Splish Splash, I Was Having A Bath. Colston Statue Topplers Not Guilty

Presumably, following the Colston 4 verdict, the chap just has to say that he found the statue upsetting to get away with this moronic act of vandalism

 

I imagine we'll see if that defence works when he comes up before the beak.

 

Well, if one group will get upset because a guy is a paedo, and another gets upset that a guy is a slaver, who is to suggest that either party is wrong?

Is there some implication here that paedophila, sexual abuse, dog buggery and incest is OK, that is, it does not warrant defacing statues, whilst slavery does? I would say that both behaviours are pretty depraved, though do not warrant the destruction of art.

Could someone explain why paedophiles should be exempt from public anger? Because that is the precedent set in the Colston case.

Personally, I have no problem with either statue, and am very indifferent to the attacks upon them. It's just adult LARPers demonstrating their inability to grow up, in both cases.

 

I thought we could both leave it there, but you have decided to continue to post what appear to be wilfully obtuse comments.

I have asked you to give your definition of terms you are using, not anyone else's definitions. People bandy terms around, but very often different people will use the same term but mean quite different things by them. So asking someone to define what they mean by a term they are using is an attempt to ensure any discussion on the subject is based on some degree of mutual understanding. For example, someone of extreme left wing persuasion may refer to all Tory MPs as 'fascists', when, in my view, they clearly are not. So there we have 2 people with very different definitions of the term 'fascist'. If you were then thinking of disagreeing with me, I would not find it strange or unfair if you asked me to give you my definition of 'fascist'. In fact I would find it totally understandable & acceptable.

In post #58 above, you (no-one else) used the term 'level headed, practical, left-wing libertarians'. As I did not really understand what you may mean by that phrase, I asked you to give me your definition of it (post #60). Could you please explain how I am asking you to give a definition of something you have not said, as I am finding it difficult to follow the reasoning.

What working men's club are we going to use?

 

I am hoping that it may strike at least a few people as being ironic that you start the above post as you do, seeing as I was replying to your request for definitions. If you are going to ask me for a response, it seems very strange that you then say you hoped I wouldn’t reply. It merely comes across as an unwarranted accusation that I am being unreasonable, when all I was doing was replying to you.

The level headed leftie comment is not one of the definitions you originally asked me to give, and I note that you have dropped all the others. Good, we are getting somewhere.

Level headed, practical, left-wing libertarians refers to libertarian minded, left leaning people with a level headed and practical approach to life and economics. I think the clue was in the words used.

I am of average height. I am sorry if that is unclear.

Let’s leave it there. It is not for me to explain why middle class lefties look down on oiks, or to explain what they consider an oik to be, other than that they are something to be, in their opinion, looked down upon.

BK Club in Bushey Mill Lane, before the move. like the Wheel Tappers and Shunters, but for southerners*.

*Southerners: People from the south of England.

 

As I thought. You are asked for an explanation of what you mean by a string of labels you throw out and your explanation is.....exactly the same string of labels. Your understanding of those labels will not be the same as everyone else's, so 'the words used' just will not suffice and I am no nearer understanding what you mean by them.
I would still love to know exactly what you understand by the terms you had used (not someone else) that I listed in my initial post, but I realise none will be forthcoming.

Excellent use of tautology in the 'oiks' section, to be fair.

 

As I say. Tiresome. Definition of the term has nothing to do with the use I made of it. You may as well randomly ask me to define any term in the English language. It would be like me insisting you define the word ‘thought’ as you use it in your first paragraph, or ‘labels’, or ‘throw’. It is absurd.

If you didn’t pick up the meaning from my original opening comment, that class is the main issue, then it is pointless trying to explain any further to you.

I’ll ignore any more you have to say on the subject, because it is clear you have made no attempt to understand what I have been saying.

On tautology: Repetition, in Arabic and Islamic language, is used to ensure emphasis on a point. Tautology, as you apply it here, is just another one of those meaningless academic terms that enables grammar snobbery to fester, rather than passionate language to thrive. I embrace my inner Arabic, sorry if you have a problem with it.

