Britische Museen, Theater und Galerien sind für ihren günstigen oder kostenlosen Eintritt berühmt. Da die staatliche Förderung abnimmt, unterstützen zunehmend Unternehmen die Künste. Doch sollte man von jedem x-beliebigen Sponsor Geld annehmen?
Campaigns against certain sponsors of the arts have gathered momentum, and institutions are buckling under the pressure. A minority group of activists think they speak for everybody — and they don’t, actually. What we do about the problem of global warming and environmentalism is not yet settled, for example. These issues need to be debated.
There’s a real danger of political conformity taking over the arts, in which only one message is allowed. It’s really reductive and not what most people want. Institutions are beginning to lose sight of their core purpose: to show or create good art and to put on great shows at reduced prices or for free. If you look at the Royal Shakespeare Company, for example, young people want to see a particular play, not be given a lecture. Sponsors put their logos all over the entry board of exhibitions. That’s entirely reasonable. And most people don’t care who is funding a show.
The British Museum and some of the other big institutions should concentrate on showing great art to the world. Otherwise, they risk their funds declining and their pool of donors getting smaller. Relying on particular funders rather than having many sources of funding means that you have to dance to their tune. Institutions should look for funders who support their core purpose.
When activists are criticizing you as a company, why would you want to get involved in an arts institution? The consequence is less money for the arts, which has a direct impact on what audiences can see, as well as the experimental nature of the artwork that could be put on show.
The key question that institutions need to ask about funding is does this advance the arts? It’s because they don’t lecture on ethics that museums and galleries have a trusted status with the public. If they start telling people what to think and how to live, and charging them more for it because they have less funding, that trusted status will wane.
And let’s not forget that the state is not always innocent, either. It may have blood on its hands, for example if you look at the Iraq War. And state funding for the arts and culture is falling. If campaigns against corporations keep happening, there will be an even further loss of funds. It’s profoundly serious. And not something that the majority of art lovers want to see happen.
Arts and cultural organizations have to exercise ethical judgement across all areas of their work. This should logically extend to how organizations are funded. In the UK, sector-wide institutions such as the Museums Association and the Institute of Fundraising agree that cultural organizations need to think carefully about ethics and exercise judgement about who they take money from. This means using due diligence and ensuring that the funding organization’s values are aligned with their own. It’s not about saying no to all corporate donations or depriving cultural institutions of funding. It’s a question of accountability and transparency about how institutions make their funding decisions. It’s about upholding the values that people in society, exhibitors and those organizations believe to be truly important.
Research shows that museums remain some of the most trusted institutions in society. They have a responsibility to demonstrate ethical leadership on issues such as human rights and the environment. It’s important that the artworks or objects on display are not being used as a branding device, which would risk undermining their value to challenge, provoke and create a space for debate.
We are living through a period of ethical realignment, with increasing recognition that there does need to be an ethical red line sometimes. The Royal Shakespeare Company recently ended its relationship with BP, not only because climate and sustainability are important values for them, but because their engagement with young people is very important. They felt that their relationship with BP was undermining this core value. Earlier this year, the Edinburgh Science Festival decided not to work with any fossil fuel companies because they felt that this sector of industry isn’t responding to the climate challenge fast enough.
If you look at any company, there will be things you might have concerns about. It is possible that engagement and partnership can cause positive change. However, it could also be that an institution working with a corporation gives the corporation a social legitimacy that allows them to continue to pollute, be damaging or destructive. Instead of supporting the arts as a whole, corporations often direct their funding towards a few institutions that give them and their brand the greatest benefit.