Corporate pays for a large share of public exhibitions in most countries.
The arrangement is usually described as support and is more precisely an exchange.
A company buys with an institution that the public trusts.
Museums have accepted this for a century and have recently found the terms harder to defend.
against sponsors from particular industries have succeeded in several large institutions.
The argument made was not that the money was dirty but that the was the product being sold.
Directors who defended the deals rarely argued the point and usually the budget.
That answer is honest and describes a policy failure rather than a moral position.
Public funding for exhibitions fell over two decades, and filled the space without any decision being announced.
Smaller institutions face the same pressure with less capacity to refuse.
A gallery with three staff cannot investigate a and cannot afford to decline one.
Sector-wide , rather than a decision by each institution, is the obvious answer and has been slow.
Artists occupy the least comfortable position in the argument.
A on principle is available to an artist with another income and expensive for one without.
Any serious position on therefore has to begin with who can afford to hold it.