Thanks for this.

Is there any chance of focussing some campaigning attention on BP's relationship with the Tate, which is under threat at the moment, and with the contract between them set for renewal - or not - this year? I have this crazy idea that if all of us doing BP-related stuff focussed on one weak link between the company and its 'web', we could make something really historic happen!

Here's a call-out sent this week to artists and people working in the sector:

In the wake of BP’s Gulf of Mexico disaster, there is renewed energy
amongst artists and activists to prevent big oil companies from gaining
the social legitimacy that the don’t deserve by sponsoring cultural
institutions like the Tate.

A recent action during the Tate’s 10 year anniversary generated a lot of
public attention to the issue:
 http://artthreat.net/2010/05/tate_bp_intervention,
as well as internal debate within the Tate itself. More interventions like
this are in the pipeline, and there is a real sense of a critical mass
growing that could be enough to break the link between art and big oil.

We are looking to collect responses from people in the art world, be it
artists, critics, curators, academics, enthusiasts or working in art-based
institutions commenting on the sponsorship of art institutions like the
Tate in the UK by oil companies like Shell and BP.

We will collect these responses and publish them online, along with a
headshot (optional) and a one-line description of who made the statement.
Four or five them will also be collated as part of a 4 page briefing to be
published by Platform ( www.platformlondon.org ) on the subject.

We are looking for people to comment on a variety of aspects on the theme.
The responses could take on any of the following, but should not
necessarily be restricted by them:

* the specific link between BP and the Tate.
* more broadly on art institutions and oil companies, in light of climate
change.
* sponsorship by the likes of BP in light of the Gulf of Mexico disaster
*sponsorship by the likes of Shell in light of their ongoing operations in
the Niger Delta.
*sponsorship by the likes of BP and Shell in the context of both of their
activities in tar sands extraction in Canada – its impact on the climate
and indigenous communities.
*the parallels with tobacco sponsorship in sporting events in the past
*the context of cuts being made in the art world, the need for funding to
be maintained so that institutions are not under more pressure to accept
oil sponsorship
* the role of art in bringing about societal transformation in the threat
of climate change, and the contradiction of art being sponsored by those
who profit handsomely from climate change.
* any personal experiences of coming across this sort of sponsorship
andyour reaction to it

These responses would ideally be no longer than 200-300 words, but if you
are feeling particularly inspired, then please go for it! We are looking
for a variety of ‘names’ in the art world and also grassroots people.

We would need to receive statements that would be considered for the short
publication by Friday the 4th of June, but we will keep collecting
statements for web-based use after this point.

Please send the statements to:
 kevin@platformlondon.org, and cc.
 info@artnotoil.org.uk and  liberatetate@gmail.com

PLATFORM London
7 Horselydown Lane, London SE1 2LN
Tel: +44 (0)20 7403 3738
Email:  info@platformlondon.org
Web:  http://platformlondon.org
Blog:  http://blog.platformlondon.org

PLATFORM is a company limited by guarantee no. 2658515 and a
registered charity no 1044485.
-- ----------------------
Art Not Oil: for creativity, climate justice and an end to fossil fuel
industry sponsorship of the arts.
c/o 62 Fieldgate Street, London E1 1ES; 07709 545116
www.artnotoil.org.uk - send us your art!
www.risingtide.org.uk