Should He Be Given Jail Or A Bigger Hammer?

[royfromaus]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10395493/Hammer-wielding-activist-scales-BBCs-Broadcasting-House-starts-destroying-Eric-Gill-sculpture.html

[andy-hughes]

As a consistent believer in separating the artist from the art, the statue should be re-sited in a museum, with appropriate context.

Vandalism is Vandalism -prison.

[Buenchico]

A relevant article:
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/apr/09/eric-gill-the-body-ditchling-exhibition-rachel-cooke

[royfromaus]

I don't separate the art from the artist. If you are a scum paedophile that is what defines you more than anything else you did in your life imo.

Still, I agree that a vandal is a vandal.

[ToraToraTora]

as predicted it's started.

[royfromaus]

Court case will be interesting.

[ToraToraTora]

don't moan we have established that criminal damage is legal in this country.

[gness]

Well for me a bigger hammer, Roy. But then I have my reasons as you'll know by now.
Not even in a museum for me and others like me....in bits is best.

[bobbinwales]

Yes seem's odd BBC wont play Gary Glitter songs or show Jimmy Saville on TOTP reruns but they have this mans sculptures on display prominently

[Mozz71]

A better question should be why haven't the BBC taken the statue down themselves, given Gill's disgusting past?

[Patsy33]

A bigger hammer!

[andy-hughes]

roy - // I don't separate the art from the artist. If you are a scum paedophile that is what defines you more than anything else you did in your life imo. //

I appreciate your position.

However, taking your stance means that you constantly have to evaluate any and all artists on the basis of their private lives, or, more accurately, the aspects of their private lives that the public can access.

If Gill had not written diaries, its unlikely. that anyone would know of his behaviour.

Therefore, who many other artists whom you and millions of others admire, may be harbouring horrible secrets that would alter your view of their output were you aware of it.

My position allows me to still enjoy the art, while condemning the artist.

Because Gary Glitter is a convicted sex abuser does not for one minute diminish the quality of his records, or the pleasure I get from listening to them.

To me, appreciating on in no way mitigates or defends the other, it simply stops me having to worry whether the thousands of musicians whose work I enjoy, may have pasts I would not wish to entertain.

[Mozz71]

Andy - //If Gill had not written diaries, its unlikely that anyone would know of his behaviour.//

Can't see how that is even slightly relevant.

//Therefore, who many other artists whom you and millions of others admire, may be harbouring horrible secrets that would alter your view of their output were you aware of it.//

You can't assume everyone is guilty just because some are. If some of my favourite artists admit to the sort of things Gill confessed to, I would personally get shot of anything I owned by them.

//However, taking your stance means that you constantly have to evaluate any and all artists on the basis of their private lives, or, more accurately, the aspects of their private lives that the public can access.//

Not really, just if something horrible came out about them, from a provable source.

[jno]

slight difference perhaps between a statue by somebody and a statue of somebody. Do we sell off the nation's Caravaggios next?

[andy-hughes]

Mozz - // You can't assume everyone is guilty just because some are. If some of my favourite artists admit to the sort of things Gill confessed to, I would personally get shot of anything I owned by them. //

I'm not assuming anything.

I don't need to - I have no problem separating the artist from the art as I have said many many times.

[andy-hughes]

jno - // slight difference perhaps between a statue by somebody and a statue of somebody. Do we sell off the nation's Caravaggios next? //

Have to ditch all that Wagner music as well, and ban performances worldwide.

Except Israel of course, he is already banned there.

[tomus42]

It's not quite the same as Colston. It's a statue made by a horrible person as opposed to a statue celebrating a horrible person. Just saying.

[douglas9401]

I can picture someone, fingers steepled and head slightly to one side, justifying any old filth just to appear sage.

"Vandalism is Vandalism -prison."

Right then Mr so-called Banksy, let's be 'avin' you, you're for chokey along with all the other 'urban artists'.

[ichkeria]

Was he horrible?
He was controversial.
You do wonder if these people took their cue from the Colston verdict.
Whatever you think of that

[royfromaus]

Graffiti can be seen as art or vandalism. Smashing stuff up that isn't yours is vandalism.

[gness]

So, Andy-Hughes....if your daughter was sexually abused by an artist of some sort then, if you considered his work exceptional, you'd still happily display his artwork in your home or maybe the local museum/gallery?
When, not many years ago, I came into possession of work done by the photographer who abused me as a child I ripped and burned the photographs. They would, I'm sure, have been of interest to the local historical and amdram society....I burned them nevertheless.

Mozz's paragraph four at 20.52 is the measure of a decent man.