Evil oil company sponsors Tate, is this a bad thing?
Discussion
Taken from the BBC news website
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment_and_arts/...
I fail to see what the big fuss is? Arn't these artists just biteing the hand that feeds them?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment_and_arts/...
I fail to see what the big fuss is? Arn't these artists just biteing the hand that feeds them?
Yes far better that BP gave more money to its shareholders.
Bp shareholders = Happy
Artist = Not happy as they like not being happy as all money is evil and to put a value on anything is an act of oppression to the common man. And they have a painting they did to show this and its yours for a mere £100K
Bp shareholders = Happy
Artist = Not happy as they like not being happy as all money is evil and to put a value on anything is an act of oppression to the common man. And they have a painting they did to show this and its yours for a mere £100K
Maxf said:
Artists are funny folk - where do they think the cash their wealthy sponsors give them comes from? Wealth isn't created through kind thoughts and kitten stroking.
To be fair in principle I don't think that should stop artists from criticising donors. I'd be interested to see how many of them turn down a cheque or a show at the Tate on principle though...I think it would be funny if BP sponsored the gallery on condition that they didn't display any work by sappy left wing hypocrits. Unfortunately Beyond Petroleum has spent the last few years positioning itself as the polar bear hugging oil company anyway, so they've only really got themselves to blame.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff


