“IF YOU HAVE SPENT ANY TIME IN AN ART GALLERY RECENTLY, YOU ARE LIKELY TO HAVE BP TO THANK FOR THE EXPERIENCE.” Tiffany Jenkins, director of arts and society at the Institute of Ideas8 Some have associated free entry to galleries and museums with the existence of oil money, but there is no relationship between the two. These arts institutions are required by government to remain open to the public as a pre-requisite of the public money that they receive. Cultural institutions would require some innovative planning in order to wean themselves off oil money, but it cannot be argued that it would be impossible. Advocates for tobacco companies used the same argument in the 1980s and 1990s, that international sporting events would be adversely impacted by the withdrawal of tobacco money, but since then those events have found different revenue streams and continued functioning as normal. Ending oil sponsorship of the arts would not spell the end of the arts. No arts institution depends solely on one particular sponsor and there are significant corporate sponsors outside of the oil industry that would welcome the opportunity to be associated with such brands. If you spend time in an art gallery, why not thank the artists and curators, thank the cleaning and gallery staff, or thank the campaigners for free access to national art museums (and the progressive politicians that have kept it that way for over a decade).
16 CULTURE BEYOND OIL
“IF THEY [TATE AND OTHER MUSEUMS] CAN GET MONEY FROM SATAN HIMSELF, THEY SHOULD TAKE IT.” Jonathan Jones, arts writer, The Guardian9 Some argue that public galleries should take money from anyone (even the devil!). Such an amoral view completely dismisses widespread public concern and is not in keeping with good ethical practices. For example, the Tate Ethical Policy (due for review in May 2013) states that Tate will not accept donations when the donor “has acted, or is believed to have acted, illegally in the acquisition of funds, for example when funds are tainted through being the proceeds of criminal conduct.” Arts & Business (a commerce and culture partnerships organisation) and others argue that sponsorship should be taken from any legally registered company. The promotion of this kind of relativism sidesteps any ethical considerations and also ignores the views of the very citizens that public institutions need to be accountable to. Arms manufacturers and tobacco companies, once proud sponsors of many a sporting and cultural event, lost this marketing opportunity due to public outcry. Both remain legal businesses but are no longer considered acceptable sponsorship partners. As we transition towards a low carbon economy it is inevitable that oil companies will find themselves increasingly marginalised in terms of partnership and sponsorship. There has to be some sort of consideration about the ethics of particular sponsors – and that discussion needs to keep happening according to the changing context of the world we live in. One of the biggest recent contextual changes we have experienced is our awareness of climate change being the greatest threat we face as a planet, and the role that oil companies play in peddling the product that is taking us all to the edge of disaster. It is no longer appropriate for BP to sponsor Tate, albeit understandable that this relationship started when it did in different times 20 years ago.