 

It's a good thought exercise, that's for sure.

Logically, a public display of an artist's work is a celebration of that artist's life and contributions. If there is a solid case for not displaying public statues of figures who had very ethically dubious pasts, like Colston, it seem there's an equivalent argument that the direct contributions of artists who engaged in morally/ethically dubious activities could be looked at in the same light.

The counterpoint is that most people are flawed in some way shape or form, so if we start only displaying public statues/works for the flawless, we'll probably end up with close to nothing on display at all if we look for issues with sufficient scrutiny, certainly so if we look back on artists/public figures from 300+ years ago who lived in very different ethnical environments.

 

TBH I can't see a great deal of difference between this statue and Leader of The Gang or Sun Arise.

 

They've been largely turned into persona non grata, have they not? Hard to get a good sense since I'm not in the UK anymore.

 

I don't agree with the first statement.

IMO, a piece of art is displayed for its aesthetic value as a piece of art, not as a commemoration/recognition of the artist in the manner that Colston's statue was for him.

 

But Gill's vast range of work makes it extremely problematic: do we destroy all the fonts/typefaces and half of Letchworth?

 

And yet that's exactly what public display of art does: commemorate the work of the person who created it. Artists are inextricably tied up with their work, unless anonymous, and having that work attached to a public building does carry with it some level of endorsement and immortality for the artist. You can easily display noteworthy items in a museum, introduced with proper context. There is nothing that necessitates a display of art by a controversial artist as part of a public building, and unless a work is completely anonymous I don't think it's possible to fully divorce the artist from the art.

There are many noteworthy and talented artists, far more than would be required to fill all public displays. On that basis, why not simply shift to those artists who do NOT have troubling and unethical pasts (especially at the expense of those whose immoral behavior was considered bad at at the time they were alive?). Where's the loss?

 

I think the problem here, if there is one, is that this piece of art was effectively funded by the British public as a whole.

Otherwise - no, I still don’t agree. I think art and artist are, and should be, separable. I have no issue with the playing of the records that GOBE mentioned, except perhaps that it will accrue royalties to the individuals.

I don’t necessarily disagree with your last paragraph and presumably the BBC would be more careful now than it was back then. But I don’t think that means that what is already there should be removed.

 

Yes, the barrier is certainly significantly higher (and different) when you're talking about publicly funded and displayed work.

I accept there are some situations where it's impractical to remove certain things from public display or life, because they're too ingrained and the logistics of removal are just not there. Statues just don't strike me as one of them in the grand scheme of things, and I accept that many people will find public display of a paedophile's work off-putting (much like I accept people found legitimately found celebrating Colston's achievements unacceptable in the modern era).

I feel where public display (outside of museums) is concerned it's important to take everyone's opinion into account, not just those we agree with. The question for me is less of one of whether or not I agree with it, but whether or not their argument has any real merit. It should be possible for us to accept that not everyone agrees that art and artist can be divorced, so if we accept that there are people who honestly and reasonably hold that belief, we should accept that those who find it offensive legitimately find it offensive and take their feelings into account. I am of the opinion that public works are for all and shouldn't need to be controversial.

 

Well yes, that’s perfectly reasonable - but should those who find something controversial or offensive prevail over those who don’t? I’m not clear that they should - at least for what is already out there. It may be different for new commissions - just as the BBC wouldn’t commission Alf Garnett or It Ain’t Half Hot Mum now.

 

No. That would be stupid. Just like ripping down Colston's statue. But a precedent has now been set and people seemed quite comfortable with it when a slaver was disrespected, but are now outraged when a paedophile gets the same treatment.This silly 'coping' argument that public money paid for it is a joke. It is, if anything, even more reason for the public to take matters into their own hands.

The statue of Prospero, some say, is a theatrical presentation of Gill, and he appears to be restraining a naked child. Given he was a dog buggering paedophile, I can't see why people are so keen to defend him.

