Would it be ok if the Tate were sponsored by companies that make tobacco products, or armaments, or rain forest beef, or employ kids in sweatshops? Or by drug and prostitution gangs? Or is making huge profits from feeding fossil fuel addiction and destroying the environment more acceptable?
A lot of people see companies like BP as enabling our good quality of life, and think that without oil we’d be back to living in caves, but a lot of people used to think the same about slaves, and having coal fires in every room, and slash and burn agriculture. Are we not clever and wise enough to live sustainably?
I know that some people (probably because of the way they experienced life in their childhood) believe that it is strong to take what you can for yourself, while you can, and weak to think about what will be good for the collective and the long term, but I think it’s actually the other way around.
I also know that change is hard work, and that when someone feels doubt or lacks confidence they are more likely to feel that changing their opinion would mean losing face. It’s ok though, you don’t have to respond to me. But it’s possible that the next decade or so might leave you high and dry.
Assuming, Tom, that you are implying that it would be the Tate that would go under (let’s face it, with BP’s profits it would take even more than Deepwater Horizon’s costs to cause them to go down) then why do you think that there would be no other company at all – or, shock horror, even the Department of Culture, Media and Sport of our own government (which can afford £12m a day on the Afghanistan war) – would be interested in a sponsorship deal with the artistic beacon and visitor draw that is the Tate?
Perhaps we should consider how damaging the credibility of one of our finest institutions to be used as a compny image laundering device for a company who has caused so much damage and potentialy will again with their deep drilling in the arctic without any hope of remidial action. BP continue to refuse to discuss what emergency plans there are in place if there is a major oil spill in this area
.I seriously doubt in the final hour any British goverment would let this one of our world famous and renound galleries “Go Under”
Thank you to the committed and determined people who invested their time, energy and creativity to raising awareness about BP and Tate’s relationship. I cried. The people who made facile comments about ‘cowards’ and how stupid it was, the people who saw the performances as fun and funny – must be living in a different sphere. It is incredible to think that some people just don’t care.
The lure of money can make a lot of companies forget where they stand on the issue of climate change. Apparently, this has happened to Tate. I believe that it’s time for Tate to divorce its relationship with BP.
Corporations involvement with the Arts are nothing more than an extension to what Monarchies and Church patrons where before.An exact replica actually. Beautiful works where being made at the same time entire cultures where being robed and eliminated elsewhere. Fair game, protest is an wake up call for the Tate Institution aka corporation. Art movements are born to bring to light that Art isn’t a commodity of convenience.
Go for it guys. 6 years ago I had a complete melt down with Art and stopped working. One of the reasons for the break was exactly this. The other was the amount of ego involved. Anyhow, I’m glad I’m back and your group is around steering the ground.
Can Art survive without it?
Perhaps someone could suggest some other corporation or corporations that could sponsor Tate instead of BP? Of course, it would be a corporation without such an environmental footprint.
Liberate Tate 
So, let’s say you’re successful (unlikely) in getting Tate off BP money, will you be glad when they go under?
Hi Tom,
Would it be ok if the Tate were sponsored by companies that make tobacco products, or armaments, or rain forest beef, or employ kids in sweatshops? Or by drug and prostitution gangs? Or is making huge profits from feeding fossil fuel addiction and destroying the environment more acceptable?
A lot of people see companies like BP as enabling our good quality of life, and think that without oil we’d be back to living in caves, but a lot of people used to think the same about slaves, and having coal fires in every room, and slash and burn agriculture. Are we not clever and wise enough to live sustainably?
I know that some people (probably because of the way they experienced life in their childhood) believe that it is strong to take what you can for yourself, while you can, and weak to think about what will be good for the collective and the long term, but I think it’s actually the other way around.
I also know that change is hard work, and that when someone feels doubt or lacks confidence they are more likely to feel that changing their opinion would mean losing face. It’s ok though, you don’t have to respond to me. But it’s possible that the next decade or so might leave you high and dry.
Best wishes for the future,
Peter
Pingback: Emily Coats writes: BP White Swan – dance as political protest « Oxford Dance Writers
Hi Tom,
When BP or Tate go under? Sorry didn’t understand your question.
Assuming, Tom, that you are implying that it would be the Tate that would go under (let’s face it, with BP’s profits it would take even more than Deepwater Horizon’s costs to cause them to go down) then why do you think that there would be no other company at all – or, shock horror, even the Department of Culture, Media and Sport of our own government (which can afford £12m a day on the Afghanistan war) – would be interested in a sponsorship deal with the artistic beacon and visitor draw that is the Tate?
Hi Tom,
I’m with Ben on this one
Perhaps we should consider how damaging the credibility of one of our finest institutions to be used as a compny image laundering device for a company who has caused so much damage and potentialy will again with their deep drilling in the arctic without any hope of remidial action. BP continue to refuse to discuss what emergency plans there are in place if there is a major oil spill in this area
.I seriously doubt in the final hour any British goverment would let this one of our world famous and renound galleries “Go Under”
I liked Rev. Billy! Good acting job!
Thank you
Thank you to the committed and determined people who invested their time, energy and creativity to raising awareness about BP and Tate’s relationship. I cried. The people who made facile comments about ‘cowards’ and how stupid it was, the people who saw the performances as fun and funny – must be living in a different sphere. It is incredible to think that some people just don’t care.
The lure of money can make a lot of companies forget where they stand on the issue of climate change. Apparently, this has happened to Tate. I believe that it’s time for Tate to divorce its relationship with BP.
Pingback: New publication on ‘culture beyond oil’ | Liberal Conspiracy
Corporations involvement with the Arts are nothing more than an extension to what Monarchies and Church patrons where before.An exact replica actually. Beautiful works where being made at the same time entire cultures where being robed and eliminated elsewhere. Fair game, protest is an wake up call for the Tate Institution aka corporation. Art movements are born to bring to light that Art isn’t a commodity of convenience.
Go for it guys. 6 years ago I had a complete melt down with Art and stopped working. One of the reasons for the break was exactly this. The other was the amount of ego involved. Anyhow, I’m glad I’m back and your group is around steering the ground.
Can Art survive without it?
Perhaps someone could suggest some other corporation or corporations that could sponsor Tate instead of BP? Of course, it would be a corporation without such an environmental footprint.