The environmental catastrophe caused by BP's oil spill in the Mexican Gulf has also shaken the arts world. With the petition to finish the sponsorship relationships between fuel-fossil industries and major arts organizations, arts and activism groups have gathered in the UK. During the last months, they have been carrying out a series of direct actions and attracting significant media attention. Their main target: Tate Gallery. The elegant confines and doors of the gallery have been scenario of protests and performance actions. To name a few: balloons filled with dead fishes hanging from the ceiling of the main hall; or rains of feathers and buckets filled with oil-like substances spilled across the pavement at the entrance - of the party celebrating 20 years of BP supporting Tate.
In connection to these events, common doubts about corporate funding and the integrity of the arts have come up to the surface, and the question about the arts “selling its soul” makes still part of the public discussion.
Arts between money and ethics: the moral dilemma
Businesses have come to play a significant role in supporting the arts through their corporate foundations, direct-giving programs, or marketing departments. As a branding strategy, the so-called "lethal generosity" by some marketing experts, generates credibility - and so income - through giving. One have the money and the other the talent, so either sides can take advantage of it.
Yet, a contradictory mixture of gratitude and resentment often builds up around this relationship of mutual benefit. It complicates further if the activity of any of the two parties plays against the interests of the other. And the chances of conflict will be at its most when politics and ethical principles come into play. As a consequence, artists - and organizations- are due to face moral dilemmas, and the artwork defines itself in a triangle of ethics, authenticity and money. The "paradox of patronage", as M. Garber puts it, strikes the ideal exchange. It reflects the double meaning of the word "patronizing" and the way patronage (government,business,institutions,organizations or individuals) influence the practice and reception of the arts.
A good example of this it's the story of the arts and activism group "Liberate Tate", whose origins call for thinking about the commodification of political art and the 'paradox' in patronage relationships.
Tate Modern asked John Jordan - a renowned artist and activist in the UK -to run a workshop for them called "Disobedience Makes History". Just before the workshop was due to start, he got an email from the Tate saying: "It is important to be aware that we cannot host any activism directed at the Tate or its sponsors". Right after, the workshop started with the email projected on to the wall and he invited the students to give their opinion: "The students, working on the principles of consensus decision-making, got really excited and came to the decision, after a lot of discussion, to stage an intervention". To the astonishment and worry of the gallery staff, "Liberate Tate" was then born. The result : Accussed of scrubbing the image of BP with 'progresive art', the gallery has got some of the worst publicity in its history.
Corporate sponsorship versus public funding in the financial crisis
The hard financial times we are living are calling for new streams of income. All around the globe and almost everywhere in Europe, ministries are cutting their subsidy schemes for cultural institutions.
Arts organizations rely on a blend of funds, a mix of public funding, earned income and private contributions. This multichannel financing together with the stability of some funding are vital factors for the arts to keep their independency, impartiality - as self-governing identities - and a more secure ground to take artistic risks and innovate.
Given the circumstances, national agencies cannot support the amount and needs of cultural organizations. The arts and culture sector is getting more and more dependent on private funding, and so corporate support has become a key element for the survival of the arts. This situation creates a scenario of potential benefits and potential risks: the corporate money acting as a safe-boat for the arts; and the influence of the corporate interest and its message over the creative, reflective or critical value of the artwork.
With a focus on the BP-Tate case, The Guardian publication has been recently covering this debate and collecting opinions of leading cultural figures :
"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."- ( Christopher Frayling, former chair, Arts Council England )
"What does BP get for its money?" Jonathan asks. Well, art acts as a great detergent, and being involved with a gallery enables the company to host glitzy events at which it can foster vital relationships with ministers, journalists and foreign dignitaries. Time was, BP would have to host such events in the halls of its Finsbury Circus head office; now, as a headline sponsor for major cultural exhibitions, it gets to use places such as the British Museum, where art openings are transformed into corporate shindigs. More than this, though, corporate sponsorship creates an insidious climate of self-censorship that keeps art trapped in the disease of representation: a tool for preserving the status quo rather than showing us how to live differently. At a time of systemic crisis we should be asking ourselves fundamental questions about the role of art, not just who funds it. It may depend on whether we choose to make art at the service of art, or art at the service of life." - ( John Jordan, artist and activist, member of 'Liberate Tate' )
Art as a luxury product
No doubt lawmakers are questioning themselves why the arts should receive money when so many other needs are pressing. This point cannot be separated from the general opinion; what is the popular belief about the arts and what ideas and circumstances are shaping this common belief.
In the US, where the funding model relies in the private support much more than in Europe, the figures from different surveys suggest that the population has contradictory thoughts and feelings about the arts:
Over 56% of those with an interest in the arts say they would generally buy a product sponsoring arts or cultural events over one that does not. In contrast, only 34% of America's Cup yachting enthusiasts and 17% of the '96 Olympic Games audience chose products based on their sponsorships. - [ Source: Performance Research ]
At the same time 96% of the people interviewed for a more recent survey looked highly upon the arts and agreed that these inspired their life. When the same subjects were previously questioned about how did they think artists contribute to society, a 27% of them answered that they could not see a big significant contribution to society from the artists. -[ Source: 'Patronizing the Arts', M.Garber ]
Through history until our present days, there has always been a tendency both to underestimate and overestimate art. In this way, works of art are aligned with possessions, objects, taste and desire - rather than being identified with values of progress, reason, logic or social welfare. We are used to see publicity, flattery and celebrity as part of the habitual currency of the arts market.
