Artists, musicians and green activists plan to step up protests against BP's sponsorship of Britain's most prestigious galleries and museums in the wake of the Gulf oil catastrophe. A group calling itself Good Crude Britannia, made up of artists, poets, writers and filmmakers, will picket Tate Britain's summer party next Monday which is billed by the gallery as celebrating 20 years of BP's sponsorship. "Organisations like the National Portrait Gallery help shape public attitudes towards the big issues of the day and if the Gallery is serious about climate change then the sponsorship deal with BP has got to end," said Robin Oakley, Greenpeace's campaigns director. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/24/artists-bp-protest-tate Now call me a cynic but I think its ridiculous to demand that the Tate or any other art foundation should refuse to take money from BP because of the gulf disaster. The arts has a difficult time enough raising funds. Is this protesting or bullying? I mean its like saying the Tate shouldn't take money from an airline because a plane crashed. Accidents and catastrophes happen and I see no reason why the Tate shouldn't take BP's money and what's worse is it comes across as if the Tate is somehow culpable.
Its hard enough to get sponsorships for art events - so I doubt it will make any difference - the galleries and museums need the sponsorship as much as BP needs the tax writeoffs and its not like they malevolently decided to off load the oil.
LOL! I know which is why I don't understand the protesters position. The artists among them should be thinking of those meager grants and how difficult they are to get. Also I am sure that BP also gives money to many institutions and fund many causes so why only protest the museum:shrug:
do you think you could make the argument that they in effect, did just that? hmm? use some wd40 on your synapses if you have to
Except it's not just a simple accident. It was the result of deliberate circumventing of their own best practices.
Idiots and morons It's the difference between an idiot and a moron. Or, to be more specific, I'd have to dig up my copy of Eco's Foucault's Pendulum to explain just what that difference is. To the one, I get what they're after: complete isolation of BP. To the other, though, they're nuts. Their demand means everyone should suffer because BP screwed up. I'm of the opinion that the company should be bled while the bleeding is good. When BP's numbers get too low, the artistic endowments will be first against the wall, anyway.
...a consistent application of integrity besides... In a statement, the Tate said it had an ethics committee which regularly reviewed its sponsorship deals. "BP is one of the most important sponsors of the arts in the UK supporting Tate as well as several other leading cultural institutions. Tate works with a wide range of corporate organisations and generates the majority of its funding from earned income and private sources. The board and ethics committee regularly review compliance with the policy," it said. an ethics committee? why do you think that is in place, tiassa? wanna speculate? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! what, if any, do you think is applicable to the topic at hand?
Less unpalatable, or something like that Sure. If it was money from child pornographers or black market drug kingpins, I think the case would be more clearly cut. But BP is a large corporation that acts as many large corporations do. In this particular case, its disaster is spectacular by comparison. Indeed, some people are going to have to reassess their ethical standards, but this would, in essence, be a new standard were these museums to buckle. The thing about the Tate and other such institutions is that I would much rather companies like BP, Shell, Apple, and others, put money into the communities they exploit. Sending money to a largely bourgeois nonprofit is a safe donation; it does not contribute to any possibility that exploited natives in China, Africa, or elsewhere suddenly get all uppity and demand their rights. In many cases, the companies already suffer enough criticism locally and internationally on those fronts, and have no wish to encourage any intensification or escalation. Practically speaking, this is almost self-evident. Ethically speaking, however, it only begs the question. Like I said, I'm of the opinion that BP should be bled while the bleeding is good. If this disaster destroys the company, so be it. They brought it on themselves, and I'm tired of "jobs" and "economy" being used as an excuse for the evil and exploitative to carry on with their dark ways. No matter what we do, there will be sacrificial lambs. If a greater proportion of those who lose—greater, that is, than we presently see—are the wealthy and powerful who make such sacrifices necessary, the outcome is ... well ... less unpalatable. All of it. But I cannot fix any particular context for that application.
