Paris Metro Rejects David Hockney Exhibition Advertisement Due to Depiction of Cigarette
Title: David Hockney vs. the Paris Metro: Art, Smoking, and the Boundaries of Free Expression
British artist David Hockney, one of the most prominent and enduring figures in contemporary art, has found himself at odds with the Paris transit system over a seemingly small but symbolically loaded image: a photograph for his new exhibition poster in which he is holding a cigarette.
The image was intended to promote “David Hockney 25,” a major retrospective celebrating 25 of the artist’s most iconic works at the Fondation Louis Vuitton. In the ad, Hockney appears seated in his studio, a crayon in one hand and a cigarette in the other — surrounded by vibrant color and creativity. However, the Paris Metro refused to display the image, citing advertising laws that ban the promotion of tobacco products.
The 87-year-old artist, never one to shy away from confrontation, responded with characteristically blunt indignation, calling the decision “complete madness.”
“I am used to the interfering bossiness of people stopping people making their own choices but this is petty,” Hockney told The Independent. “Art has always been a path to free expression and this is a dismal [decision].”
A Matter of Law and Culture
The Metro operator’s resistance does not stem from aesthetic judgment, but French law. France, like much of the EU and other Western nations, prohibits public advertising that depicts tobacco products, even in non-promotional contexts. Across Europe, public health campaigns and legal measures have tried to diminish the influence of smoking-related imagery on citizens, particularly youth. French transport authorities told Hockney’s team that the image violated these tobacco restrictions, effectively banning it from subway advertising space.
However, the decision has opened a broader conversation about the limits of censorship and whether long-standing public policy can – or should – override artistic freedom. For Hockney, who has long considered smoking a part of his personal and artistic identity, the controversy reflects what he perceives as an excessive intrusion of government regulation into personal and creative expression.
Rebellious by Design
David Hockney’s pushback is not new. The English painter, draftsman, printmaker, photographer, and stage designer has long punctuated public debate with his unapologetic views, particularly when it comes to smoking. In a 2007 opinion essay in The Guardian, he publicly criticized England’s smoking bans, lamenting the decline of “pub culture” and insisting that his own longevity — as well as that of other smokers like author Kurt Vonnegut and Denis Thatcher — belied conventional public health warnings.
His move to France in 2019, after more than five decades based in Los Angeles, was in part motivated by small-life pleasures that remain less regulated in parts of Europe — including the ability to smoke and dine simultaneously in restaurants.
“His lungs are not in a good way, and he accepts that,” said Norman Rosenthal, co-curator of the FLV exhibition. “For him, smoking is a symbol of freedom, to end bossiness. He doesn’t like being told on the packet some awful scare warning.”
A Personal and Political Symbol
For Hockney, the cigarette may be more than a personal vice — it is a defiant symbol. It stands against the institutionalization of behavior, the mechanization of choice, and what he sees as the policing of lifestyle through government and corporate oversight. Far from glamorizing smoking, Hockney’s inclusion of the cigarette in his public persona underlines his insistence on individual liberty.
This has created tension in an era when public health increasingly intersects with image regulation. We live in a world where the influence of advertising is widely acknowledged to shape behavior. Governments, in turn, have taken greater measures to eliminate indirect endorsements of harmful products. In this context, even a cigarette in the fingers of an artist carries heavy regulatory implications.
Art in an Age of Regulation
Hockney’s protest adds to a wider debate about where the line is drawn between regulation for the common good and infringement on freedom of expression. Should an artist’s likeness be subject to the same scrutiny as a cigarette ad? Does the context — a retrospective in a museum, not a billboard marketing a product — change the ethical stakes?
Supporters of the decision argue that rules must apply equally and consistently, regardless of artistic fame. Meanwhile, critics warn that such blanket bans risk ignoring artistic nuance and cultural literacy.
The legacy of artistic rebellion often includes navigating, subverting, or defying public restrictions to challenge norms. From Picasso to Banksy, artists have played with and pushed the boundaries of acceptable imagery. Hockney’s frustration stands in this tradition.
The Takeaway
David Hockney’s Paris Metro controversy serves as a case study in the delicate balance between social policy and personal freedom, with art standing at the crossroads of both. As cities and governments continue to advance public health objectives, these decisions will likely become more frequent, raising questions about