Art and business: an unhappy marriage?
Today, Liberate Tate staged another of its headline-grabbing performative protests in the Duveens Hall of Tate Britain. On this occasion, a naked man lay down in the foetal position while several veiled figures covered him in oil – or an oil-like substance. The performance lasted for 87 minutes to commemorate the 87 days over which oil was spilled into the Gulf of Mexico, beginning exactly one year ago today. The message is quite clear – that it’s wrong for arts institutions like Tate to accept sponsorship from BP.
Liberate Tate’s actions have been going on for years now and they seem to be gathering momentum. The group make some very persuasive arguments to back up their case, in particular that it’s wrong for a company like BP with such a bad track record environmentally to invest in the arts in order to clean up its image. Many of us can’t help but feel squeamish when we see images of the environmental devastation in the Gulf of Mexico and then spot BP’s logo plastered all over our national art galleries. But does this rather emotional response mean that it’s right for arts institutions like Tate to refuse all funding from BP?
It’s fascinating to look at what happened with sponsorship of the arts by tobacco companies in the 1980s. At one point companies like Imperial Tobacco funded practically everything, covering the entire exterior of the Royal Opera House with cigarette advertisements for one stunt and, interestingly, sponsoring for years what’s since become the BP Portrait Award. But gradually, public opinion shifted to the point where this association was deemed unacceptable. What Liberate Tate are saying is that public opinion should now shift a bit more so that oil companies like BP find themselves for the first time on the other side of the line.
It’s a difficult argument. We might prefer BP not to sponsor our arts institutions but unfortunately the money has to come from somewhere. Less and less is coming from the government while the public’s appetite for the arts is growing – and all research shows that above all the public values being able to view our national art collections for free. Which costs money – and lots of it.
The truth is that all kinds of companies engage in all kinds of activities we might think are dodgy but which are technically legal. And these companies pay their taxes. In turn, money from these taxes then filters through to the arts – albeit in smaller amounts these days. So whether we like it or not, corporations we may not approve of are already indirectly funding the arts.
In addition, there’ve always been artists who’ve accepted money from disreputable sources to fund their work. Judgemental churches, ruthless royals or Empire-building dictators – the history of art is littered with examples of less than perfect sources of funding for some of our most important and best-loved work.
Crucially for me though, what matters is that artists’ acceptance of any funding comes free from creative obligations or demands which could compromise artistic integrity. Artists need to be free to challenge and to criticise in their work, and arts institutions like Tate must remain free to support them in this. An over-reliance on corporate funding of any description can lead to a climate of creative caution and conservatism, and at worst, fear. There’s evidence of this in the US but, although our model of arts funding is slowly moving closer to the American model, so far there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of it here.
Let’s hope that if anything changes on this front, arts organisations like Tate are brave enough to make a stand – and if necessary even cut off corporate funding.
Related posts:
- Spending cuts: an end to accessible arts?
- Arts funding shake-up: long overdue?
- A tip for Brits about philanthropy
There are 2 comments on this post
The suggestion that corporations we do not like are already funding arts/culture through taxes does not hold. When a corporation pays its taxes, that money becomes PUBLIC and is distributed by government representatives and/or arm’s length agencies for the public good. No one benefits indirectly by being able to say: “oh, look how good we are as a corporation” because the corporation hasn’t engaged in sponsorship. THAT is the distinction. Money that *would* be paid in tax is re-directed through sponsorship, which is not only fully tax deductible as a marketing expense, but also provides the massive benefit of publicity. In the case of BP, it is “greenwashing” — it is taking profits drawn from horrid abuse of the earth and it’s inhabitants, and deriving positive spin on the back of arts/culture… as if their sponsorship of the arts will entice us to forget what the corporation has done! Hardly.
If corporations just paid full and fair tax, like all citizens do, this would no longer be an issue. All parties would contribute fairly into a system for the sake of public good, and no single entity would have special recognition for having done so. Culture is for everyone, and we should be able to participate in it without having to be grateful to abusive corporations trying to polish their image through false generosity.
On a related note, corporations that engage in things we’d admit to “not liking” — be that environmental damage, violations of human rights, unfair wage practices, etc. — are acting without conscience. We need to re-structure business and society so unrestrained greed is recognized for what what it is — destructive, harmful behaviour. If corporations are doing things we’d admit to “not liking”, we should have the means to stop them, period. Through the lobbying power of these corporations, they’ve changed things so that the Earth is becoming increasingly uninhabitable through their actions, yet we need to be grateful for them for crumbs. What’s wrong with this picture?
Liberate Tate. Liberate *all* arts/cultural/social sector organizations! Fair taxes = fair society.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am a bit confused here about the difference between donations and paid advertising. A donation should mean no strings attached. No prominent mention of the donor! No interference in the art either. The Tate’s promotion of BP is a deplorable issue that should be considered separately from their acceptance of money for art.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0