how on earth does it come across like that? lets try an analogy. you are in effect saying that, if one comes out in opposition to say... the pedos in nambla, one is actually or appears to be, complicit in the sexual abuse of boys? are you really trying to convince us of the validity of that line of thought? you really cannot tell? in any case i think i can figure out your sentiments. if a corporate entity does not voluntarily sanction itself, any outside attempt that convinces to do just that, is bullying i am hard pressed to think of a more superficial take on this? can we not look deeper into the nature of these "Accidents and catastrophes" and ask why they occurred in the first place? are you asking us to accept these "Accidents and catastrophes" as perhaps inevitable? as an unfolding of god's inflexible will? as fate? are you religious?
while smaller institutions might have funding problems, i would have thought corporations would be scrambling to fund the prestigious institutions. in the case of tate... a long line of wannabe sponsors. there is a serious cachet in this i think but you two feel free to tell me different TATE Tate is the world's leading art brand, and offers a range of sponsorship opportunities across all four of its galleries, Tate Britain, Tate Modern, Tate Liverpool and Tate St. Ives. Tate Britain on Millbank in Pimlico holds the greatest collection of British art in the world and the highly praised Centenary Development in 2001 created additional display space and improved visitor facilities. The permanent collection includes Turner (the largest collection in the world), Hogarth, Stubbs, Blake, the Pre-Raphaelites, Bacon, Spencer and Moore, as well as contemporary British work including the annual Turner Prize. Tate Modern in the transformed Bankside Power Station opposite St. Paul's, is Britain's first national museum of modern art and the most popular modern art museum in the world. The permanent collection includes international artists such as Picasso, Dali and Warhol as well as housing works by leading contemporary artists. Companies ranging from small businesses to multi-national corporations have sponsored award-winning projects at Tate, which has three Corporate Membership Programmes as well as the opportunity of Exhibition Sponsorship. Benefits include branding and marketing, promotional opportunities, employee benefits and sought-after venues for entertaining ranging from traditional to contemporary and intimate to impressively large-scale. Tate previews and events have a real cachet and as they are attended by more MP's than any other London gallery (according to recent MEW research) can offer excellent networking opportunities. Sponsorship with Tate offers affiliation with a fresh, innovative, dynamic and sophisticated brand, and Tate is keen to work in close partnership with sponsors in order to meet their agreed aims and objectives. Contact: Tanya Taggart, Corporate Fundraising Manager. Address: Tate, Millbank, London SW1P 4RG. Tel.: 020 7887 8744. Fax: 020-7887-8739. E-mail: tanya.taggart@tate.org.uk. as for the rest of your post, tiassa....sounds good. thanks
Making it complicated I don't think you're wrong in this part, but I would suggest the fact of a ridiculous disaster should not compel Tate to turn away BP's money. Perhaps if the company is held criminally accountable for its negligence, at that point Tate might wish to reconsider. In a broader context, though, I wonder who else we might find controversial is on the donor list. In other words, vis a vis Good Crude Britannia, why now? Why BP? There are legitimate answers to the question. But I'm curious as to which one they would offer.
Welcome back from Exile. I wouldn't be writing off the "malevolently" bit, personally. There are things, I must say, that appear very strange about this whole BP thing. And what is this lady talking about?!? Climate change? How so? Global warming? Global cooling? Both? Status quo? Just change as in, toxic ecosystems? Last I checked, BP was heavy into the whole "green" thing anyway. Or at least one of the many pretenders. I say boycott art period. Is that a challenge to S.A.M.? Anyone?
i just noticed this in tate's sponsorship spiel quoted in post#10 Tate previews and events have a real cachet and as they are attended by more MP's than any other London gallery (according to recent MEW research) can offer excellent networking opportunities /chuckle one can cut some deals right there in the gallery. get some tax write-offs perhaps. get exemptions from onerous legislation and whatnot god! have they no shame? lemme fire off a nasty letter to tanya.taggart@tate.org.uk.
Why SAM in particular? Just because she mentioned malevolence not being the case? Only wondering. I would like to see that. If she won't, I might take a stab at it. And of course risk all the usual name calling. You would think BP would be at home in that atomsphere. I believe the mixture of corruption, lobbying, and money required for proper respiratory function will allow them to thrive.
