The problem with art is that it costs money to produce. The problem with artists is that they need to eat.
These two facts mean the arts and artists are always on the lookout for patronage. In recent years it has been corporations that have been supplying the funds. But is cosying up with business such a good thing?
This year the major sponsor for the Edinburgh International Festival was Lloyds TSB.
According to the Executive Intelligence Review Lloyds TSB has “interlocking directorship relationships” with Royal Dutch Shell and British Petroleum.
As far as I know there has been no protest over Lloyds sponsorship of the famous festival. The same cannot be said for events that have been sponsored by BP and Shell directly.
In 2004 the popular Arts not Oil campaign led the criticism of BP’s “programme of blanket arts sponsorship”, which it claimed the oil company was using “to buy a social licence to operate.”
More recently, Guardian Unlimited blogger Natasha Tripney highlighted the ethical furore surrounding Shell’s sponsorship of the 2007 Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition.
Friends of the Earth announced that the role of the competition in “promoting wildlife protection to the public” had been “undermined by the Natural History Museum’s choice of sponsor. FoE said Shell is “one of the UK’s most environmentally destructive companies.”
Tripney also referred to Shell’s current sponsorship of a series of productions at the National Theatre, including Nicholas Hytner’s rendition of Much Ado About Nothing.
According to Tripney sponsorship of the arts by companies that might have a dubious environmental record, like Shell, leaves “many people feeling uneasy.” She bases this assumption on the response of a small number of activist groups, which have a vested interest in slagging off companies like Shell – doing so attracts new members and helps to legitimise the group’s existence. And I think the question needs to be asked, why didn’t they complain about Lloyds TSB sponsoring the Edinburgh International Festival?
I don’t doubt that some people take umbrage at Shell, full stop, and the company’s sponsorship of the arts in particular, but to say their number amounts to many is, I believe, misleading.
For a start Shell is one of the biggest multinational companies in the world. The company’s profits amounted to £7.1 billion for the first half of 2007. They didn’t make that kind of cash because people were boycotting their petrol stations.
Likewise I doubt the numbers of entrants to the 2007 Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition were affected because of Shell’s involvement in the competition.
What would be interesting to know is how effective such sponsorship is in “buying Shell a green image” as Friends of the Earth suggested. It would be surprising if anyone who thought Shell was a polluting company before this sponsorship, happened to have a change of heart after seeing Shell’s logo emblazoned next to the winning entries.
One interesting point made by Tripney was whether, in the context of its theatre sponsorship, “an explicitly critical play about Shell, or even a drama exploring the consequences of climate change, would really make it to the stage with the oil company’s blessing.” Only a truly blind optimist would have much faith in that happening.
But does this reality of arts sponsorship really constitute a moral dilemma or an ethical conundrum?
Corporate sponsorship is part of the marketing mix the way a Baron’s patronage was in days of yore. Why should anyone give someone money to make them look bad? If an institution or an artist is prepared to accept funding then it follows they will have to acquiesce to any conditions attached to it. Sponsorship comes with strings attached.
What is morally contemptible is when the ropes that restrict creativity are fastened in secret.
In the USA recently the band Pearl Jame had a small portion of its live podcast censored by telco sponsors AT&T. According to a bulletin posted on the band’s website:
“During the performance of ‘Daughter’ the following lyrics were sung to the tune of Pink Floyd’s ‘Another Brick in the Wall’ but were cut from the webcast: “George Bush, leave this world alone.” (the second time it was sung); and “George Bush find yourself another home.”
The censorship only came to light when fans alerted the band through their website.
The extent to which UK artists and arts organizations could be censored is difficult to gauge. These things only come to light if someone blows the whistle like Pearl Jam. Clearly the band is more worried about censorship than it is of losing sponsorship from AT&T.
If it is possible to rely on the findings of the 2006 Business 2 Arts National Arts Sponsorship survey for Ireland, it would seem that the majority of arts organizations that receive sponsorship are happy with their arrangements. In Ireland arts sponsorship increased by 14 percent in 2004 and continues to be on the rise.
In the UK the BBC reported that “commercial investment in the arts has doubled, reaching a total of £150m during 1999-2000.” In 2004 Arts Council England released figures to show “that the number of people in the UK who experience the arts regularly has increased by 800,000 since 2001.”
Whether we like corporate sponsorship of the arts or not, the show, thanks to [insert company name here] will go on.
