Well, his daughter was 16 when it happened and she said she was able to give consent. EDIT: (And she would have been over the age of consent today in I believe all European countries, or almost all).
@@skirmishj258 I'm simply saying that his daughters was of age of consent both in that time and today. I never said it was legal to sleep with your daughter. His daughter also said she consented, she wasn't forced.
As a British born half-Ukrainian I was cheering back in 1991 at Ukraine's new found independence and the toppling of Soviet-installed Lenin statues across the country because Lenin has no relevance to Ukrainians, except what was enforced on them by Soviet subjugation. I would have been a complete hypocrite if I had been against the toppling of the Colston statue in Bristol a few years ago because that was also pulled over by people for exactly the same reasons - and there had been plenty of opportunity for the council to have moved it to a museum with appropriate historical wordage attached to it. Many years ago, friends and I use to get tickets for Gary Glitter's Christmas shows prior to his arrest and subsequent conviction in 1997, and I don't think any of us have any of his music in our collections any more or any interest in playing any of it. I suspect the BBC have nothing to do with his music any more either. In 2012, the lead singer of the band The Lost Prophets was convicted of child abuse and imprisoned, the band immediately disbanded, took all of their music from streaming media and the BBC immediately banned their music from all of their stations. (I was never a fan of this band anyway, they had zero relevance to my existence.) On that basis, I think I would have to conclude that I would be a hypocrite if I was unhappy that Gill's art had been defaced, and I think the BBC is hypocritical having his statue outside one of their buildings. Music and sculpture are both "art" and you either hold all artists to account over their moral and criminal behaviours, or none of them - you don't "pick and choose" for the sake of convenience.
If we follow your logic we have to evaluate every piece of art to ensure that it was created by a worthy person. Of course opinions about worthiness and morality have changed over time. For example, art by famous homosexuals of the past, like Michaelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci, would have been destroyed decades ago. We would know nothing of the brilliance of da Vinci because his achievements would have been erased from history. Why stop there? Ferdinand Porsche the famous car designer, was a friend of Hitler, a Nazi and a member of the SS. Perhaps we should destroy every VW Beetle because he designed it. Or... we could separate the sins of the man from his achievements, like sensible people.
@@bookie5667 "If we follow your logic we have to evaluate every piece of art to ensure that it was created by a worthy person." Then don't follow my logic... what else do you want me to say here? I didn't read the rest of your comment.
I was certainly happy to see statues of Lenin & Stalin toppled, as well as Colston's and the various journeyman statues of Confederate generals in the USA. The statues were toppled not because of who made them, but because of whom and what they represented. They were none of them made by important artists and none of them are of any artistic significance. I should be perfectly happy to see the Albert Memorial removed - Saki has an amusing short story on the question. The question of good art made by an unpleasant individual is a wholly different one. Gill was a loathsome man, but he was in many respects an important artist. You yourself say that you found the music of Gary Glitter or The Lost Prophets wholly uninteresting, so why bring them up? Are they any loss? Francois Villon, Christopher Marlowe, Carravaggio, Wagner, Rodin, Picasso, the painter Francis Bacon, John Lennon - none of them led the sort of blameless life that you appear to have led. Should we rip or break up all their works, or refuse to perform them? I think you need to learn to distinguish between art that is good and art that is of no account, and to distinguish, too, between what is represented by certain work (which may be a good reason for getting rid of it) and the fact that certain works have been produced by artists of whose morals you disapprove. The world is very much more complicated than your last sentence presumes in its simplistic way. One last question: why do you inform us that you didn't read the rest of Bookie's comment? Are you perhaps afraid of being shown up?
There's separating art from the artist, and there's sexually abusing your own children, sisters, and dog. Murder, racism, etc are nowhere near as depraved. Especially when it comes to public art. Think also of the Colston statue etc, we seem to have a hierarchy of what is, and is not acceptable.
Ok @@GabrielNicho, it seems we operate on different moral frameworks. "... there's sexually abusing your own children, having a consensual incestual relationship with your sister, and sexually abusing your dog".
@@thomasb4152Nah, it's not different moral frameworks...it's about facts...there is no evidence that Gill abused his sister in any way or form. Whether incest is right or wrong is a moral issue...whether Gill raped or abused his sister is about facts and sources.
@@GabrielNicho chill out buddy. And I didn't say rape. I'm sorry if I offended you by including an incestuous relationship in with the artist's other documented abuse. Also, just because it's not documented doesn't necessarily mean it didn't happen. I would suggest you find more important things to get upset about
@@thomasb4152Nope, you didn't say rape...but others did. Also, there is some documentation.....Petra his daughter did say it was consensual and that she did not feel harmed...and according to Eric Gills diary the dog was into it and wanted to do it again............ and I'm not offended...it just seems people exaggerate so much, what Gill actually did. Gills daughter was 16 years old when it happened, Picasso had sex with an 11-12 year old girl, Gauguin with girls that were 10-11, and so on...why all this rage against Gill but nothing against Picasso and others? I just don't understand it...because it was his daughter? It's weird Gill gets called a pedophile when there is no evidence he was attracted or slept with prepubescents...while there is plenty of evidence others did.
