The recent wildfires in Los Angeles have caused staggering losses for the arts community, destroying not just homes and studios but irreplaceable cultural artifacts and works of art. From artists losing pieces they had been working on for months, artist estates and legacies vanishing completely and art collections being consumed by the flames, the loss extends way beyond material or artistic damages. It reflects the broader impact of the shared identity, history and sense of connection that art and culture provide to the world. When art is lost, it’s not just the artists or collectors who are affected; the entire community loses a part of its cultural heritage and collective memory.
Amidst this devastation, the L.A. Arts Community Fire Relief Fund, a $12 million initiative spearheaded by Los Angeles museums, has emerged as a sign of hope. It shows how targeted philanthropy can play a pivotal role in sustaining the arts during times of crisis. Beyond its immediate impact, this fund opens the door to a broader conversation about the intersection of philanthropy, community resilience and the arts—and why such efforts only seem to emerge during emergencies.
The L.A. Arts Community Fire Relief Fund is remarkable not just for its scale and intention to extend beyond the immediate aftermath to create sustainable rebuilding efforts but also for the rapidity and breadth of the global support it attracted. Contributions have poured in from the Mellon and Helen Frankenthaler foundations, Qatar Museums, the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts and philanthropists like Mellody Hobson and George Lucas. Galleries like Gagosian and Hauser & Wirth, alongside major corporations, have also stepped up, illuminating the interconnectedness of the global arts ecosystem. It brings to mind the global support for the restoration of Notre Dame Cathedral after its devastating fire in 2019, reminding us how art and cultural heritage inspire collective action.
But it also raises a fundamental question: Why does such collective action only happen in response to disaster? Are we too comfortable treating the arts as expendable, waiting until disaster strikes to act? The reality is that artists—and the institutions that support them—face chronic precarity, from the rising cost of living to the lack of financial safety nets. Even the prominent institutions such as the Getty, LACMA, LA MOCA and the Hammer Museum that united to create the L.A. relief fund—demonstrating the essential leadership role museums can play during disasters—grapple with year-long challenges such as funding constraints, public engagement and the protection of priceless collections. They stepped up, despite their own vulnerabilities. The Getty Center, for example, was under threat from the encroaching wildfires, highlighting the double burden of protecting their collections and supporting their communities. This duality shows the need for proactive, rather than reactive, support.
SEE ALSO: Calculating the Impact of the 2025 Wildfires on L.A.’s Artists
In January, Frieze L.A., the centerpiece of Los Angeles’ art calendar, announced this year’s edition would take place as planned at the Santa Monica Airport, just miles from the areas affected by the wildfires. Recognizing the devastation and carrying an added layer of responsibility, Frieze was a founding supporter of the L.A. Arts Community Fire Relief Fund, with additional plans to develop further recovery initiatives.
But as the fair unfolds, how often will the conversations shift from high-stakes deals and spectacle to meaningful action? Art fairs as global platforms have the potential to drive systemic change, but the art world’s reliance on emergency-driven philanthropy remains a glaring paradox. One could argue that some art fairs—as well as galleries and auction houses—do incorporate some sort of efforts to give back, but the overall art market’s engagement with long-standing philanthropy often falls short in scale, consistency and addressing deep-rooted systemic challenges
When will the art market take the lead in embedding philanthropy into its core and challenge the industry’s reliance on reactive rather than proactive measures? What if a portion of its profits and programming was systematically directed toward resilience funds? With the art market generating billions annually, with much of that wealth bypassing the artists who sustain it, what if collectors took a leadership role by advocating for a “resilience contribution,” where a percentage of high-value transactions would directly support artist emergency funds? This would not only position art fairs, galleries and auction houses beyond the marketplace but also encourage them to standardize contributions as part of their business models.
The wildfires in Los Angeles serve as a stark reminder that we must move beyond the cycle of emergency-driven generosity and highlight the need for structural change. While the L.A. Arts Community Fire Relief Fund has provided a critical lifeline, what we see is the glaring absence of systemic, proactive support for artists and institutions in times of stability.
The time has come for the art world to redefine its relationship with philanthropy. Supporting the arts needs to become a cornerstone of the industry—an expectation rather than an exception. Rather than waiting for the next disaster to rally support, we must build systems that sustain the arts community—not just during crises but every day. The question isn’t whether we can afford to do so but whether we can afford not to.
