Museums face ethics investigation over influence of sponsor BPInternal documents appear to show British Museum, National Portrait Gallery and others accommodating oil firm’s demands
The Museums Association is investigating claims that some of Britain’s most revered cultural institutions have broken its code of ethics in the way they dealt with one of their commercial sponsors, BP.
The move follows the release of internal documents seen by the Guardian that appear to show the British Museum, National Portrait Gallery and other institutions bending to accommodate the demands of the oil company.
The Art Not Oil alliance of campaign groups argues BP influenced curatorial decision-making, shaped cultural institutions’ security strategies and used museums to further its political interests in the UK and abroad.
Alistair Brown, policy officer at the Museums Association, said its code of ethics encouraged museums to act transparently and to only seek support from organisations whose values were consistent with their own.
“The Museum Association’s ethics committee will consider Art Not Oil’s claims if they wish to seek further guidance on this matter and will contact all parties involved to seek their views,” he added.
The documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act by the Art Not Oil alliance show:
The British Museum apparently gave BP the last word on the inclusion of an artwork in an exhibition of aboriginal art at a time when the company was trying to progress the controversial offshore Great Australian Bight project.
BP worked with cultural institutions to manage legitimate protests and successfully urged the British Museum and National Portrait Gallery to send staff to a counter-terrorism training programme it had set up.
The oil company requested information about the involvement of trade unions at the different arts institutions amid worry that their members might be opponents of fossil fuel arts sponsorship.
One email shows Pim Baxter, director of communications at the National Portrait Gallery, fighting off an attempt by BP to put its logo on the front of an NPG book about commissioning. BP responds: “OK to go on this occasion but one to discuss in our catch ups.”
In another the British Museum tells BP it has heard back from the Spinifex group of female, from the Great Victorian Desert of South Australia, who are offering one of their works to the museum.
The email, sent on 17 February 2014, has the names of the sender and recipient redacted but says: “The curator of the exhibition is keen to move forward with this so we just wanted to make sure you had no objection to this?”
Another email dated 26 February 2016 from BP, also with the name of the sender and the recipient (at the Scottish National Galleries) redacted, says: “I just wanted to flag up the attached intelligence which I am sure you are already aware of. It may be that this [campaign] group will try and give you some attention in the near future to attempt to influence sponsorship leanings.”
Another email from BP dated 20 May 2015 asks the National Portrait Gallery whether any staff are members of the PCS union, raising concerns that the labour group opposes oil sponsorship of arts institutions.
A response cc’d to Baxter says: “I believe the PCS union does represent some gallery employees … I have shared this information with a wider group of colleagues so that we can be aware and prepared for any potential impacts.”
Chris Garrard, lead author of the report, BP’s Cultural Sponsorship: A Corrupting Influence, and a part of the Art Not Oil campaign coalition, said he had little doubt the Museums Association’s code of ethics was being challenged.
“We’ve always known that BP uses sponsorship deals to buy a social legitimacy that it doesn’t deserve. But now we have specific evidence of where our museums and galleries have been complicit in advancing BP’s business interests and keeping the voices of the company’s critics in check,” he said.
He added: “How can we have trust in these institutions when they have repeatedly put BP’s needs before the public good?”
The issue of fossil fuel companies providing cash for the arts has become increasingly controversial but BP’s chief executive, Bob Dudley, insisted at the company’s annual general meeting two weeks ago that its sponsorship came “with no strings attached”.
The National Portrait Gallery dismissed the Art Not Oil claims. “The gallery was not pressured to attend an anti-terrorism meeting. On this occasion it was a Met police (Project Argus) organised awareness day at BP. We feel it is essential to take advice on security issues from all relevant parties and often meet with partner organisations on the planning for the safety of our visitors and guests at events and when the gallery is open to the public.”
BP said: “The company takes security very seriously; this includes the safety and security of guests and visitors to the museums that we support. BP invited, not pressured, our arts partners to a knowledge sharing event hosted in our offices by the Met police.”
On the use of its logo the oil company said: “BP and the National Portrait Gallery have a strong and longstanding relationship. The line you point to is nothing more than a discussion between partners on how to demonstrate that partnership on a relevant product.”
The British Museum categorically denied there was any curatorial interference in its displays. It added: “Corporate partners of the British Museum do not have any influence over the content of our exhibitions. The situation you reference concerns the acquisition of a work for the permanent collection, which was being generously supported by BP. Originally, the museum had hoped (with BP funding) to commission a new work from the Spinifex women painters group which would have been exhibited as part of the temporary exhibition Indigenous Australia: Enduring Civilisation and would have entered the permanent collection. Unfortunately, due to time constraints the group were unable to produce a new work but instead suggested several works already made which were available for sale that the museum could acquire. The curator decided on the particular work for the collection. The reference in the email therefore was an update for the funders on this change of plan. Without this support, the museum would not have been able to acquire a large collaborative painting such as this.”
A spokesman for the National Galleries of Scotland denied the oil company had put pressure on the arts organisation over security.
“In the correspondence referred to, advice that there might be some activity or ‘attention’ by the BP or Not BP group during the final days of the BP Portrait Award exhibition was sent by a representative of BP to staff at National Galleries of Scotland.
“This was something that the Scottish National Portrait Gallery was already mindful of and it’s difficult to see how it could be felt to represent undue influence. In the event a peaceful protest took place on 27 February.”
BP, which has recently severed its ties with Tate Britain and the Edinburgh International Festival for what it said were financial reasons, is not the only fossil fuel company to run into criticism over sponsorship.
In May last year Shell was accused of putting pressure on the Science Museum to influence a climate change exhibition it was sponsoring. The charge was denied by the company and the museum but within six months the partnership had been scrapped.
Art Not Oil is made up of various campaign groups including Platform, Tar Sands Network and Rising Tide. Protests against fossil fuel companies have grown over the last 18 months as oil, coal and gas groups are seen to be hindering the switch to low carbon fuels to counter global warming.
www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/apr/29/museums-ethics-investigation-influence-sponsor-bp-british-museum
*