I was sexually abused by my father & uncle as a child. I absolutely love Art, there's no way it should ever be defaced, damaged, destroyed, removed, or put into storage away from the public gaze. The art itself exists, it gives pleasure & inspiration, it creates thoughts & feelings, & points to study in education & contemplate. In this Woke era that we're living in the amount of art that's being destroyed and thrown away, like the statues in the rivers & the decapitation of some of them is absolutely appalling & devastating. Anyone doing this to Artworks should be brought to justice !!
I don't follow classical music as a rock and blues fan, so I've no real "skin in the game" - but you could argue that having extreme beliefs is a step down from actually harming others like Gill, Colston and Gary Glitter did.
Tibetan [colored]-sand mandalas are the polar opposite of a statue and should be mandatory at least once in every art class anywhere but not necessarily restricted to use of sand or Tibetan style, but maintaining ALL the meditative esthetic and psychological process behind creating and then destroying sand mandalas. But a key factor needs be that no image, record or photo of the created mandala should ever be created as a record of it before it is destroyed (because the whole point is for there to be no way of looking at the mandala image ever again and the creator/destroyer must solely rely on memory for that purpose (which is very important).
So here's the question. Why isn't the BBC pushing Rolf Harris's art? Why isn't the BBC playing Gary Glitter's music? So why is it pushing paedophilic art? I notice that the prudential building in holborn has had the paedophic art work on its front removed. That's grade 1 listed so there's no problem there.
Rolf Harris' art is second rate while his performance was ace. Gary glitter's work is perhaps slightly different as he had a number of significant songs, but again, the performnce dominates. as the performance is linked to the criminal, it is understandable they are avoided. In this case, we are looking at something independent of the criminal, left behind and indeed a great work of art in and of itself. There is a big difference though elements of the debate pertain to all these people.
@@ProfessorTimWilson The problem with your argument is that you are making a judgement based on your values. Others may well make a different value judgement about Harris and Glitter. So apply your logic, Glitter and Harris work stays. People who think Gills art is crap and in the case of the statue it is crap art, get to decide its destroyed/banned etc. You cannot separate the work from the behaviour when its a statue of a man with a child to all intents and appearances. [And I do know about Ariel and Prospero] So it needs to go. The error of spider man,was in not having a couple of electric drills and masonary bits, coupled with a hammer and some feather and wedges. [1] That combination would have had it dealt with in minutes [1] Google is your friend.
@@Nickle314 Spot on! Because one work/object pleases the senses it is deemed worthy of preserving is not ethical or moral. This is the ideology that has come to plague the current state of many western societies and will be their downfall.
People need to be taught that just because someone does great (or medium) works or deeds or makes a good amount of money and/or receives multiple praise doesn't make that person a better person or even a better artist just because that individual's good side is popular or liked. Everyone has a bad side AND a dark side and a good side AND a great side. How big each of the four sides is, depends on the time and space and history and moment in said persons'-involved existences.
Hello Prof. Tim, I think that it should be considered what this Eric Gill sculpture depicts (a naked child) and it’s relevance to the actions of those at the BBC involved in abuse over many years, that make this “piece of art” a target for actions to damage and its eventual removal.
For years most people knew nothing of Gill and certainly not his dark side. However most would appreciate his sculpture incorporated into the facade of an art deco building as they passed by, so why now would they feel compelled to destroy it ? I think it tells us as much about them and their mindset as the artist, who might have been anonymous just as easily.
Exactly. Same as their use of his fonts. That's just the BBC sticking two fingers up to the public. There are other fonts they could use but they pick his.
@@Nickle314 the BBC has been using it's own bespoke font, BBC Reith, for several years. Perhaps you should check your facts before making childish comments.
I am not sure about Caravaggio being classed as a mobster, or, given his surroundings, calling him a murderer as if he was regularly killing people, however, aside to this view and more in line with art and morals, it is well worth listening to the David Bowie interviews called Religion is dead and it lies in the Arts. He references very well the dilemma that is created by the internet, the challenge of being confronted by multiple answers, ethics and moral stand points, when there was once one or two options within a short life, we are now convinced by multiplex ethics over a longer life span. It is going to get worse, far worse, because the technology is quicker than education and the proximity to this media is now from birth.
I still find it difficult to grasp Britain's social and cognitive immaturity, and Gill isn't the first example of this handwringing. The solution is simple - we acknowledge his failures and crimes, yet admire his art - two conflicting ideas. Sophisticated adults should be able to do this without a problem.
If we destroyed all the work created by artists with a depraved nature we'd have a large gap which we would sorely miss. Gill is a classic example, a mountain of work from illustration, sculpture and calligraphy, much of it with biblical connotations. All worthy of attention, showing a strength of design and intelligence well beyond the norm. As is now clear, in private he was a nasty character who should have been charged but he certainly wasn't alone in avoiding his fate and his work should not be made to pay the price now.
