[edited out]. Artists have always relied on corporate patronage; given that our society is entirely reliant on oil to function, the fact that the people who extract the stuff have chosen to put something back by funding art is aces. FACT.

I disagree. And BP costs lives – they can find the money somewhere else.

I’m in full support of this action.

Also, you miss the point John – this isn’t against all corporates – it’s against BP. For a particular reason.

If you remove any morally dubious funding from art, you leave a pretty big hole. The Medicis built Florence…

Our cultural institutions are unlikely to disassociate themselves from “big oil” at a time when their budgets and grants from government will be reduced due to the financial crisis. However culpable BP is for the recent oil spill, unless you are in favour of some pretty radical change to the way the whole world economy, support for this type of action just looks like tokenism.

Everyone loves the idea of renewable energy, clean fuels etc etc…and they should be encouraged – but people also don’t want to make the huge economic sacrifices necessary to wean the planet off it’s oil dependency. It’s much the same when discussing nuclear energy… many people are totally opposed to it, even tho (at least in the short to medium term at least) it is the “least worst” option from a climate change standpoint.

Throwing oil around in museums and galleries needs to be seen for what it is… a cheap stunt.

They won’t, and nor should they.

I’m not sure what difference you imagine it will make.

What’s that you say? The Tate’s no longer sponsored by BP?
Right – NOW we can ‘ave ‘em.

Funny cjcjc and Tim J – I bet if BP was sponsored by Chavez or the Iranian govt you’d be having kittens and blaming Ken every day.

(You mean the Tate.)

Right. BP is exactly like the Iranian government!

Childish posturing this. BP is just a business providing an essential service. Of course there will be accidents every now and then, it is dangerous and difficult work. If BP have been negligent then we should punish them (and they are going to be punished) but cutting off your nose to spite your face is daft. These self-publicists only have the time resources to spend on their fun days out because of the wealth generated by cheap energy thanks to companies like BP.

I’ll have more regard for the protesters if they put their money where their mouth is and offered to pay for the sponsorships themselves.

Oddly they don’t seem quite so keen on that.

Q:”When will our cultural institutions disassociate from big oil?”

A: When they stop throwing around big money.

It is, as ever, all about the Benjamins.

Ironically, when you watch the video clip on you tube, the protest seems to make the opposite point to the intended one: that BP oil slick is the how come you get free culture.

7 – possibly, but I doubt it. I was (and remain) supremely relaxed about a Saudi/Syrian arms dealer funding the Oxford business school.

I was (and remain) supremely relaxed about a Saudi/Syrian arms dealer funding the Oxford business school.

But the Saudis are political allies. Not so, the Iranians.

“But the Saudis are political allies. Not so, the Iranians.”

Well that rather depends on who you are, doesn’t it?

But I am with Tim J on this, comparing the evils of BP to those of the Iranian regime is a bit preposterous and kind of makes the case that these publicity stunts are essentially shallow.

Wot John and Galen10 said.

OP,

One month ago, a group calling themselves Liberate Tate released black helium balloons carrying ‘oil-slicked’ model fish and birds to the upper airspace of Tate Modern’s Turbine Hall … Two weeks ago, an offshoot of the same group spilled ‘oil’ at the entrance and on the gallery floor of Tate Britain …this week yet another group has extended the story by visiting the British Museum, which also takes BP money, during visiting hours and elegantly spilling ‘oil’

Did these ‘oil’ spillers clean up afterwards?

14 – the Syrians too? Anyway, since we’re all allowed to call BP by its old names, the Tate is being sponsored by Anglo-Iranian Oil, and I’m relaxed about that as well.

Although your wider point is interesting – is their anyone that cultural institutions should refuse to take money from (at least I assume that’s your point, a direct comparison between BP and Hugo Chavez or Iran would just be silly)? I’d be inclined to agree with john b and say that, provided the money was legally acquired, it’s a good thing that it be spent on things of cultural value.

“Did these ‘oil’ spillers clean up afterwards?”

I think it very likely that they are the sort of people who have never needed to concern themselves with how messes get cleared up, where the dishes go after dinner or how the gardens make themselves tidy.

I wonder what the cleaing staff at Tate or the British museum think about the ‘protest’.

“I’d be inclined to agree with john b and say that, provided the money was legally acquired, it’s a good thing that it be spent on things of cultural value.”

That would be my inclination too, although a sudden and massive drop in corporate arts sponsorship might lead to a jump in arts quality as they re-learn to address a general audience.

@17

“Although your wider point is interesting – is their anyone that cultural institutions should refuse to take money from?”

Simon Cowell….? Not sure I could stomach X-Factor branded cultural institutions /awards/ scholarships….!

