SPONSORSHIP
BP’s four main beneficiaries – Tate, British Museum, Royal Opera House and National Portrait Gallery – have all been subject to pressure from protesters The National Gallery in London terminated
its agreement with Italian weapons’ manu- facturer Finmeccanica a year early in 2012, when there was outrage about arms dealers from Libya and Bahrain sipping champagne and eating canapés in the hallowed halls. The National Gallery said sponsorship must not be “disproportionate to the benefit de- rived”, or harm the gallery. Harm can mean criticism from the public, press or relevant communities of professionals.
Over the past 30 years, one of the most philanthropic organisations towards the UK arts has been BP. But its four main ben- eficiaries – Tate, The British Museum, Royal Opera House and The National Portrait Gal- lery – have all been subject to pressure from protesters over their acceptance of funds. Despite protesters throwing molasses over a sculpture at the British Museum and letting loose balloons attached to dead fish at the Tate, directors have defended their decisions. As well as the epic Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster in 2010, which destroyed marine and wildlife habitats and livelihoods, BP has been heavily criticised for tar sands extraction, in addition to being investigated for the rigging of oil prices. When Tate director Nicholas Serota was pushed on whether the BP sponsorship
120 Attractions Handbook 2013–2014
contravened the Tate’s ethics policy – which states it won’t accept money from tobacco companies, arms manufacturers or laundered money – he said not and compared the 2010 oil rig deaths to those on a building site. However, last year at the Tate Members AGM, the Gallery did undertake to look at alternative sources of funding which could replace the oil money.
SHRINKING GRANTS COMBINED WITH WIDESPREAD FREE VISITOR ACCESS HAS MADE SPONSORSHIP
INCREASINGLY ESSENTIAL
Drilling for oil is a legitimate business, so why shouldn’t cultural institutions accept its sponsorship? There is no full-scale protest to close petrol stations, so isn’t it better that BP gives some of its profits to the arts, which allows many more people to enjoy them? Or do the arts, which have a history of push- ing boundaries, challenging authority and
shaping public opinion, have a responsibility to choose wholly benign sponsors?
GREENWASHING
Art collective and protest group Liberate Tate thinks oil sponsorship should be avoided: “Accepting money from oil companies makes arts institutions compliant in greenwash and involved in the exploitation and use of oil. These corporations construct public sup- port far from the places of extraction. This process is what links gallery-goers to the devastation, such as that in boreal forests and to indigenous communities in Canada, through tar sands extraction. What they are actually doing is buying the means to manufacture consent through the building of a social license to operate.” James Atherton, at protest group Reclaim Shakespeare Co., believes it’s important for art organisations to choose sponsors respon- sibly: “For anyone to associate themselves with cultural institutions is a great honour and it should not be dealt with lightly.” He argues alternative sponsors could be found and experience with the tobacco industry would prove this to be true. The National Portrait Gallery was once sponsored by British Tobacco, which seems incredible now. “We have seen in the recent past
www.attractionshandbook.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212 |
Page 213 |
Page 214 |
Page 215 |
Page 216 |
Page 217 |
Page 218 |
Page 219 |
Page 220 |
Page 221 |
Page 222 |
Page 223 |
Page 224 |
Page 225 |
Page 226 |
Page 227 |
Page 228 |
Page 229 |
Page 230 |
Page 231 |
Page 232 |
Page 233 |
Page 234 |
Page 235 |
Page 236 |
Page 237 |
Page 238 |
Page 239 |
Page 240 |
Page 241 |
Page 242 |
Page 243 |
Page 244