"If we destroyed all the work created by artists with a depraved nature we'd have a large gap which we would sorely miss"? Are you serious? Some terrible people produced work of quality, but one should not excuse their appalling, criminal behaviour with trying to offset that with some apparently good creative work. It is indeed odd that we should even try to separate bad people from their good artistic work. It is part of a single package. A monster is a monster, whether they can draw, paint, sculpt, write, etc well or not. Art can be wonderful, but it is not more important than humans and their lives with others.
@@padraigohooligan8363 Yes I am serious. You would destroy great works of art because of what you know, or have been told, about the artist. And what if you had never been told or time had obscured any certainty or maybe the work was anonymous and a name cannot be put to the work. Most people hadn't heard of Gill or his private life until recently and now some want to reek havoc on his legacy. The man is dead and gone,enough
@@padraigohooligan8363 so you would destroy the work of a stone mason that carved gargoyles for Notre Dame Cathedral because he was a murderer. That's the logical outcome of you're proposal. Perhaps we should create committees tasked with examining the worthiness of everyone who participated in creating art for important landmarks, like Westminster Abbey. Perhaps we should also consider the worthiness of peoole that commissioned the art too.... Like the Medici family of Florence.....a horrible family who paid for some of the most fantastic renaissance art. What a ludicrous idea. No. Art should be considered on it's merits irrespective of who created it, who paid for it etc.
Art is never finished but abandoned, when art is abandoned the death of the artist has occurred and the art must stand by itself to be interpreted by the viewer. When the viewer becomes the artist adding to the abandoned art is fair game in certain instances. Like a hammer to a chomo’s work that the BBC seem to have form for encouraging. That statue was public-funded by the way, only fair we the public can modify it hahaa!
There is a difference between art created by an evil person and art that is inspired by an artist's evil. Gill's BBC sculpture is probably the latter and needs to go.
Does nobody notice that this shows a naked child being held my a man, and there's a flute? (And we know what that's a slang term for.) Doesn't this suggest something?
@@timothyharris4708 th-cam.com/channels/qJig9BSAXB30lXACH9K5nQ.html It's about history, mostly the Old Norse and the so-called Viking Age, though I look at other topics as well.
@@timothyharris4708 I thought I replied but I'm not seeing it, so maybe it didn't send. Denton's Tales is basically about history, especially the Old Norse and the s0-called Viking Age, as well as other topics, and I try to give the correct facts rather than what is often seen as the truth. www.youtube.com/@dentonstales2778/videos
Gill was an odious child abuser. Picasso wasn't much better than Gill although I think he drew the line at buggering the family dog. Gaugin was a child abuser. Handel reputedly defenestrated a woman who annoyed him. Larkin was an unrepentant racist. Marvin Gaye beat up women. Koestler was a violent serial rapist. Do we expunge all traces of them from our culture? Something I treasure is a Christmas card from my late mother. It's an Eric Gill design. I will not be destroying it but when I look at it, I am aware of Gill's crimes (my mother wasn't, she sent that card to me before his crimes were known). I think we should be aware of what these men did without destroying their work. I do not have a problem with destroying their personal reputations. No-one can deny Gill was a great artist but we cannot say he was a great man.
And Bernini, one of the greatest sculptors ever to have lived, had the face of his mistress slashed with a knife because she had been having an affair with his brother, and so that her beauty should be destroyed. He also very nearly killed his brother.
@@padraigohooligan8363 Well, the simplest thing way, Padraig, if you are so exercised by the matter, is to restrain yourself from looking upwards as you pass by the main door of the BBC.
If we didn't separate art from the artist, there would be little left to enjoy. While I think you're overegging the importance of Rolf Harris, I absolutely understand the point you're making. How dead does someone have to be before we ignore the less-savoury aspects of their character. Admittedly, I don't know when Caravaggio died, but I do know it wasn't within my lifetime (I'm 47). Should we wait 200 years or so before allowing a re-evaluation of a troubled artists work?
I do not understand how people think that vandalising artworks compensates for the apparent sins of the artist. As you say Dr Wilson, Gill's contributions to 20th century art in Britain are immeasurably important, and should be protected. Those who choose to deface artworks should suffer the consequences.
Such is the complexity of our all too human nature that cleaves heart and mind. To whatever end purpose such bifurcation serves therein, there too. no doubt, lies divine majestic spark within mankind; all appropriate reason's arena of freedom.
@@ProfessorTimWilson Here is a short list for starters but there is much more: The destruction of the Weimar “Republic” and the creation of the most powerful nation in Europe in less than 5 years The Autobahn The Volkswagen (you got one right, apart from the spelling.) The 40-hr work week in Europe Overtime The Flag of the party The uniforms of the party organizations Paid vacations Pensions for mothers who had lots of children The Havaara Agreement Anti-smoking and anti-alcohol campigns Animal and environmental protection laws Employment protection for Negroes Created the most diverse, multicultural, multiethnic army in history Thwarted Stalin's plan to invade Europe Created the greatest political expression of anti-racism in history (yes, really) Granted citizenship to numerous Jews and allowed them to serve in the Wehrmacht
It's laughable how the same people who were incensed when protestors threw a statue of Colston into Bristol docks are apparently just as incensed that the BBC hasn't done something similar to Gill's art! However, I think the detinction is obvious:- in the first example the statue commemorates / honours an individual, in the second we're admiring the work OF an individual. We should treat these two things very differently, eg move controversial statues to museums, but leave the artwork alone.