Contemporary art is not considered "work" by the larger audience and it fails to be identified with notions of scholarship, research or in connection to the progress of other sciences or the society at large. However, it becomes an object of desire when it gets certified as "art" by patronage, collectors or reviews.
Introducing CSR into the equation
The oil industry has been a main target for artists and activists since the 1990s. A massive boycott followed the scandals involving Shell with the Nigerian government's decision for the execution of campaigners against the devastation of the Niger-Delta by oil companies Shell and Chevron. After the deathly incident, Shell re-engineered its company along corporate social responsibility lines (CSR), which come up stronger to the public attention. In 2002, the accounting fraud known as the “Enron scandal” put the spotlight back on the ethics of the corporate world. Conversely, Enron – which collapsed under massive debts after becoming a symbol of corporate corruption- was very devoted to corporate philantropy, a million-donor of charity organizations and winner of CSR awards.
Certainly, companys can largely benefit from CSR publicity. With growing public awareness and demand for socially responsible businesses, not only does it improve brand image but also facilitates partnerships with governments,national institutions and international organizations ( e.g. Regency Foundation ).
In his recent paper “Recession: CSR is still good for business” Michael Hopkins asserts that ”there is little doubt that the lack of responsibility in markets, have led to today's current financial turmoil and recession in most international markets. The private sector has taken a huge blow but we cannot return to central control. CSR provides the elements of a solution especially since its ideas were largely ignored by many of the big financial players to date.”
The fundamental idea of CSR is that corporations are obliged to work for social improvement. Thus, they must adopt self-regulation mechanisms to monitor their activities keep in line with international laws and to take responsibility for the impact these have on the environment, consumers, employees, etc.
Yet, the legislation of some governments seems to be incompatible with the adoption of a genuine CSR: “CSR has not been given as much prominence, especially in the USA, simply because of the legal framework under which most corporations operate - US law actually inhibits executives and corporations from being socially responsible because the law baldly states that the purpose of the corporation is to make money for its shareholders, and any deviation from that could leave the corporation open to a lawsuit”.
Some conclusions:
The debate between corporate sponsorship and the integrity of the arts reflects one more of the many contradictions we need to face in the current financial and environmental crisis. It gives though an opportunity to examine the relationships given in patronages and to move away from the established patterns that inhibit the development of the arts and culture and society at large.
To achieve a patronage without patronization, artists must create - or demand- the chance to speak and advocate in coalition with their supporters ( gallerists, trustees, philantropists, business…).
The existence of public funding and government support is essential but the last tendencies for the arts and culture funding policies give way to wonder: What will be the consequences of the current cuts in the short and long term? Who will be affected by them? Is this model based in private funding just a consequence of the crisis? Will it remain and so be adopted like in other countries - e.g. US, Brazil? How are the sources of financing currently conditioning contemporary arts by disciplines, sectors and geography?
To find ways to continue public support, first, policymakers need to understand how the arts benefit government and citizens. The value of arts in society needs to be restated and put into practice. In the era of knowledge and creativity, it is responsibility of the governments to provide the necessary skills to the widest population through the affordable and free access to arts and arts education.
The adoption of CSR should be equal in all areas of social interest. The activities of corporations should be analyzed in the bigger economic picture and social context, and not just in their 'socially responsible' public side. Artists and cultural organizations can benefit themselves and the whole society by working in conjunction with those companys who hold a transparent and proven corporate citizenship track record.
References and sources:
Recession: Corporate Social Responsibility is still good for business!
Picture This: "The Official Sports Drink of the ......Symphony?"
Patronizing the Arts, by M. Garber.
The economic crisis and the prospects for art and culture in Europe: SICA report).
Crude awakening: BP and the Tate, variety of opinions.
The Economics of Arts, Artists, and Culture: Making a Better Case, by Prof. Ann Markusen
Crocodyle: Collaborative Research on Corporations
Con etiqueta:
corporate social responsibility, corporate sponsorship, csr, financial crisis and the arts, government support for the arts, integrity of the arts, patronage, public funding
LabforCulture es una iniciativa de la European Cultural Foundation. LabforCulture agradece el apoyo de sus financiadores.
On the other hand I think that art that can be sold (painting, photography etc) can be legitimate, and if there's still a concern about authenticity (Institutional /gallery expectations as the corruptive factor), then to try to shorten the intermediaries, by means of seeking smaller art spaces, not so dependent of big sums of money flow, can be one solution. To do so, then art as to be less overestimated, and consequently, cheaper. In fact, overestimation comes out as another paradox, when we notice as being still an effect of an ancient status, in ancient times where the artist was considered an intermediate between God and the physical world (a sort of Hermes without wings), allowing then the final output, art, to be enrichned with a semi-sacred aura : legitimation of high prices. As we all know, God is absent for long, so overestimation should be considered also a thing of the past. But because it still isn't, as art industry managed to cleverly preserve this status, by means of market speculation, a powerful engine that was able to subsititute the old value of uniqueness into the value of the sign (art =sign ; brand =sign), that's why is now art facing increasing funding difficulties. Finally, art should now address more effectively these 96% of people that say art inspire their lifes, with visual arts inspiring them through the eye, the same way music inspires through the ear, with less money in between. If we come to the conclusion that the world needs in fact LESS money, (this being the essential lesson taken from the current financial crisis), then hopefully the "high-culture" term will also become more and more obsolete.
Jaime Raposo | 24 ago 2010