Use or abuse?

The term Lafferty uses to describe BP’s use of the Queens of Syria, is artwashing. As the term suggests, it means using art in some way to conceal or “wash away” any harm caused. It is an interesting phrase, but also hard to put to effect, because art is always used in some way: the art that is exhibited in the British Museum, the imagery that is used by BP or not BP, the Trojan stories that are adapted time and again; they are all put to use in some way. The question is whether this is to conceal harm? What do we consider harm? And when is someone consciously trying to wash this harm away?

When we look at the case of the Trojan horse and its original ancient context, we can construe the story in different ways. Certain fixed elements do not change: the Greeks build a wooden horse carrying Greek soldiers inside and present it as a gift to the Trojans, who take it inside the city walls, which leads to the fall of Troy. But there are numerous aspects that can change our understanding of the story. For example, words that are often used to describe the Greek action of presenting the Trojan horse are deceitful, underhanded, and devious. But one can just as easily hold this to be good craftsmanship, an original and effective way to win the war, the final stroke towards victory on the malicious Trojans. Stories like these always have more than one facet and a multitude of ways to interpret them, especially when it comes to conflict. In the case of BP or not BP, in their use of the Trojan horse narrative for their protest, they used the former interpretation: the Greeks deal a sneaky blow to the Trojans by handing them a gift-wrapped disaster. Of course, this is the rendition of the story that is best suited to their programme, as they attempt to put BP in place of the harmful Greeks, and the rest of humanity in place of the suffering Trojans. But when approaching the conflict with BP on one side, and BP or not BP on the other, it is just as possible to view BP or not BP as the aggressor and BP as the victim. BP or not BP has used the Trojan stories to accommodate its principles and objectives. And in fact, this can be compared to the way BP has used the Trojan stories in the exhibition to accommodate its principles and objectives. Zoe Lafferty coined these actions by BP to be artwashing, but then the question remains: can we call the use of the Trojan narratives by BP or not BP artwashing as well?

The simple answer is: yes, we can. There is no objective way to distinguish “good” use of the Trojan narrative from “bad” use. Whether we feel enthralled or repulsed by the recontextualization of a story comes down to our ideological principles. Currently the number of people who believe oil and gas giants are a negative influence on the world is increasing.For them it only makes sense to join BP or not BP in their cause, as they see the actions of BP as problematic, and its sponsorship as an act of artwashing. Still, people who are in favour of the sponsorship, who work in the fossil fuel industry or who do not believe climate change to be a problem, might see the exact opposite. Their ideology lies elsewhere. This is not a bad thing though: different renditions of stories, varying interpretations and ideological principles should not have to be objectively distinguished. Our own bias in favour of climate activism and against BP is probably very much apparent throughout the text of this story. It is the polysemy in translating these narratives that makes protests like the one of BP or not BP valuable and important.