Empire of Pain: The Secret History of the Sackler Dynasty

Art and the power of representation shaped the Sackler family and some of their most ardent political opponents. After amassing a fortune, Arthur Sackler took up art collecting, specifically pieces from China. Arthur’s family and friends noted that this became a fervent passion, almost a “sensual’ process” (69). However, Arthur’s patronage was never selfless. On top of laundering his reputation and burnishing his family name, Arthur enjoyed wielding power in what he called the “dangle”—promising a museum a future donation in exchange for something he wanted, like a personal “enclave” in the public Metropolitan Museum of Art (100-01).

In contrast to Arthur’s use of art as a smokescreen, artist Nan Goldin was dedicated to using photography to depict real truths. For her, opposition to the Sacklers became an “organizing principle” (374)—Goldin and other protestors used art installations to expose Sackler family’s ties to Purdue, OxyContin, and the opioid crisis: One survivor created a giant sculpture of a skeleton made out of pill bottles. For Goldin and others, art was politics, a way to shine a light on corruption and those escaping accountability through wealth.

A recurring motif in the book is the absence of art in the wake of the Sacklers. Marietta Lutze recalled her divorce from Arthur Sackler in the form of the “ghost marks” of missing paintings on the walls of their home (130). Radden Keefe borrows her phrase when decades later, plaques to the Sackler family are removed from artistic institutions, leaving “the faint, grubby outline where the name used to be” (415). If Arthur’s collection represents the pinnacle of his achievement, its disappearance signals a change in the family’s political fortunes.