I see no distinction and, as I said in my main comment, as a British born half-Ukrainian who cheered when Ukrainians pulled down statues of Lenin installed by their Soviet subjugators when they got independence in 1991, I'd be a hypocrite to believe such a distinction exists between the two - Colston made money from slavery, Gill abused kids. How would you feel if someone walked into your home and started playing a Gary Glitter or Lost Prophets song on your music system?
Nah. It's not good art. It just shows the BBC's priorities. Take their use of his fonts. Are there alternatives? yes. But they persist in pushing his work.
It's difficult. In Germany it is illegal to show the National Socialist swastika, previously an ancient religious symbol. Although he himself acknowledged that he was only a very mediocre artist, I've seen some of Hitler's architectural drawings. They're not bad actually. The Nazis inspired alot of art. Most of it is awful, some is quite good. But I don't think it would be possible to show any of it in public.
If that statue stands for something through rumours for something more sinister and nefarious then the question is why is that statue there in the first place considering that we pay for the BBC! The BBC could tell the public what that statue stands for and put the gossip to rest!! Vandalism is definitely not welcomed here but it’s strange how so many people question that particular statue! Are people even aware of who Gill even was???
Not to excuse him in any way I find this sort of behaviour oportunistic. A good example of your point is surely that one hears little or no comment, about the behaviour of Simone de Beauvoir and Jean Paul Satre (in similar discussions), both active abusers and political supporters of pedophilia and the importance of their work or their reputation. There are many other similar examples if you choose to look.
Not a fan of the BBC but this statue has just been repaired. The person responsible for the vandalism should be made to pay for the repair. Evil, as well as good resides within us all.
The offences of both Saville and Harris were facilitated by their work and by the popularity that it generated. Therefore that work is tainted.. Gill's offences were private within the family (and apparently consensual). The artwork is not only of an extremely high standard but also unique in British 20th Century Art and Design, both in process and style. The artwork does not link directly to Gill's offences (in contrast to Gauguin's), though of course they are manifestations of the same personality. "Prospero and Ariel" should probably be removed to protect it from iconoclastic destruction, not as a pointless gesture of moral outrage.
When those incapable of giving consent are abused by those who do not seek it, it is not a private life, it is criminal.
Nobody is denying that.
Well, his daughter was 16 when it happened and she said she was able to give consent. EDIT: (And she would have been over the age of consent today in I believe all European countries, or almost all).
@@GabrielNicho I didn't realize you could sleep with your own father in the UK, interesting! As long as you give consent I suppose it's alright.
@@skirmishj258 I'm simply saying that his daughters was of age of consent both in that time and today. I never said it was legal to sleep with your daughter. His daughter also said she consented, she wasn't forced.
To paraphrase him slightly, “Can you see what he is yet?”
I love Rolf's Art. He painted a gorgeous depiction of Uluru. I also loved the Rolfaroo kangaroo.
You have highlighted a fascinating dichotomy here Tim. Food for thought. Thank you sir.
As a British born half-Ukrainian I was cheering back in 1991 at Ukraine's new found independence and the toppling of Soviet-installed Lenin statues across the country because Lenin has no relevance to Ukrainians, except what was enforced on them by Soviet subjugation.
I would have been a complete hypocrite if I had been against the toppling of the Colston statue in Bristol a few years ago because that was also pulled over by people for exactly the same reasons - and there had been plenty of opportunity for the council to have moved it to a museum with appropriate historical wordage attached to it.
Many years ago, friends and I use to get tickets for Gary Glitter's Christmas shows prior to his arrest and subsequent conviction in 1997, and I don't think any of us have any of his music in our collections any more or any interest in playing any of it. I suspect the BBC have nothing to do with his music any more either.
In 2012, the lead singer of the band The Lost Prophets was convicted of child abuse and imprisoned, the band immediately disbanded, took all of their music from streaming media and the BBC immediately banned their music from all of their stations. (I was never a fan of this band anyway, they had zero relevance to my existence.)
On that basis, I think I would have to conclude that I would be a hypocrite if I was unhappy that Gill's art had been defaced, and I think the BBC is hypocritical having his statue outside one of their buildings.
Music and sculpture are both "art" and you either hold all artists to account over their moral and criminal behaviours, or none of them - you don't "pick and choose" for the sake of convenience.
If we follow your logic we have to evaluate every piece of art to ensure that it was created by a worthy person. Of course opinions about worthiness and morality have changed over time. For example, art by famous homosexuals of the past, like Michaelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci, would have been destroyed decades ago. We would know nothing of the brilliance of da Vinci because his achievements would have been erased from history.
