Portrait artists, coal rulings and butterfly bias: culture’s climate reckoning

A portrait competition that captures more than faces

The 13th series of Portrait Artist of the Year begins tonight on Sky Arts, and it arrives with a quiet but telling shift. This year, the judging panel includes art historian Katy Hessel, whose 2022 book The Story of Art Without Men reframed art history as a discipline long dominated by male perspectives. Her presence on a show that has, over a decade, become a cultural institution in its own right—one where amateur painters compete to capture the essence of celebrities—raises a question: can a competition built on individual likeness also reflect broader societal narratives?

The first three sitters—actors Lennie James, Sheridan Smith, and Vanessa Williams—are not just subjects but symbols. James, known for his roles in The Walking Dead and Line of Duty, carries the weight of British television’s evolving portrayal of Black masculinity. Smith, a musical theatre star, represents the precarious visibility of working-class performers in an industry increasingly dominated by private equity-backed productions. Williams, the first Black Miss America, embodies a legacy of representation that remains contested. The competition’s format, which asks artists to work under time pressure while sitters share personal stories, has often produced moments of raw emotional connection. But this year, the stakes feel higher. In an era where AI-generated portraits and deepfake technology blur the line between authenticity and artifice, a live, human-centred competition like this one becomes a counterpoint—a celebration of the imperfect, the intuitive, and the deeply personal.

The show’s enduring appeal lies in its ability to make art accessible without dumbing it down. Yet, as Hessel’s involvement suggests, it is also being asked to do more: to interrogate whose stories are being told, and how. The question hanging over this series is whether a format rooted in individual achievement can also serve as a mirror for collective reckonings—about race, class, and the very nature of representation in a digital age.

A coalmine ruling that could reshape Australia’s climate battles

In a decision with implications far beyond its immediate geography, Australia’s High Court has ruled that the approval of MACH Energy’s Mount Pleasant coalmine expansion in New South Wales was invalid. The case, brought by a Hunter Valley community group, marks the first time the nation’s highest court has considered climate change in its judgment—and the ruling is being hailed as a precedent that could force fossil fuel projects across the country to account for their broader environmental impact.

The court did not explicitly cite climate change as the reason for its decision. Instead, it focused on procedural flaws in the mine’s approval process, particularly the failure to adequately assess the project’s impact on water resources. But the subtext is unmistakable. As one of the plaintiffs, the Hunter Community Environment Centre, put it: “We cannot continue to dig up coal, ship it overseas, and pretend the consequences have nothing to do with us.” The ruling comes at a fraught moment for Australia, which remains one of the world’s largest coal exporters. Just days before the decision, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese warned of a “super El Niño” brewing in the Pacific, a phenomenon that scientists link to climate change and that threatens to bring extreme heat, floods, and cyclones to the region this summer.

The Mount Pleasant case is part of a growing wave of climate litigation worldwide, from Dutch courts ordering Shell to reduce emissions to youth activists suing the U.S. government over fossil fuel policies. What sets this ruling apart is its potential to create a legal framework for future challenges. By tying the mine’s approval to its broader environmental consequences—even if indirectly—the High Court has opened a door for activists to argue that all fossil fuel projects must now be assessed through a climate lens. For a country that has long walked a tightrope between its economic reliance on coal and its vulnerability to climate disasters, the decision could prove to be a turning point—or at least a reckoning.

The butterfly effect: how beauty shapes conservation

A new study published in Current Biology has quantified what conservationists have long suspected: the world’s most beautiful butterflies receive disproportionate attention—and funding. Researchers surveyed over 21,000 people across more than 100 countries, asking them to rate the beauty of European butterfly species on a scale of 1 to 10. The results were stark. Larger, more colourful species, like the yellow swallowtail, consistently scored higher than their smaller, plainer counterparts. The implications are troubling. The study found that these “charismatic” butterflies are the subject of far more scientific research and receive the bulk of conservation funding, while less visually striking species—many of which are equally threatened—are overlooked.

This beauty bias is not unique to butterflies. Similar patterns have been observed in the conservation of mammals, birds, and even plants. Pandas, tigers, and elephants dominate fundraising campaigns, while less photogenic species, like the vaquita porpoise or the pangolin, struggle to attract the same level of support. The problem is compounded by the fact that many of these “ugly” species play critical roles in their ecosystems. Butterflies, for instance, are vital pollinators, and their decline can have cascading effects on plant life and agriculture.

The study’s authors argue that conservation efforts must move beyond aesthetics. One solution they propose is to shift the narrative around less charismatic species, highlighting their ecological importance rather than their appearance. Another is to increase public engagement through citizen science projects, which can help raise awareness of overlooked species. The challenge, however, is steep. In an era of social media, where visual appeal often dictates what captures public attention, conservationists must find ways to make the invisible visible—and the unglamorous compelling.

The O2’s £200m deal: what it says about the future of live entertainment

In an exclusive report, The Guardian has revealed that O2 has signed a record £200m deal to retain the naming rights to London’s O2 Arena for another decade. The agreement, which extends the sponsorship until at least 2038, is thought to be the largest renewal of its kind in UK history. At a 50% premium on the previous deal, it reflects both the venue’s enduring commercial value and the broader shifts in the live entertainment industry.

The O2 is more than just a venue; it is a symbol of the post-millennium boom in live events. Since opening in 2007, it has hosted everything from Beyoncé concerts to the ATP Finals, and its distinctive dome has become a landmark on the London skyline. But the deal also comes at a time of upheaval for the live entertainment sector. The pandemic exposed the fragility of an industry reliant on in-person gatherings, and while demand has rebounded, costs have soared. Artists now command higher fees, production expenses have ballooned, and venues face pressure to invest in sustainability measures, from reducing waste to cutting carbon emissions.

The O2’s ability to secure such a lucrative deal suggests that, for now, the appetite for live experiences remains strong. But the renewal also raises questions about the future of sponsorship in an era of economic uncertainty. Will brands continue to invest in naming rights at this scale, or will they seek more flexible, short-term partnerships? And what does this mean for smaller venues, which lack the O2’s global profile but play a vital role in nurturing emerging talent? The deal may be a vote of confidence in the O2’s brand, but it is also a reminder that the live entertainment industry is at a crossroads—one where tradition and innovation must find a way to coexist.