“although a sudden and massive drop in corporate arts sponsorship might lead to a jump in arts quality as they re-learn to address a general audience”

haha – possibly so!

the oil corporation’s stamp on these hefty cultural institutions buys it a badge of acceptability, a social licence to operate. This quietly smoothes over decades of ecological damage and vehemently resisted impacts on communities that are living with oil extraction.

Underneath this twaddle-speak* is the idea that oil companies derive some real benefit from being associated with art galleries. I would say this is proved by the fact they spend money on it. But I find it very hard to believe that should this campaign achieve its aims, it’ll make a blind bit of difference to the extent things are smoothed-over, or to their “social licence to operate”.

* why is talking bollocks obligatory in the art world?

I think the protest would make more sense if say the protesters decided to live an oil free lifestyle themselves- not use plastic for example.

To be honest if you have a society in which wealth is produced through oil, you are always going to find that money and wealth ending up in culture: if you don’t you have a probelm and if you don’t want to have a society where wealth is produced through oil, then you need to show how you can live without oil.

As to BP sponsoring the British Museum- I wouldn’t have known unless there was this article about the protest!

is the idea that oil companies derive some real benefit from being associated with art galleries

I suppose they just do it because they like pissing off shareholders. Why do people come up with such trips responses?

Look, it’s quite simple. Our society has to be weaned off oil – which is a threat to our national security and the environment. Part of that battle is to make oil companies as stigmatised as tobacco companies.

Anyone who doesn’t get that is a dimwit, frankly.

And so I not only support direct action against BP but would love to see more.

How’s your motorbike?

“Our society has to be weaned off oil – which is a threat to our national security and the environment. Part of that battle is to make oil companies as stigmatised as tobacco companies.”

The stigmatising of tobacco companies has made fuck all difference to anything. The stigmatising of smokers has though. So, if you actuially want to do something you’ll have to go around stigmatising oil users.

You know, anyone using plastic, or transport, eating food, this sort of thing.

Good luck BTW.

“All three performance-interventions created striking images, sometimes beautiful, almost shocking”

That a puddle is described as “striking, beautiful, shocking” is an elegant comment on the state of modern art. What the hell’s wrong with fat cherubs I want to know…..

As to BP sponsoring the British Museum- I wouldn’t have known unless there was this article about the protest!

Well, quite. I visit the Tate and the British Museum from time to time and can’t recall any sponsors.

And so I not only support direct action against BP but would love to see more.

It was hardly “direct” action against BP.

The stigmatising of tobacco companies has made fuck all difference to anything.

Mmm really? That’s why smoking is at a historic low in the west and tobaccoi companies aren’t allowed to advertise in loads of places? Keep dreaming.

Protesting against BP sponsorship of the arts while not protesting the actual *use* of fossil fuels in industry, manufacturing and transport is hypocritical.

But since many of these idiots are also blocking the development of nuclear power as the only viable alternative it’s not surprising they don’t do joined-up thinking.

‘It was hardly “direct” action against BP.’

Precisely. Saboutaging pipes or blockading refineries would be ‘direct action’. This is just throwing a tantrum without leaving your comfort zone.

I don’t have a vehicle. I don’t take holidays abroad. That’s not a ‘protest’, I just don’t have a lot of money. Nevertheless it’s closer to *effective* direct action than anything these idiots will ever do.

When we stop buying it – obviously.

It was hardly “direct” action against BP.

As the OP clearly states: the oil corporation’s stamp on these hefty cultural institutions buys it a badge of acceptability

It’s quite a simple point.

As the OP clearly states: the oil corporation’s stamp on these hefty cultural institutions buys it a badge of acceptability

It’s quite a simple point.

It was direct action against the Tate and British Museum. It was indirect against BP.

And they took a cab to the venue.

@22 Luis Enrique: “Underneath this twaddle-speak* is the idea that oil companies derive some real benefit from being associated with art galleries. I would say this is proved by the fact they spend money on it.”

I would argue that the idea of benefit by oil companies (et al) exists but that the reality of benefit does not.

The idea of benefit exists in the minds of marketing managers who like to spend corporate money on the pleasures that they enjoy. Perhaps there’ll be a few bob for a project for underprivileged children as well, one which may even create greater brand exposure, but it isn’t all that important to them.

Real benefits of sponsorship come from increasing/maintaining brand awareness (aka mind share) or mitigating bad feelings about a brand (identifying the company with good things).

For the former, sponsoring an art exhibition is pretty ineffectual; visitors who pay to attend the exhibition don’t notice who sponsored it; corporate guests (ie large energy customers) would prefer a trip to the British Grand Prix or an escorted trip around an alternative energy plant. Something pertinent to the company’s core business or an interesting jolly.

For the latter, assume predominantly the same response. However, corporate branding associated with a popular social programme (eg supermarket promotions that generate school funds) may change consumer behaviour or sentiment.

Above all, assume that when a corporate sponsors an expensive event, it is because a) the marketing managers want to attend the event or b) more senior executives want to take their mates. How many corporate sponsors take their customers to watch St Swithen’s under-11s netball team play in their new shirts?

Sunny at 24

I cannot understand your response, and not just because of the typo (tripe? trite?). I suppose they just do it because they like pissing off shareholders. The very next sentence I wrote makes more or less the same point (they must think they receive a benefit, or they wouldn’t spend money on it). Did you stop reading before getting to it?

Meanwhile, it’s obvious to you that “stigmatising” oil companies is going to have a real effect and help “wean us off oil”, but it’s not obvious to me. This may be because I am a dimwit, or it may be because I think that of all the things that determine oil consumption, this kind of stuff is a rounding error.

[deleted]

What Luis said. And I think you’ve missed Tim’s point on tobacco – the fact that everyone hates Imperial Tobacco and BAT doesn’t stop anyone from smoking. The fact that smoking in offices and pubs is illegal and that smoking at a bus stop earns you dagger-stares and will probably be illegal soon, and the fact that you pay six quid in tax when you buy a packet of cigs, *does*.

I also agree with Charlieman on sponsorship – a lot of it is principal/agent stuff, because marketing managers and CEOs like going to gallery openings, the opera, the Cup Final, etc.

(finally, I recognise you’ve changed the angle to Big Oil generally from BP, but just for clarity – there is *no reason whatsoever* for anyone outside the southeastern US to treat BP any differently from other oil companies. The only difference between BP and the rest of Big Oil is the location of their latest screw-up… )

I see the point ukliberty is making about ‘direct action’ – I misunderstood earlier. When I say ‘direct action’ – I’m not talking about who its directed at, but the fact that people chose to do some activism itself.

For example I call Plane Stupid, Climate Rush etc direct action groups for their actions not whether their action is directly aimed at someone in particular.

The fact that smoking in offices and pubs is illegal and that smoking at a bus stop earns you dagger-stares and will probably be illegal soon, and the fact that you pay six quid in tax when you buy a packet of cigs, *does*.

Yes but the climate to make these things illegal was only created through social stigmatisation. This is why ads are run against drinking and driving to make them socially unacceptable – that has an impact on behaviour.

The only difference between BP and the rest of Big Oil is the location of their latest screw-up…

Well, BP is responsible for far more safety violations but I’ll take that point. It’s not like I have a soft spot for Esso.

Luis: This may be because I am a dimwit, or it may be because I think that of all the things that determine oil consumption, this kind of stuff is a rounding error

Fine if you think it’ll have no impact. I happen to think it will. Even if I didn’t think it would have much impact – I make it a point not to criticise left-wing direct action groups.

Sunny – yes, but the point is social stigmatisation *of users*. People knew tobacco companies were evil in the 1970s, but for as long as smokers weren’t socially stigmatised, nobody cared.

On the safety violations, that’s specifically BP’s US onshore refining business versus other companies’ US onshore refining businesses, not the company as a whole. For example, I suspect that Shell’s operations in Nigeria alone are more unsafe than the entire US oil industry…

People knew tobacco companies were evil in the 1970s, but for as long as smokers weren’t socially stigmatised, nobody cared.

Firstly, not everyone agreed at the time Tobacco companies were evil. Hell, I was at an Institute of Ideas debate a couple of weeks ago and some idiot stood up and said that we should put aside the people who died on the BP rig, and instead consider the benefits society has derived from the oil. Then he went on to say that scientists say (he didn’t reveal who when I asked) that the spill would be cleared up in a couple of years.

Secondly, stigmatisation of companies obviously also works. The campaigns against Nike, Gap and other clothes companies forced them to adopt better labour practices. There are ongoing compaigns against Shell for the reason you outlined above, as against other corporates who destroy local environments and uproot communities (Dow Jones / Bhopal another example).

So the point about stigmatisation of companies stands. Just because this is against BP and not Shell doesn’t mean environmentalists like the latter.

The campaigns against Nike, Gap and other clothes companies forced them to adopt better labour practices.

Yes. But there’s a massive difference between fashion, where you can either make your product ethically or unethically (and so consumers can choose whether to buy ethically produced products), and oil or tobacco, where *just by being a company that makes oil or tobacco* you’re doing serious harm.