Why stop there? Ferdinand Porsche the famous car designer, was a friend of Hitler, a Nazi and a member of the SS. Perhaps we should destroy every VW Beetle because he designed it.
Or... we could separate the sins of the man from his achievements, like sensible people.
@@bookie5667 "If we follow your logic we have to evaluate every piece of art to ensure that it was created by a worthy person."
Then don't follow my logic... what else do you want me to say here?
I didn't read the rest of your comment.
I was certainly happy to see statues of Lenin & Stalin toppled, as well as Colston's and the various journeyman statues of Confederate generals in the USA. The statues were toppled not because of who made them, but because of whom and what they represented. They were none of them made by important artists and none of them are of any artistic significance. I should be perfectly happy to see the Albert Memorial removed - Saki has an amusing short story on the question.
The question of good art made by an unpleasant individual is a wholly different one. Gill was a loathsome man, but he was in many respects an important artist.
You yourself say that you found the music of Gary Glitter or The Lost Prophets wholly uninteresting, so why bring them up? Are they any loss?
Francois Villon, Christopher Marlowe, Carravaggio, Wagner, Rodin, Picasso, the painter Francis Bacon, John Lennon - none of them led the sort of blameless life that you appear to have led. Should we rip or break up all their works, or refuse to perform them?
I think you need to learn to distinguish between art that is good and art that is of no account, and to distinguish, too, between what is represented by certain work (which may be a good reason for getting rid of it) and the fact that certain works have been produced by artists of whose morals you disapprove. The world is very much more complicated than your last sentence presumes in its simplistic way.
One last question: why do you inform us that you didn't read the rest of Bookie's comment? Are you perhaps afraid of being shown up?
Your logic is sound, I’m concerned that loons will start with slavery etc. there will be nothing left…
Rome wasn’t built in a day
There is nothing common about sense, 👌
There's separating art from the artist, and there's sexually abusing your own children, sisters, and dog. Murder, racism, etc are nowhere near as depraved. Especially when it comes to public art. Think also of the Colston statue etc, we seem to have a hierarchy of what is, and is not acceptable.
What is the source for Gill abusing his sister? Every source states it was a consensual relationship...and his sister was known as a rebel.
Ok @@GabrielNicho, it seems we operate on different moral frameworks.
"... there's sexually abusing your own children, having a consensual incestual relationship with your sister, and sexually abusing your dog".
@@thomasb4152Nah, it's not different moral frameworks...it's about facts...there is no evidence that Gill abused his sister in any way or form. Whether incest is right or wrong is a moral issue...whether Gill raped or abused his sister is about facts and sources.
@@GabrielNicho chill out buddy. And I didn't say rape. I'm sorry if I offended you by including an incestuous relationship in with the artist's other documented abuse. Also, just because it's not documented doesn't necessarily mean it didn't happen. I would suggest you find more important things to get upset about
@@thomasb4152Nope, you didn't say rape...but others did. Also, there is some documentation.....Petra his daughter did say it was consensual and that she did not feel harmed...and according to Eric Gills diary the dog was into it and wanted to do it again............ and I'm not offended...it just seems people exaggerate so much, what Gill actually did. Gills daughter was 16 years old when it happened, Picasso had sex with an 11-12 year old girl, Gauguin with girls that were 10-11, and so on...why all this rage against Gill but nothing against Picasso and others? I just don't understand it...because it was his daughter? It's weird Gill gets called a pedophile when there is no evidence he was attracted or slept with prepubescents...while there is plenty of evidence others did.
I was sexually abused by my father & uncle as a child. I absolutely love Art, there's no way it should ever be defaced, damaged, destroyed, removed, or put into storage away from the public gaze. The art itself exists, it gives pleasure & inspiration, it creates thoughts & feelings, & points to study in education & contemplate. In this Woke era that we're living in the amount of art that's being destroyed and thrown away, like the statues in the rivers & the decapitation of some of them is absolutely appalling & devastating. Anyone doing this to Artworks should be brought to justice !!
I am so sorry to hear your story but so pleased you make such a distinction between the artist and the art
Good people are capable of horrifying deeds and vice versa.
No. No, they aren't. "Horrifying deeds"?
Good people do not do these things. He was evil.
Regards from Serbia, glad you had know Bishop Kallistos Ware who is sadly not with us any more... thank you for your presentations!!!🙂
Love the green on green attire .
🩳 💚🖤💚🖤💚🖤💚🖤💚🖤💚🖤💚🖤💚🖤💚🖤💚🖤💚🖤💚🖤💚
You look so nice in green .
How can people vandalise artwork in moral judgement of the artist? Wait, what did he do to the dog?
@@integralevideo Eesh
We are happy to listen to (or suffer if you are George Bernard Shaw) the music of Richard Wagner, a rampant anti-semite.
Wagner is another good example. Without Wagner, we would not have film music! that damns Star Wars and the left motif for Darth Vader!