And the BBC, sponsors and protectors of Jimmy Saville's disgusting proclivities for half a century, should be sympathetic towards the public's concerns around paedophiles and sexual predators. The statue represents a disturbing motif that appears to give validity to the behaviour of Saville.

Public discourse is the place for action with respect to the issues presented by the Colston and Gill statues, and both have reasons to be criticised. The people who defend bringing down Colston are the people responsible for making such action the norm. Sauce for the Goose and all that.

They should learn to live with it, because it was their stupid idea in the First place.

 

You know what you know though. If a piece of art first brings to mind something reprehensible then there is no separation. It’s just a statue and imo this one can/should be replaced.

 

So do we remove all of the Gaugins in museums across the world? Perhaps all Ancient Greek art, given their predilection for pederasty?

Should I stop listening to John Martyn or the Phil Spector Christmas Album?

Any art is “just” a piece of art.

I disagree, I think you can separate. The case for removing it, for me, is that it was funded by the British taxpayer and is displayed by a “state” organisation to symbolise values for which it stands.

 

2 rite m8 we should be more reductive look at the sauce material the statue is clearly of peado groomin & the pervo author has form promotin kiddie sex in Verona

 

Indeed. Alternatively, from the Tate:

Prospero, reigns over a magical island, served by an airy sprite named Ariel. Ariel provided a useful symbol for radio’s communication across the airwaves.…Amongst other things, he [Gill] told me that though he was commissioned to represent Prospero & Ariel as a symbol of the B.B.C.'s activity, he was thinking of the subject as God the Father sending forth the Word.

 

And another one who was 'absolved' from his repulsive/illegal behaviour by the Catholic Church... TBF all of those mixed-up in the Arts & Craft movement had some very iffy 'ideals' - I'm sure the 3rd Reich drawing heavily from the A&C in its Volkisch programme is purely coincidental.

Still, A&C did produce "The Blackfriar".

 

Great pub. Used to work directly opposite it.

 

Also all of these:
https://www.greatbritishgardens.co.uk/arts-and-craft-gardens.html

 

No one is going to see Ancient Greek art and think ‘no, that’s too soon for me’.

Whereas there are, sadly, plenty of victims of 20th century sex abusers who don’t need a reminder.

There’s obviously an arbitrary nature to this. Other artists may also do very wrong things, but it’s not widely picked up on. But when it is, then there is a decision to be made.

 

It's that very arbitrariness which means we shouldn't go down that road at all, IMO.

There's no right not to be offended. Even more so when it's not the art itself which causes the offence, but rather the identity of the artist who made it.

 

Speaking for yourself here. There clearly is a right not to be offended as the Naked Rambler soon found out.

Culture is a dialogue and the identity of artists is important. As has been noted, it would be in poor taste to carry on playing Gary Glitter or Rolf Harris because their behaviour was at the worst end of the scale. I don’t think that’s difficult to judge.

 

No I'm not:
https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2012/08/01/a-right-not-to-be-offended/
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/blogs/should-it-be-offence-offend

If culture is a dialogue then we should be having a dialogue about it, not removing it from public scrutiny and debate.

I'm sorry but I simply do not agree. At the risk of annoying @Arakel, this is a slippery slope which I really do not think we should go down because it is really not clear where one would stop.

 

Are you suggesting we bin any piece of art created by an artist that ever committed a crime or whose views are at odds with today's values? Caravaggio was a murderer -how long before the National Gallery is made to take down the Supper at Emmau's and replace with a photo of lady tennis player scratching her ar5e?

 

I may not know a lot about ar5e but...

 

Emma's what, m8?

But yes - spot on. (And great painting).

 

milans 1 is better m8

 

Now the climate crusties are getting off too:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-59996870

 

Emma's? I always thought it was Supper at Emu's. I think the bloke in the middle is supposed to be Rod Hull

 

If you came to that conclusion you've obviously either not read or not registered the totality of what I've written.