A pressure campaign isn’t going to make BP decide to stop being an oil company. And for as long as BP remains an oil company, it’ll be environmentally damaging.

And what is it with Dow Jones/Bhopal? Union Carbide owned Bhopal (50/50 with the Indian Govt)…which was bought by Dow Chemical.

Dow Jones is an entirely different company: an information company which owns the Wall Street Journal and was recently bought by Murdoch.

Now I realise that you don’t like Murdoch much but protesting against him for Bhopal is a bit much.

Two possibilities:

1) Those “direct action” protestors are too dim to know the difference.

2) Sunny is…..or it could just be a mistake of course.

I’ve always thought that blaming Dow Chemical for Bhopal is bloody weird. Union Carbide India Limited was sold to an Indian company, McLeod Russel, in 1994, long before Dow bought Union Carbide Inc.

Fair enough to say that the liability gets transferred with the sale – but in that case, why the hell would you think that applied to the sale of UC to Dow, but not the sale of UCIL to McLeod Russel?

(and yes, I know that the answer is “because the Indian media, public and political class all find it much more convenient to blame the evil American Imperialists, rather than accepting the fact that the primary legal and moral responsibility for the disaster lies with the Indians who designed, built and managed the plant, the Indians who ran UCIL, the Indian national government that co-owned the plant and hence didn’t hold it to safety standards, and the Madhya Pradesh state government that allowed a giant chemical plant to be built in a residential area”.)

some idiot stood up and said that we should put aside the people who died on the BP rig, and instead consider the benefits society has derived from the oil

Good grief, you know perfectly well that we make such tradeoffs all the time.

We “put aside” deaths on the road in order to be able to drive reasonably fast, rather than cut the speed limit to 10mph, and so on.

Where there has been negligence, whether on the rig or the road, that should be and generally is punished.

BP shareholders have certainly been punished. I also believe there should be greater personal liability for the company directors.

@39 Sunny

“I make it a point not to criticise left-wing direct action groups.”

Irrespective of what they do? How very right-on (not to say undiscriminating) of you. Hope there aren’t too many hostages to fortune there Sunny!

Friend @23 makes a good point, which the tactics above do little if anything to progress or even address:

“To be honest if you have a society in which wealth is produced through oil, you are always going to find that money and wealth ending up in culture: if you don’t you have a probelm and if you don’t want to have a society where wealth is produced through oil, then you need to show how you can live without oil.”

Lots of people (perhaps even a majority) accept the argument for reducing our reliance on oil, and promoting alternative energy sources. That has energy security arguments in its favour, as well as climate change and broader environmental advantages.

The problem is how you achieve that aim without expecting people to radically change their lifestyle, or expectation of continued economic progress. It’s not impossible, but it’s hardly an easy sell either is it?

I doubt many people accept the argument that you have to stigmatize or demonize oil companies as part of the process: they should be seen as part of the solution, NOT as part of the problem.

some idiot stood up and said that we should put aside the people who died on the BP rig, and instead consider the benefits society has derived from the oil.

We shouldn’t put deaths “aside”, but of course we should consider the benefits of oil and how much we rely on it.

@ 41 “and instead consider the benefits society has derived from the oil”.

So you are saying there aren’t any benefits to oil – The motor car, the aerpolane, plastic, rubber etc have had no beneficial impact ?

@ 48 “they should be seen as part of the solution, NOT as part of the problem.”

Indeed. I wonder if any of the oil companies already have significant investments in bio fuels, electric cars, wind farms etc or if the green energy of the future will be provided by an army of benevolent hippies generating electricicity from their smallholdings entirely for the good of the planet and with no thought at all to making super profit from the trillions in subsidy from world governments

@51 neither. No, the oil companies don’t have significant investments in green tech – they realised that drilling oil was more profitable (so BP pretty much exited renewables a few years ago, and Shell did the same last year – Exxon never even bothered pretending…), and they’re unlikely to. The companies that dominate green energy are generally either specialists or electric utilities.

“Since 2005, BP Alternative Energy has invested around $4 billion in wind, solar, biofuels and advanced technologies like hydrogen power and carbon capture and storage.”

http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?categoryId=7041&contentId=7046652

@ 52 – For reasons I won’t bore you with I currently have to read a lot of business press and I think you’ll find they do.

@ 41 “Secondly, stigmatisation of companies obviously also works. The campaigns against Nike, Gap and other clothes companies forced them to adopt better labour practices”

and they lost business, which went to other comapnies, who undercut them, by using cheap labour. It didn’t solve anything.

Indeed Matt.

If there’s one thing business will never resist its a nice fat subsidy.

And why should they if we’re dumb enough to give them one.