After the Colston four, the Gill one?

Ian H

Regular
As with any artist, Gill's work stands apart from its creator. He's not around to profit from it. It's no longer about him.
 

mudsticks

Über Member
As with any artist, Gill's work stands apart from its creator. He's not around to profit from it. It's no longer about him.

Oooh that would be a fun thread.

You could start one.

I'm not totally convinced that an art work does stand totally apart from its creator.

- not suggesting that all artwork by dodgy sorts should be interfered with but i think in some cases contextualising adds to meaning rather than detracts from it.
 

newfhouse

Socialist tag team member
It's a tough call for the woke-bashers. One one hand it's a statue, so sacred and inviolable, and on the other it's at the hated BBC so needs to be attacked in the usual way. What to do?
 

Beebo

Regular
If the tabloids had any consistency they would be in uproar. It’s an attack on Shakespeare the greatest playwright ever.

We need to know what Rod Liddle thinks.
It's a tough call for the woke-bashers. One one hand it's a statue, so sacred and inviolable, and on the other it's at the hated BBC so needs to be attacked in the usual way. What to do?
 

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
It's a tough call for the woke-bashers. One one hand it's a statue, so sacred and inviolable, and on the other it's at the hated BBC so needs to be attacked in the usual way. What to do?

I don't follow, would you care to explain a little more?
 

newfhouse

Socialist tag team member
I don't follow, would you care to explain a little more?
I'm on a phone at work so don't have the ability to give a fulsome reply. These Civil Service BYOB parties don't organise themselves you know.

I will try later if you haven't managed to work it out
 

Cirrus

Regular
As with any artist, Gill's work stands apart from its creator. He's not around to profit from it. It's no longer about him.

A thousand words

1642069860200.png
 

Rusty Nails

Oh yes he is!
Oooh that would be a fun thread.

You could start one.

I'm not totally convinced that an art work does stand totally apart from its creator.

- not suggesting that all artwork by dodgy sorts should be interfered with but i think in some cases contextualising adds to meaning rather than detracts from it.
How do you go around contextualising works of art? Should every work of art have a statement about the moral background/behaviour of the artist, or could we have a little chart under each one, like those restaurant safety certificates which rates compliance on a scale of 1 - 5? Who decides?
I think we should treat people like adults and if they are interested in the history and morality of the artist let them do the research.
It may need a different approach if the piece of art itself is of a potentially offensive nature or subject, as with Colston, but it is a very dangerous path to start down.
Personally I felt offended by most of the works of art in St Peter's when I visited the Vatican but that was up to me and I fully understand why others feel differently.
I am not sure of the reasons given by this man for his act of vandalism, and that is relevant to the action, but, as he takes responsibility for his own actions, so he should be prepared to accept there may be a price to pay otherwise it really does become open house to attack/deface works of art that may offend some.
 
OP
OP
Fab Foodie

Fab Foodie

Well-Known Member
Oooh that would be a fun thread.

You could start one.

I'm not totally convinced that an art work does stand totally apart from its creator.

- not suggesting that all artwork by dodgy sorts should be interfered with but i think in some cases contextualising adds to meaning rather than detracts from it.
Good call.
If I can't enjoy the works of Gary Glitter can I no longer use Gill Sans?
 
Top Bottom