You are here

Art Not Oil - previous site "archive" - to 06th Oct 2013

Displaying 46 - 48 of 137

Museum drops sponsor over censorship concerns

Artist Larissa Sansour Speaks Out About Her Ejection From the Lacoste Art Prize for Being "Too Pro-Palestinian":


Oil sponsorship activism in Brazil in the museum of modern art in the digital culture festival. br. quart of oil dumped on the patrimonied floor of the museum. above thspiral patch, a poster: 'analog activism - Vale, Petrobras, telefônicaFord, IBM and politicians try to destroy the free and ancestral culture  pours oil under our feet.' as antagonists the companies that control almosall the Brazilian cultural funding
not only cultural, they grab all aspects of human life, natural resourceextracted in a predatory manner, ravaging and destroying the ecosystemproducing a lot of money that is not shared by all of us, appropriate thtechnology, holds the power of knowledge through their engineers antechnicians, funding to universities. at the end of the tip, invest in aironically elitist cultural production where we all end up being merconsumers of these resources, alienating even more people
recent episodes of catastrophe generated by these companies are Chevron OiSpill in Brazil, and years ago in the Gulf of Mexico, or the spilling oenriched uranium in Caetité (bahia), since the energy generated in thescorners need to be transported to other places in the world. after thspilling of nuclear radiation in Japan the country is studying to produchere their primary resources such as aluminum, much of the 'clean energythat we would produce with Belo Monte dam would be for dirty industriesfor export. carbon credit goes on the same line - 'clean' gringenvironmental damage by replanting with eucalypts. the construction oports and transcontinentals further enhance the power of those companiethat see their resources flowing more easily, thereby increasing theiexorbitant profits and with it the environmental destruction
occupations of squares, tactical media actions in museums are experimentof what's to come. the arrival of mega-events and the reality omegaempreendimentos cities are straining its inhabitants. the area o??culture is one of the layers of meaning which must be re-appropriatefrom this companies
another reference link:


New BP cash: failure of nerve by bosses of cultural institutions

'The announcement from BP that it plans to pump £10m into major arts institutions demonstrates a massively disappointing failure of nerve from the directors and trustees of those institutions. They have passed up an extraordinary opportunity to stand together with the arts community and other threatened essential services to tell the government that there this no shortage of wealth in this country, only a crisis born of inequality, militarism and mismanagement.'

Sam Chase, Art Not Oil, 19.12.12

Independent piece quotes Art Not Oiler, 27.12.11:

Tate has lost integrity over BP

by Mel Evans


It's wrong that sponsorship deals give corporate monoliths such a presence in our cathedrals of democracy

by Robert Newman

Artists and environmentalists reaction to BP arts sponsorship announcement

Artists and environmentalists have reacted angrily to an announcement this morning that BP will be pledging £10m over the next five years to sponsor the British Museum, the National Portrait Gallery, the Royal Opera House and Tate Britain.

The announcement from BP comes at a time when the sponsorship arrangements between oil companies and cultural institutions, in particular between BP and Tate, has become increasingly controversial. Earlier this month Tate head Nicholas Serota was handed a petition with more than 8,000 signatures from Tate members and visitors at the Tate members AGM calling on Tate to end its relationship with BP, while Tate Trustee Patrick Brill (aka Bob and Roberta Smith) was quoted as calling BP “a disgrace”.

Chris Sands, from art-activists Liberate Tate, who have carried out a number of unsolicited performance interventions in Tate spaces over BP-sponsorship said “Tate Board of Trustees should make the decision to refuse this dirty oil money. For too long the art museum has supported BP against the demonstrable wishes of so many thousands of Tate members and visitors as well as hundreds of artists. It is now up to the Tate governing body to demonstrate 21st century leadership and act on growing public concern by ending Tate’s relationship with BP not renewing it. Only by breaking its links with BP will the Tate Board be acting in the best interests of Tate and the arts as well as affected communities, future generations and the world we live in.” 

Kevin Smith from the art-campaign group Platform, and one of the editors of the recent publication, ‘Not if but when, Culture Beyond Oil’ said “By aligning themselves with BP, the British Museum, the National Portrait Gallery, the Royal Opera House and Tate Britain are legitimising the devastation of indigenous communities in Canada through tar sands extraction, the expansion of dangerous oil drilling in the Arctic, and the reckless business practices that lead to the deaths of 11 oil workers on the Deepwater Horizon. BP’s involvement with these institutions represents a serious stain on the UK’s cultural patrimony.

”At the Tate Members AGM on 2 December, Nicholas Serota announced that the decision over BP sponsorship was to be taken “quite soon” by Tate Trustees. Kevin Smith of Platform said: “We need to have clarity from Nicholas Serota about if this announcement is being made before the decision that he said Tate trustees would be making over BP sponsorship, or whether this decision is still going to be made. Part of the problem here is that public institutions are not being very transparent over controversial decisions in which there is a clear public interest.” 

For more information or comment call Mel Evans from Platform on 07790 430 620 
Or email 

*** ENDS *** 

Notes to the editor 

Patrick Brill quote – ‘Tate trustee reignites BP row ahead of Turner Prize’:

Quotes from Nicholas Serota at Tate Members AGM –