Should arts organisations take money from anywhere they can get? That’s the question echoing through the arts sector this week, as BP’s sponsorship of large arts organisations (including Tate, National Portrait Gallery, Royal Opera House and the Cultural Olympiad) has become the subject of fierce debate and protests. Some commentators feel that arts organisations should occupy a moral high ground, and refuse to countenance sponsorship agreements with companies such as BP and Shell. As green and ethical concerns are increasingly the focus of talks about the arts, and art itself, this position makes sense. But the decision to cut ties to a sponsor based on their ethical credentials could also reinforce the perception that the arts occupy an ivory tower, divorced from the harsh reality of budget cuts and financial hardship. Some feel that beggars cannot be choosers, and that philanthropy is to be encouraged, full stop. One could plausibly argue, however, that the organisations in question are hardly short of a bob or two and could raise the money elsewhere – while keeping their principles in tact. The fact that unpopular companies benefit more from the association with a virtuous theatre or gallery than the organisation itself cannot be glossed over. There is no doubt that BP benefits from its sponsorship of the arts – it is a business not a philanthropic organisation, after all – but whether it benefits more than the organisations who take its money is harder to judge. Arts funding looks set to be hit hard in the autumn spending review, and with Hunt and Vaizey on the record as fans of philanthropy, smaller arts organisations cannot afford to be too picky. Does it have to be a question of morals versus money?