British Museum Faces Backlash Over AI Images And New Plans

The British Museum, one of London’s most iconic cultural institutions, has found itself at the center of a heated debate on two fronts: its embrace of artificial intelligence in public communications and a controversial new building project that critics say threatens the integrity of its historic architecture. Both issues have ignited passionate responses from heritage advocates, museum professionals, and the public, shining a spotlight on the challenges faced by major museums as they navigate modernization while safeguarding tradition.

On January 27, 2026, the British Museum posted a series of images on its Instagram and Facebook accounts that, at first glance, appeared to show a young woman thoughtfully contemplating a range of exhibits. The caption read, “Taking time to take a closer look is always worthwhile,” and was accompanied by the hashtag #YourMuseum. Astute viewers quickly noticed that the images were not photographs but rather A.I.-generated creations, tagged to both the A.I. model and the marketing agency V8 Global. According to Artnet News, the post was live for about six hours, during which it attracted a storm of negative comments and calls for accountability from both the public and professionals in the field.

Among the most vocal critics was Steph Black, an archaeologist and PhD student at Durham University, who took to Instagram to share screenshots of the images with her nearly 200,000 followers. Black did not mince words, telling Artnet News, “I think they are testing the waters to see how willing the public are to accept A.I. images so then they can fire or not hire creatives and professionals. I think it’s cost saving.” Her comments captured a growing concern within the creative and academic communities that the use of generative A.I. could threaten jobs and diminish the role of human expertise in museums and heritage sites.

Black also pointed out a troubling aspect of the images: a cultural inaccuracy in which the A.I.-generated woman appeared in traditional East Asian clothing in some images, but in another, while contemplating a Mexican artifact—the Aztec fire-serpent Xiuhcoatl—she wore what seemed to be Mexican-style attire. “It is as if all these cultures are the same,” Black remarked, highlighting how generative A.I. can perpetuate oversimplifications and reinforce Western and colonial biases present in many training datasets.

Another critic, Mya Steele, an archaeology student at the University of York, warned of the broader dangers. “A.I. usage in heritage settings directly affects the jobs of historians, educators, and curators,” Steele said. She further cautioned that A.I. risks “delivering incorrect information” and perpetuating the biases of datasets “that are overwhelmingly Western and colonial.”

The British Museum responded to the backlash by swiftly removing the post, issuing a statement that explained, “We do not post A.I.-created images and, recognizing the potential sensitivity, removed it.” The museum acknowledged the growing prevalence of A.I. in the sector and said it was “in the process of creating guidelines on its use museum-wide.” Still, the episode left many demanding more transparency and accountability. Black, for one, called for the museum to “acknowledge what happened, explain why it happened, and who approved it,” and to “commit to not using generative A.I.” She also claimed that after speaking out, the museum unfollowed her and other critics on social media—a move she interpreted as a warning to others.

While the dust from the A.I. controversy was still settling, the British Museum faced another storm—this time over its ambitious plans to update its physical site. As reported by BBC News, the museum has submitted proposals to replace the anti-terrorism marquees near its entrance with two new security pavilions and to transform its front lawn into a Mediterranean botanical exhibit. The museum’s leadership claims these changes will make the site more welcoming by reducing waiting times, streamlining security searches with state-of-the-art scanners that eliminate the need for guests to empty their bags, and adding a new “living collection” that connects with the museum’s two million years of history.

The museum also intends to reopen its historic gates, hoping this will alleviate congestion at the entrance. These proposals are part of a larger, decade-long redevelopment plan estimated to cost around £1 billion. According to the museum, the new pavilions are temporary installations expected to last a decade while the broader masterplan is implemented.

However, not everyone is convinced. Conservation groups, including the Georgian Group and the Victorian Society, have voiced strong objections. The Georgian Group, which champions the preservation of historic architecture, argued that the new pavilions would “betray the architect’s original vision for the museum.” They believe that adding pavilions to one side of the building will ruin its symmetry and undermine its “powerful and carefully composed” architectural elements. The group acknowledged the operational challenges faced by the museum but concluded, “We consider that the proposals would cause an unacceptable level of harm to this internationally important site.”

The Victorian Society echoed these concerns, describing the pavilion designs as “flashy” and saying they “resembled a shop and wine bar.” The society also criticized the museum for ignoring earlier feedback, raising questions about the institution’s willingness to engage with heritage advocates and the public in its planning process.

The British Museum, for its part, admitted that the changes would cause a “low degree of less than substantial harm” to the site’s historic character. However, it maintained that this was justified by the need to protect the museum’s interior and reduce the clutter from existing security barriers. The museum emphasized that these installations are only temporary and necessary for the safety and efficiency of the site as it embarks on its long-term redevelopment.

The debate over the British Museum’s modernization efforts—both digital and physical—reflects a broader struggle faced by cultural institutions worldwide. How can museums remain relevant and accessible in a rapidly changing world without sacrificing the values, expertise, and heritage that make them unique? As the museum’s proposals head to Camden Council’s planning committee for review, and as it drafts new guidelines for the use of A.I., these questions remain as urgent as ever.

For now, the British Museum stands at a crossroads, grappling with the delicate balance between innovation and tradition. The outcome of these debates will not only shape the future of this storied institution but may also set precedents for museums and heritage sites around the globe.