Due to the ongoing effects of the global recession, many people are finding it hard to set aside the money they used to spend on leisure activities. In addition to this, there’s a diminishing number of jobs for scores of recently unemployed or newly graduated workers to fill. It seems pertinent then, to have a surge in the amount of free (or very cheap) pastimes with which to entertain the bored and disaffected population. Why then has there been so much controversy by the announcement of the Tate Gallery, the National Portrait Gallery, the British Museum and the Royal Opera House’s decision at the end of 2011, to renew BP’s £10m sponsorship contract for the next five years?

The reason is of course an ethical one. If you’re not aware of BP’s recent environmental mishap then you must have been living at the bottom of an ocean (though not off the Mexican gulf). Do multinational conglomerates, that have nothing to do with the art scene and have a dubious history when it comes to human rights and the environment, have a place in sponsoring galleries? Or is it justifiable to say their previous actions, however deplorable, have an influence on the public institutions they choose to support? After all, apart from their logo in the program, painted on the occasional wall and their name given as a prefix to specific exhibitions and rooms, they have no impact on the running of these institutions. With a history in environmental activism, I’d argue that this isn’t such a black and white case as say, BP’s involvement in the costly, inefficient and incredibly damaging Tar Sands extraction. There are however, many who disagree with me.

The Tate is considered to be especially hypocritical as it presents itself as a progressive institution

Among the list of anti-BP sponsorship organisations are Liberate Tate, Platform and Art Not Oil, who between them have come together to produce the publication: Not if but when: Culture Beyond Oil, a magazine dedicated to the hypocrisies of oil’s involvement in the arts. These organisations believe that rather than donating money to help support the financial difficulties currently faced by many arts institutions, BP’s motive is rather to change their reputation as a company that plunders the natural resources of third world countries for their own massive profits. More than this, they also believe that by involving themselves with BP, these artistic foundations sully their reputations through association. These establishments all have ethical guidelines regarding climate change (manager of the Tate, Nicholas Serota, recently made a statement saying galleries should turn down their heating), which Liberate Tate (and others) believe are made invalid by their involvement with BP. The Tate is considered to be especially hypocritical as it presents itself as a progressive institution (something Liberate Tate claims is an oxymoron), while they accept financial assistance from one of the world’s leading contributors of CO2 and the cause of America’s worst environmental disaster ever. Hardliners would go as far to say that the acceptance of BP’s sponsorship turns every patron into an accomplice of climate change inducing actions, something that shouldn’t be an option when visiting an art gallery.

The rage and contempt for BP’s involvement has brought about the formation and performance of some of the UK’s most creative, and thought-provoking protests. Some have as much artistic merit as the collections and exhibitions housed in the establishments they seek to undermine. Many of Liberate Tate’s protests have considerable visual impact including the suspension of dozens of dead fish and birds hung from helium filled black balloons, released into the Tate Modern’s Turbine Hall on its tenth birthday. An eye-catching and memorable spectacle, there are many benefits to artistic direct actions of this nature; the dead creatures emphasise the macabre effects of the Deep Horizon spill and the balloons are difficult to remove quickly affecting as wide an audience as possible. These two elements make a good story, for press and visitors, meaning the reasons for the protest are kept in the public eye. Other examples of artistic protests include a feather and “oil” spill across the Tate Britain’s entrance (at a party celebrating twenty years of BP sponsorship), around 30 people sequentially standing on tubes of black oil paint recreating BP’s logo and the nude protester, lying foetal in the Tate Britain, covered in “oil” and left as an exhibit. A recent protest saw the processional delivery of a genuine block of Arctic ice (donated to Occupy London by an Arctic researcher) delivered to the Tate, in response to BP’s current interest at drilling below the now thawed permafrost they have helped to melt. At many of these protests, those involved are clad in all black, including veil, to symbolise both the growing number of deaths attributed to climate change every year but also to keep their anonymity in this CCTV society, where arrests can happen long after the “crime” has occurred.

for the time being accepting it seems the lesser of two evils

But what are the credible alternatives? Supporters of BP would argue there are none. This seems ridiculous as there are hundreds of companies that could and would sponsor these artistic establishments. I do however take the view that if it weren’t BP’s sponsorship money propping up the fragile state of British culture, then it would only be another multinational corporation, probably with slightly less of their history clouded with moral and ethical quandaries, but possibly with more. Because at the heart of the issue is money, and how many ethically and environmentally responsible organisations like Ecover or Greenpeace have £10m to donate. And while I (like many others) would prefer our artistic institutions to be free of all corporate sponsorship, with sweeping austerity cuts aimed at the arts, that doesn’t seem likely to happen any time soon. The only other option would be to charge a ludicrously high entrance fee and take sponsorship from a number of vetted, ethically approved companies (the latter is a possible solution). So while I don’t agree with BP’s sponsorship, applaud the compunction of Liberate Tate (and others), would prefer numerous companies in BP’s stead, agree that BP are a contemptuous company and protest their continued sponsorship – for the time being accepting it seems the lesser of two evils. When a viable alternative to BP sponsorship is announced the situation will change, but until then the most important consideration is to continue allowing free entry to these great British institutions where future generations can be inspired to rise up and act against the social evils of the world.