I don't follow classical music as a rock and blues fan, so I've no real "skin in the game" - but you could argue that having extreme beliefs is a step down from actually harming others like Gill, Colston and Gary Glitter did.
Tibetan [colored]-sand mandalas are the polar opposite of a statue and should be mandatory at least once in every art class anywhere but not necessarily restricted to use of sand or Tibetan style, but maintaining ALL the meditative esthetic and psychological process behind creating and then destroying sand mandalas. But a key factor needs be that no image, record or photo of the created mandala should ever be created as a record of it before it is destroyed (because the whole point is for there to be no way of looking at the mandala image ever again and the creator/destroyer must solely rely on memory for that purpose (which is very important).
So here's the question. Why isn't the BBC pushing Rolf Harris's art? Why isn't the BBC playing Gary Glitter's music?
So why is it pushing paedophilic art?
I notice that the prudential building in holborn has had the paedophic art work on its front removed. That's grade 1 listed so there's no problem there.
Rolf Harris' art is second rate while his performance was ace. Gary glitter's work is perhaps slightly different as he had a number of significant songs, but again, the performnce dominates. as the performance is linked to the criminal, it is understandable they are avoided. In this case, we are looking at something independent of the criminal, left behind and indeed a great work of art in and of itself. There is a big difference though elements of the debate pertain to all these people.
@@ProfessorTimWilson The problem with your argument is that you are making a judgement based on your values.
Others may well make a different value judgement about Harris and Glitter.
So apply your logic, Glitter and Harris work stays.
People who think Gills art is crap and in the case of the statue it is crap art, get to decide its destroyed/banned etc.
You cannot separate the work from the behaviour when its a statue of a man with a child to all intents and appearances. [And I do know about Ariel and Prospero]
So it needs to go. The error of spider man,was in not having a couple of electric drills and masonary bits, coupled with a hammer and some feather and wedges. [1]
That combination would have had it dealt with in minutes
[1] Google is your friend.
@@Nickle314 Spot on! Because one work/object pleases the senses it is deemed worthy of preserving is not ethical or moral. This is the ideology that has come to plague the current state of many western societies and will be their downfall.
0:47 - *_"Experiments"_* with his dog?... never heard it called *that* before!
Eric Gill was a extremely sick individual
I'll give up using Gill sans in my personal demonstration.... Who designed Helvetica is that a safe one.
Demons have much to teach.
People need to be taught that just because someone does great (or medium) works or deeds or makes a good amount of money and/or receives multiple praise doesn't make that person a better person or even a better artist just because that individual's good side is popular or liked. Everyone has a bad side AND a dark side and a good side AND a great side. How big each of the four sides is, depends on the time and space and history and moment in said persons'-involved existences.
Can’t make fine art without breaking a few eggs.
Some people are lacking consideration and critique their inadequacies not their aptitude
What if he had molested you, or your daughters???
I wish they'd move it. I don't want it destroying, but I find it creepy.
It looks exactly like the kind of statue a child abuser would make....
Hello Prof. Tim, I think that it should be considered what this Eric Gill sculpture depicts (a naked child) and it’s relevance to the actions of those at the BBC involved in abuse over many years, that make this “piece of art” a target for actions to damage and its eventual removal.
For years most people knew nothing of Gill and certainly not his dark side. However most would appreciate his sculpture incorporated into the facade of an art deco building as they passed by, so why now would they feel compelled to destroy it ? I think it tells us as much about them and their mindset as the artist, who might have been anonymous just as easily.
Exactly. Same as their use of his fonts. That's just the BBC sticking two fingers up to the public. There are other fonts they could use but they pick his.
@@Nickle314 Well, I hope the BBC continue to stick two fingers up to you.
@@Nickle314 the BBC has been using it's own bespoke font, BBC Reith, for several years. Perhaps you should check your facts before making childish comments.
@@bookie5667 Last time I looked at their source, Gill Sans was rampant.
I am not sure about Caravaggio being classed as a mobster, or, given his surroundings, calling him a murderer as if he was regularly killing people, however, aside to this view and more in line with art and morals, it is well worth listening to the David Bowie interviews called Religion is dead and it lies in the Arts. He references very well the dilemma that is created by the internet, the challenge of being confronted by multiple answers, ethics and moral stand points, when there was once one or two options within a short life, we are now convinced by multiplex ethics over a longer life span. It is going to get worse, far worse, because the technology is quicker than education and the proximity to this media is now from birth.
I still find it difficult to grasp Britain's social and cognitive immaturity, and Gill isn't the first example of this handwringing. The solution is simple - we acknowledge his failures and crimes, yet admire his art - two conflicting ideas. Sophisticated adults should be able to do this without a problem.
You're a p.o.s. he deserves no recognition. He is the worst humanity has produced. You are defending a demon.
If we destroyed all the work created by artists with a depraved nature we'd have a large gap which we would sorely miss. Gill is a classic example, a mountain of work from illustration, sculpture and calligraphy, much of it with biblical connotations. All worthy of attention, showing a strength of design and intelligence well beyond the norm. As is now clear, in private he was a nasty character who should have been charged but he certainly wasn't alone in avoiding his fate and his work should not be made to pay the price now.
