweden was the government’s own environmental protection agency, which warned the levy was still needed to consolidate new behaviours.“We don’t think the government should lower the tax already,” said Åsa Stenmarck, a spokesperson for the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. “We think they could have evaluated this properly before making a decision.”Last year, Sweden’s centre-right coalition government, backed by the far-right Sweden Democrats, announced the tax would be abolished. It said the country’s plastic bag consumption was already below the EU target, which meant the levy was “not deemed necessary for its purpose”.Stenmarck said: “We don’t know what will happen now. The consumption target of 40 bags per person still exists from 2025 onwards and if we don’t reach it, we will be fined by the EU.”Now the responsibility fell to industry, which Stenmarck said she hoped would not start marketing plastic bags, and consumers, who she hoped had “largely changed their behaviour and carry their own bags”.Despite Sweden’s involvement in the invention of the plastic bag, which was patented by the Swedish company Celloplast in 1965 and quickly went on to replace cloth and plastic bags in Europe, the country has been a frontrunner on reducing usage.The big supermarkets have long charged for plastic and paper bags, in turn encouraging people to bring their own, while the tax rapidly reduced consumption in other areas of retail.But the levy has fallen victim to rightwing populism and culture wars, said Rolf Lindahl, a climate and energy campaigner for Greenpeace Sweden.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Headlines EuropeA digest of the morning's main headlines from the Europe edition emailed direct to you every week dayPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion“The plastic ban tax has become a part of a very unfortunate populist narrative around climate policies from the rightwing parties and they have used it as an example of environmental overreach from the government,” he said.“We worry that dropping the tax will mean increased plastic use and a return to the norm of always buying new bags at the supermarket.”Joakim Brodahl, from the non-profit organisation Keep Sweden Clean, said the removal of the tax would probably lead to plastic bags costing less to consumers and in turn increasing consumption. “We see that there is a risk that the behaviour can quickly turn back unless, for example, the trade is alert to changes in their sales of plastic bags,” he said.

Surrealism Is Turning 100. See the Dreamlike Paintings That Made the Movement So Revolutionary

A blockbuster exhibition in Paris is showcasing 500 artifacts and artworks in honor of the Surrealist Manifesto, which sparked a new artistic style that spread around the world

Green Tea, Leonora Carrington, 1942 © Digital image, The Museum of Modern Art, New York / Scala, Florence / © Adagp, Paris, 2024 In October 1924, French writer André Breton published what’s now known as the Surrealist Manifesto. The seminal text—which argued for a new style of art and literature that would be “free from any control by reason, exempt from aesthetic or moral preoccupation”—helped give rise to a new, avant-garde movement that spread around the world. Now, to mark the manifesto’s 100th anniversary, a new exhibition in Paris is examining Surrealism’s enduring global impact. Titled “Surrealism,” the show incorporates more than 500 artifacts and artworks, including poems, drawings, sculptures and paintings. Pages from Breton’s original handwritten manuscript are also on display, thanks to a loan from the French national library. To bring the historic document to life, the museum worked with the Institute for Research and Coordination in Acoustics/Music to create an artificial intelligence recording of Breton reading it aloud. The Fireside Angel, Max Ernst, 1937 © Vincent Everarts Photographie / © Adagp, Paris, 2024 The show initially opened in Brussels in February, and it’s currently on display at Paris’ Pompidou Center. After it leaves France next year, it will move on to Madrid, Hamburg and Philadelphia. In total, five institutions are hosting the exhibition, but each museum is taking its own unique curatorial approach. “I hope that people will discover that Surrealism is a state of mind and a way of looking at things,” Francisca Vandepitte, who curated the show at the Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium, tells the New York Times’ Nina Siegal. “It’s not something theoretical and very complicated. The main force is something that we all know. It’s irrational, and it’s our dreams, and it’s liberating.” In Paris, the exhibition presents Surrealism as a global movement—not just a European one. Though the movement originated in France, its core principles, including “challenging rationality, embracing the unconscious and exploring alternative realities,” struck a chord with a diverse group of artists from different backgrounds and cultures, writes Artnet’s Sofia Hallström. “It is important to remember that Surrealism was a movement that spread—and this is exceptional for an avant-garde movement—around the world, in Europe, but also the United States, South America, Asia and the Maghreb,” Marie Sarré, who co-curated the Pompidou Center exhibition with the museum’s deputy director Didier Ottinger, tells the Guardian’s Jennifer Rankin. Items on display include works by well-known artists such as Salvador Dalí and René Magritte, as well as pieces by lesser-known Surrealists like Mexican painter Rufino Tamayo and Japanese artist Tatsuo Ikeda. The Pompidou Center also shines a light on often-overlooked women in the Surrealist movement, including Dorothea Tanning, Leonora Carrington and Dora Maar. The exhibition, which is laid out in a spiral and split into 13 sections, also explores themes like anticolonialism and environmentalism. Curators hope to attract younger audiences, who may not be familiar with Surrealism but might connect with some of its core beliefs. Surreal Composition, Suzanne van Damme, 1943 © Collection RAW Many younger museumgoers are “disillusioned with the idea of progress and Modernism,” Sarré tells the Art Newspaper’s Dale Berning Sawa. “They’re politically and ecologically engaged, anticolonialist, antinationalist—in a way that chimes with what the Surrealists were doing.” All the while, the Surrealists were also having a great deal of fun, as Jonathan Jones notes in a review for the Guardian. “Of all the Modernist art movements, it was the Surrealists who were best at enjoying their revolution,” he writes. “In the Pompidou’s perfectly judged exhibition, that pleasure shines through as you meet these artists, all dead now, not so much as giants of art history as extremely amusing companions.” “Surrealism” is on view at the Pompidou Center in Paris through January 13, 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.