The campaign coalition Art Not Oil has published details of what it describes as the oil giant BP’s “corrupting influence” over the national museums and galleries that receive BP sponsorship, including alleged interference in curatorial decision-making and museum security.
A report published this week by Art Not Oil examines the corporation’s correspondence with its partner museums and galleries via documents and emails released under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act .
The report quotes an anonymous staff member from the British Museum describing BP as “extremely demanding of the museum – bullying I would say”.
In one email quoted in the report, the British Museum appears to seek approval from BP before acquiring a painting as part of its Indigenous Australia exhibition, writing: “We just wanted to make sure you had no objection to this.”
The British Museum said it strongly refutes the report’s allegations. A spokeswoman from the museum said the email regarding the acquisition of the painting was just an “update for the funders” after the museum’s initial plans to commission an original painting fell through.
Of the criticism from the museum's staff member, the spokeswoman said: “We have a positive ongoing relationship with BP and we do not recognise this description of our relationship.”
Art Not Oil’s report also highlights a close level of collaboration between BP and a number of museums on security issues, with a number of references to monitoring and managing anti-oil protests, including sharing intelligence on protest activities and holding joint briefings.
Following a vote by the Public and Commercial Services (PSC) Union to oppose oil sponsorship, BP sent an email to all of its cultural partners asking whether “there is an affiliation to this organisation within each of your respective establishments”.
A reply from the National Portrait Gallery confirmed that “some gallery employees” were members of the union and said that information had been shared with “a wider group of colleagues so that we can be prepared and ready for any potential impacts”.
The National Portrait Gallery said it “vigorously contests any allegations that it has been
placed under pressure from, or is unduly influenced by, BP”.
“The fact that some gallery staff are members of PCS and other unions is in the public domain and we have an excellent and open relationship with them,” he added.
But Chris Garrard, the author of the report, said: “Publicly-funded cultural institutions should not compromise their independence in any way on security matters - it is not their role to protect BP's reputation if BP's sponsorship does genuinely come with no strings attached.”
Art Not Oil says its findings are evidence that BP’s partner museums have breached of the Museums Association’s (MA) Code of Ethics. The campaign group has asked the MA’s Ethics Committee to consider the report at its next sitting in June.
“The evidence we've uncovered could be the first real test of the relaunched Code of Ethics and how it is applied in practice,” said Garrard. “Given that the British Museum and National Portrait Gallery are currently in discussions over whether to renew their contracts with BP, this is a timely and urgent debate.”
The MA’s policy officer Alistair Brown said: “The MA’s Ethics Committee will consider Art Not Oil’s claims and will contact all parties involved to seek their views.”
A report published this week by Art Not Oil examines the corporation’s correspondence with its partner museums and galleries via documents and emails released under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act .
The report quotes an anonymous staff member from the British Museum describing BP as “extremely demanding of the museum – bullying I would say”.
In one email quoted in the report, the British Museum appears to seek approval from BP before acquiring a painting as part of its Indigenous Australia exhibition, writing: “We just wanted to make sure you had no objection to this.”
The British Museum said it strongly refutes the report’s allegations. A spokeswoman from the museum said the email regarding the acquisition of the painting was just an “update for the funders” after the museum’s initial plans to commission an original painting fell through.
Of the criticism from the museum's staff member, the spokeswoman said: “We have a positive ongoing relationship with BP and we do not recognise this description of our relationship.”
Art Not Oil’s report also highlights a close level of collaboration between BP and a number of museums on security issues, with a number of references to monitoring and managing anti-oil protests, including sharing intelligence on protest activities and holding joint briefings.
Following a vote by the Public and Commercial Services (PSC) Union to oppose oil sponsorship, BP sent an email to all of its cultural partners asking whether “there is an affiliation to this organisation within each of your respective establishments”.
A reply from the National Portrait Gallery confirmed that “some gallery employees” were members of the union and said that information had been shared with “a wider group of colleagues so that we can be prepared and ready for any potential impacts”.
The National Portrait Gallery said it “vigorously contests any allegations that it has been
placed under pressure from, or is unduly influenced by, BP”.
“The fact that some gallery staff are members of PCS and other unions is in the public domain and we have an excellent and open relationship with them,” he added.
But Chris Garrard, the author of the report, said: “Publicly-funded cultural institutions should not compromise their independence in any way on security matters - it is not their role to protect BP's reputation if BP's sponsorship does genuinely come with no strings attached.”
Art Not Oil says its findings are evidence that BP’s partner museums have breached of the Museums Association’s (MA) Code of Ethics. The campaign group has asked the MA’s Ethics Committee to consider the report at its next sitting in June.
“The evidence we've uncovered could be the first real test of the relaunched Code of Ethics and how it is applied in practice,” said Garrard. “Given that the British Museum and National Portrait Gallery are currently in discussions over whether to renew their contracts with BP, this is a timely and urgent debate.”
The MA’s policy officer Alistair Brown said: “The MA’s Ethics Committee will consider Art Not Oil’s claims and will contact all parties involved to seek their views.”
