The exhibition Troy: Myth and Reality has been on for a while at the British Museum, attracting thousands of visitors, including hundreds of school children. It is, however, a controversial exhibition, because it is sponsored by BP. It is for this reason that the group "BP or not BP" brought, on 7th February, a Trojan Horse to the museum and stationed it in the large forecourt at the main entrance (subsequently removed by police).
Activist Helen Glynn explained: "The Troy exhibition has inspired us to create this magnificent beast because the Trojan horse is the perfect metaphor for BP sponsorship. On its surface, the sponsorship looks like a generous gift, but inside lurks death and destruction.”
Hettie Judah wrote a thoughtful piece for the Evening Standard highlighting the problems of accepting money for cultural sponsorship from corporations that are trying to 'clean up' their act. According to Culture Unstained, a campaign and research group, "these sponsorship deals have nothing to do with philanthropy, they are a cheap form of advertising, a cost-effective way for unethical industries to boost their image".
The list of such companies goes on. BP has regularly sponsored the British Museum; Sackler has given plenty of money to the National Portrait Gallery. It would seem that art sponsorship is a form of money -laundering. Or is it?
Novelist Ahdaf Soueif, former trustee of the British Museum, chose to resign back in July because the long term association of the Museum with BP and the Museum's colonialist legacy made it impossible for her to carry on in her role. She wrote an Op-Ed for the London Review of Books in which she discusses the museum's treatment of low-paid, contracted workers, its relationship with BP which no one wishes to question in fear of alienating the business community, and its reluctance to restitute artefacts belonging the African nations, literally stolen during the colonial era.
The museum defends its relationship with BP, saying that putting on temporary exhibitions is a costly affair, the exhibitions are beneficial to and welcome by the general public and they just could not happen without this external support. We all know too well the Museum's stance on restitution: it is and always has been a resounding no because the artefacts now belong to the British nation. Go figure that one: I steal from you, I keep the loot in my home for a few decades and it then becomes mine, you can't have it back. That's the idea.
The issue of sponsorship is a moral conundrum. I abhor these conglomerates' exploitative policies, the threat they pose to the planet, yet I also love the exhibitions. I have a granddaughter. In a few years time, when she is ready to enjoy them, should I stop her from viewing these exhibitions because they are unethically funded? I sound pessimistic here as if I were convinced that the practice of accepting 'tainted' money is not going to stop. Honestly, it will not, not in the foreseeable future, not in the present political climate. I agree with the Museum that exhibitions are costly - where is the money to be found?
Art funding from the government is pretty low, simply not enough, with plenty of cuts implemented on a yearly basis. 'Who needs art?' seems to be the attitude. At least, and unlike other countries, the British Museum (and other museums too) does not charge for entry to view the permanent collections - when the Tories introduced museum charges under Thatcher, the British Museum was the only one that stood its ground and refused to implement them. Fortunately, charges were scrapped, except for exhibitions, which are ticketed: people need museums and need free access to them. There are other ways to raise money from the general public: shops, cafés, membership deals...
I dislike BP, I dislike its exploitative thrust. I know that exhibition sponsoring is a form of glorified money laundering, yet part of me is unable to say 'stop taking the money'.
What I would like to see, instead, is some honest, fruitful, discussion on art funding and robust initiatives that can help museums to wean themselves on their dependence on 'dirty' sponsorship.
At the end of the day, we need to ask ourselves whether we care about our museums and what we can do, as a community, to help them thrive.
Read more about this issue here and here and on the Culture Unstained website
Comments
Post a Comment