After the Colston four, the Gill one?

mudsticks

Über Member
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.
I was only suggesting that its interesting to contextualise the art work , by considering its creator.

I wasn't suggesting we have to - or destroy anything - or whatever - i was just taking issue with Ians suggestion that the character of the creator had no relevance once the artwork is free in the world..

No idea what that chap was up to either, nor am i defending his actions - if prosecuted he will have to answer for his own actions - just as the Colston four had to...
 

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
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

Wouldn't want to disturb your BYOB Party/Work Event, do be sure to keep a record of your exact time of attendance, just in case ;)

I don't understand the point you are making wrt to Statues /.BBC
 

winjim

Regular
I'm a licence fee payer and I say take a pneumatic drill to it.

Or a more nuanced opinion... take it off the building and put in in a gallery or museum where it can be examined in context. Broadcasting House is essentially a public building and the architecture and art on display there should be reflective of the 'values' of the BBC and respectful of the community and society from which it takes its money and who it is supposed to serve. The BBC has ample opportunity to discuss the links between or separation of art and its creator, that's literally part of its job. Take it down and make a programme about it or something.

And let's not forget that the defacing of the statue is a work of art in itself.
 

farfromtheland

Regular AND Goofy
I'll start by saying I think Dali's work is great but Picasso's is greater. Perhaps the context is visible in the work?

My hope as an artist is for the work to stand for itself. Titles are part of a piece, but there is a new art school orthodoxy to explain your ideas as a priority. Tate Modern fell into this trap when it first opened. Sometimes it's interesting to contextualise, but the date and medium should suffice.
 

farfromtheland

Regular AND Goofy
I am a fan of the composer Shostokovitch. That he managed to make good work in a hard place is very telling, and enough answer to critics of his position.
 

Rusty Nails

Oh yes he is!
I'm a licence fee payer and I say take a pneumatic drill to it.

Or a more nuanced opinion... take it off the building and put in in a gallery or museum where it can be examined in context. Broadcasting House is essentially a public building and the architecture and art on display there should be reflective of the 'values' of the BBC and respectful of the community and society from which it takes its money and who it is supposed to serve. The BBC has ample opportunity to discuss the links between or separation of art and its creator, that's literally part of its job. Take it down and make a programme about it or something.

And let's not forget that the defacing of the statue is a work of art in itself.
The last sentence is so nuanced as to be meaningless.

Taking that argument to its extreme (or extreme nuance), ISIS received some bad press but were also responsible for some great works of art.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...-looting-ancient-sites-iraq-syria-archaeology
 
Last edited:

farfromtheland

Regular AND Goofy
The last sentence is so nuanced as to be meaningless.

Taking that argument to its extreme (or extreme nuance), ISIS received some bad press but were also responsible for some great works of art.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...-looting-ancient-sites-iraq-syria-archaeology
But the questions raised by Islam as to the roles of iconography in culture are vital questions, and remain difficult for a mostly Christian tradition to see.
 

slowmotion

Member
Both Caravaggio and Cellini murdered people. Does that mean we should take blowtorches and angle-grinders to the works they left behind?
The National Gallery probably has loads of works by artists with murky pasts. Maybe we should fire-bomb the place and bask in a warm glow of self-righteousness.
 

Adam4868

Senior Member
Is not the purpose of art to make people feel comfortable or uncomfortable ?
Some of my partners work isn't for the faint hearted !
 

newfhouse

Socialist tag team member
I don't follow, would you care to explain a little more?
I was enjoying thinking about the mental contortions of, say, a Daily Mail editorial writer, columnist or stereotypical reader attempting to decide which angle to take with the story. It’s in their DNA - and possibly their contract - to attack the BBC at every opportunity, so a piece decrying the Corporation for continuing to display the works of an acknowledged paedophile would seem to be on message. On the other hand statues must apparently be left in place in perpetuity and even attempts to add explanatory plaques are declared to be woke nonsense and rewritten history.

Take it as the lighthearted and whimsical point it was intended to be since it may not withstand too much detailed analysis.
 

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
I was enjoying thinking about the mental contortions of, say, a Daily Mail editorial writer, columnist or stereotypical reader attempting to decide which angle to take with the story. It’s in their DNA - and possibly their contract - to attack the BBC at every opportunity, so a piece decrying the Corporation for continuing to display the works of an acknowledged paedophile would seem to be on message. On the other hand statues must apparently be left in place in perpetuity and even attempts to add explanatory plaques are declared to be woke nonsense and rewritten history.

Take it as the lighthearted and whimsical point it was intended to be since it may not withstand too much detailed analysis.

OK. Not a Daily Mail reader (Daily Mash is more "me") so, the whimsical point was lost on me.
 
I don't see the difference between anti-vax-loonies destroying an test site and this, it's both what before wasn't called a protest anymore but criminal damage.. Are we now later on see the loonies convicted but the statue killers walk away?
I think that is an dagnerous precedent. Wonders what next? J.K. Rowling is cancelled so doing her harm is accepted? or is that still a bridge to far? and if so for how long?
I mean justice should be fair and balanced, not balancing to one more than the other.(the because shouldn't matter) The law has always stand above any kind of activism it seems that slipperly slope has been passed.
 
Top Bottom