"If we destroyed all the work created by artists with a depraved nature we'd have a large gap which we would sorely miss"? Are you serious?
Some terrible people produced work of quality, but one should not excuse their appalling, criminal behaviour with trying to offset that with some apparently good creative work.
It is indeed odd that we should even try to separate bad people from their good artistic work. It is part of a single package.
A monster is a monster, whether they can draw, paint, sculpt, write, etc well or not.
Art can be wonderful, but it is not more important than humans and their lives with others.
@@padraigohooligan8363 Yes I am serious. You would destroy great works of art because of what you know, or have been told, about the artist. And what if you had never been told or time had obscured any certainty or maybe the work was anonymous and a name cannot be put to the work. Most people hadn't heard of Gill or his private life until recently and now some want to reek havoc on his legacy. The man is dead and gone,enough
@@padraigohooligan8363 so you would destroy the work of a stone mason that carved gargoyles for Notre Dame Cathedral because he was a murderer. That's the logical outcome of you're proposal. Perhaps we should create committees tasked with examining the worthiness of everyone who participated in creating art for important landmarks, like Westminster Abbey. Perhaps we should also consider the worthiness of peoole that commissioned the art too.... Like the Medici family of Florence.....a horrible family who paid for some of the most fantastic renaissance art. What a ludicrous idea.
No. Art should be considered on it's merits irrespective of who created it, who paid for it etc.
@@padraigohooligan8363 Nobody is excusing the 'appalling criminal behaviour' of anyone by appealing to the art that that person produced.
@@bookie5667 You are resorting to a reductio ad absurdum logical fallacy, but you have the right to your view.
Art is never finished but abandoned, when art is abandoned the death of the artist has occurred and the art must stand by itself to be interpreted by the viewer.
When the viewer becomes the artist adding to the abandoned art is fair game in certain instances. Like a hammer to a chomo’s work that the BBC seem to have form for encouraging. That statue was public-funded by the way, only fair we the public can modify it hahaa!
I think that the fact that G was a paedophile put him in a v different place of depravity and criminality.
There is a difference between art created by an evil person and art that is inspired by an artist's evil. Gill's BBC sculpture is probably the latter and needs to go.
How is it inspired by Gill's 'evil'?
Lessons should not be forgotten but critiqued
It was the BBC that wanted that type of sculpture....it was a commission....
Get it gone! There are better artists who can embody a more positive message through their work
Complete nonsense, who are these artists who could do better and do we know their sins ?
Does nobody notice that this shows a naked child being held my a man, and there's a flute? (And we know what that's a slang term for.) Doesn't this suggest something?
Read The Tempest again for the symbolism. It's not what you think.
@@RadioJonophone Given his behaviour, it almost certainly is.
To a certain kind of mind, perhaps. As a matter of interest what are Denton's 'Tales' about?
@@timothyharris4708 th-cam.com/channels/qJig9BSAXB30lXACH9K5nQ.html It's about history, mostly the Old Norse and the so-called Viking Age, though I look at other topics as well.
@@timothyharris4708 I thought I replied but I'm not seeing it, so maybe it didn't send. Denton's Tales is basically about history, especially the Old Norse and the s0-called Viking Age, as well as other topics, and I try to give the correct facts rather than what is often seen as the truth. www.youtube.com/@dentonstales2778/videos
Gill was an odious child abuser. Picasso wasn't much better than Gill although I think he drew the line at buggering the family dog. Gaugin was a child abuser. Handel reputedly defenestrated a woman who annoyed him. Larkin was an unrepentant racist. Marvin Gaye beat up women. Koestler was a violent serial rapist. Do we expunge all traces of them from our culture? Something I treasure is a Christmas card from my late mother. It's an Eric Gill design. I will not be destroying it but when I look at it, I am aware of Gill's crimes (my mother wasn't, she sent that card to me before his crimes were known). I think we should be aware of what these men did without destroying their work. I do not have a problem with destroying their personal reputations. No-one can deny Gill was a great artist but we cannot say he was a great man.
" Do we expunge all traces of them from our culture?" No, but we don't have to have such material clearly on public display.
And Bernini, one of the greatest sculptors ever to have lived, had the face of his mistress slashed with a knife because she had been having an affair with his brother, and so that her beauty should be destroyed. He also very nearly killed his brother.
@@padraigohooligan8363 Well, the simplest thing way, Padraig, if you are so exercised by the matter, is to restrain yourself from looking upwards as you pass by the main door of the BBC.
Gauguin actually abused children....unlike Gill....we are talking actual children, under the age of 12 years. Gill never did that.
If we didn't separate art from the artist, there would be little left to enjoy. While I think you're overegging the importance of Rolf Harris, I absolutely understand the point you're making. How dead does someone have to be before we ignore the less-savoury aspects of their character. Admittedly, I don't know when Caravaggio died, but I do know it wasn't within my lifetime (I'm 47). Should we wait 200 years or so before allowing a re-evaluation of a troubled artists work?
