Si la page ne s'affiche pas, cliquez ici !!!

Crude awakening: BP and the Tate

UK

Source : Culture Europe International (http://www.culture-europe-international.org)
01 49 40 72 46 - contact@culture-europe-international.org
2, rue de la Liberté, 93526 Saint-Denis cedex 02

Rubrique : Revue de presse

du 15/07/2010 00:00 au 15/11/2010 00:00
Paris France



Texte : Interviews by Emine Saner and Homa Khaleeli
The Guardian
UK
June 30th, 2010
(extracts)

The Tate is under fire for taking BP sponsorship money. Does corporate cash damage the arts — or is it a necessary compromise? The Guardian asked leading cultural figures their view...

Grayson Perry, artist

I don't know if Louisiana fishermen really care much that BP sponsors the Tate. When I was up for the Turner prize, I joked that I was looking for a sponsor for my dress, and I suggested BAE Systems. I thought it would be funny.

The whole "sponsorship is evil" line is easy to trot out when you're a penniless student with nothing to lose. Corporate sponsorship of the arts is vital. The counter-argument is, does it really "greenwash" them? I think a lot of the time the main motivation is to give their executives and clients a nice jolly and some privileged access. I don't think that when people come out of an exhibition, they think: "Oh, wow, I'm going to buy BP petrol now."

I haven't really had sponsorship before, but for the show I'm working on now I've said right from the start that if we need a sponsor I'm going to play with it. I'm going to incorporate the sponsor into one of the pieces. I'm interested in medieval northern European altarpieces, where quite often the patron would be painted meeting the Virgin, or carved standing at the side of St Peter or whoever; that was part of the deal.

Part of my shtick is that I rebel against the rebels. I find that kneejerk, internet-paranoid-conspiracy thing a bit annoying, so I suppose my devil's advocate side wants to poke them in the eye a bit. I'm understanding of the need for corporate sponsorship.

Mark Ravenhill, playwright

Making art is presenting a gift to the world. Business is the act of making a profit from the world: the two things are in direct contradiction.

I would prefer more public funding. At the moment we have a policy that says the arts are for everybody, but artistic directors spend more and more time talking to people from business. If the arts are for everyone, then the funding should come through taxation.

Relationships with sponsors distort the arts in two ways. Corporate business is keen on community projects, and theatres have often undertaken work they do not have a commitment to – because sponsors want to be seen working with the homeless or another group. They want to be associated with the biggest openings. It makes arts organisations contradictory: one evening they are putting on corporate events, the next, it's a play with refugees.

People want to make art, but then they have to wedge into it a community project and a lavish dinner for 25 bankers. The first three rows on opening night are filled with people who don't want to be there, but have to be seen to be there.

John Browne, former CEO, BP

I didn't start any sponsorship partnerships, but during my time at BP it became more focused. The major sponsorships were for the Royal Opera House, helping the Tate show new work, and with the British Museum. It's a way for companies to demonstrate they are alive and not just an entity working to extract profit. It's also cheaper than sport.

In America, sponsors might sit on the board; in the UK, that's not the case. They are public appointments. Tickets and free access are very, very small.

I am on the board of the Tate and was a trustee of the British Museum. I have an interest in paintings and drawings of 16th- to 18th-century Venice.

I hope business will pick up the slack in the public sector, and I don't think it has any effect on the type of art created. I'm confident there is a complete separation between sponsorship and content; there is dialogue, but in the end, it is the museums and galleries who decide what goes ahead.

Of the protests, all I would say is, everyone has a right to comment.

Christopher Frayling, former chair, Arts Council England

At the Tate's summer party on Monday evening, I got into an animated conversation with one or two demonstrators. Since the party was celebrating 20 years of BP sponsorship, why, I asked, had it taken them 19 years and 364 days to start complaining? The dreadful accident off the coast of Louisiana was one thing, but the wider principle of sponsorship by oil companies in particular, and large corporations in general, is another. Just walk around London today: at the National theatre you have a play sponsored by Shell; at BFI Southbank, there are archive films expensively restored thanks to Mobil; at Covent Garden, the outdoor big-screen relays are sponsored by BP.

Isn't it a good thing that large corporations are giving money to the arts? They don't have to. Tobacco companies and arms manufacturers are no longer seen as respectable partners. But should an organisation turn down money from an airline because one of its aircraft has gone down? Or money from a bank because we don't like it behaving like a casino? Or money from the government because of Iraq?

As the chancellor tightens our belts, there will be a lot more debate about the ethics of sponsorship. It could go either way. Some may even be tempted to ask for a rethink on tobacco, when things get really tough.

As the British Museum's current exhibition of drawings (sponsored by BP) shows, the Florentine Renaissance was deeply dependent on the bankers as patrons, and some of them weren't particularly nice. As Leonardo might well have said, now is not the time to get squeamish.

Full version

Date de publication : 30/06/2010


Période traitée : 2010-06-30
Mots-clés : BP, Arts Council England, Tate Museum, corporate sponsorship, arts funding UK, CSR, corporate social responsibility
Inséré le : 15/07/2010 15:54