I do not understand how people think that vandalising artworks compensates for the apparent sins of the artist. As you say Dr Wilson, Gill's contributions to 20th century art in Britain are immeasurably important, and should be protected. Those who choose to deface artworks should suffer the consequences.
Was that before or after he raped his daughters and the family dog?
No. His work should be destroyed. For example there are lots of other fonts available.
Lessons should not be forgotten but critiqued
Such is the complexity of our all too human nature that cleaves heart and mind. To whatever end purpose such bifurcation serves therein, there too. no doubt, lies divine majestic spark within mankind; all appropriate reason's arena of freedom.
I can think of someone who did a lot for Germany some years ago. How does that fit your argument?
volkswagon?
@@ProfessorTimWilson Here is a short list for starters but there is much more:
The destruction of the Weimar “Republic” and the creation of the most powerful nation in Europe in less than 5 years
The Autobahn
The Volkswagen (you got one right, apart from the spelling.)
The 40-hr work week in Europe
Overtime
The Flag of the party
The uniforms of the party organizations
Paid vacations
Pensions for mothers who had lots of children
The Havaara Agreement
Anti-smoking and anti-alcohol campigns
Animal and environmental protection laws
Employment protection for Negroes
Created the most diverse, multicultural, multiethnic army in history
Thwarted Stalin's plan to invade Europe
Created the greatest political expression of anti-racism in history (yes, really)
Granted citizenship to numerous Jews and allowed them to serve in the Wehrmacht
It's laughable how the same people who were incensed when protestors threw a statue of Colston into Bristol docks are apparently just as incensed that the BBC hasn't done something similar to Gill's art! However, I think the detinction is obvious:- in the first example the statue commemorates / honours an individual, in the second we're admiring the work OF an individual. We should treat these two things very differently, eg move controversial statues to museums, but leave the artwork alone.
I see no distinction and, as I said in my main comment, as a British born half-Ukrainian who cheered when Ukrainians pulled down statues of Lenin installed by their Soviet subjugators when they got independence in 1991, I'd be a hypocrite to believe such a distinction exists between the two - Colston made money from slavery, Gill abused kids.
How would you feel if someone walked into your home and started playing a Gary Glitter or Lost Prophets song on your music system?
Nah. It's not good art. It just shows the BBC's priorities.
Take their use of his fonts. Are there alternatives? yes. But they persist in pushing his work.
Caravaggio stabbed Ranuccio in the leg which was manslaughter he was pardoned by the Pope Jarmens version of events are ome of Blasphemy...!
That BBC statue is not v good, in my option.
He was a great artist, but unfortunately he made big mistakes, it is so difficult to explain, I can't go there, sorry.
So raping his daughters, not a mistake but the family dog was going to far.
It's difficult.
In Germany it is illegal to show the National Socialist swastika, previously an ancient religious symbol.
Although he himself acknowledged that he was only a very mediocre artist, I've seen some of Hitler's architectural drawings. They're not bad actually.
The Nazis inspired alot of art. Most of it is awful, some is quite good. But I don't think it would be possible to show any of it in public.
Farthers for Jusice, It looks like Dr David Kelly?
You seem so inspired, wonder when you will take to drawing again yourself and share it with us?
If that statue stands for something through rumours for something more sinister and nefarious then the question is why is that statue there in the first place considering that we pay for the BBC! The BBC could tell the public what that statue stands for and put the gossip to rest!!
Vandalism is definitely not welcomed here but it’s strange how so many people question that particular statue! Are people even aware of who Gill even was???
Not to excuse him in any way I find this sort of behaviour oportunistic. A good example of your point is surely that one hears little or no comment, about the behaviour of Simone de Beauvoir and Jean Paul Satre (in similar discussions), both active abusers and political supporters of pedophilia and the importance of their work or their reputation. There are many other similar examples if you choose to look.
Woke Nihilist Nimbyism - As performed by the Detractors of Art ...
#Cogitate on that, one and all
Not a fan of the BBC but this statue has just been repaired. The person responsible for the vandalism should be made to pay for the repair. Evil, as well as good resides within us all.
Nah, the license fee payers should be forced to pay. Or perhaps gary lineker.
"Evil, as well as good resides within us all." Please provide the evidence for that assertion.
It's not "great art".
The offences of both Saville and Harris were facilitated by their work and by the popularity that it generated. Therefore that work is tainted.. Gill's offences were private within the family (and apparently consensual). The artwork is not only of an extremely high standard but also unique in British 20th Century Art and Design, both in process and style. The artwork does not link directly to Gill's offences (in contrast to Gauguin's), though of course they are manifestations of the same personality.
"Prospero and Ariel" should probably be removed to protect it from iconoclastic destruction, not as a pointless gesture of moral outrage.
Also, Gauguin raped actual children, meaning prepubescents....Gills daughter was 16 and said she was able to consent (adolescent).
l