To think that Saville was NEVER a "Much loved family favourite"???

[MrsWinnibago]

Sorry to start a thread about this sick, awful animal but they just said on Radio 4 that he was a much loved family favourite.

I CLEARLY remember watching him on Jim'l Fix It and thinking "Oh he's HORRIBLE!"

I hated him...he was frightening and I could see that some children were very scared of him on that show.

Did ANYONE actually enjoy his "performances" and appearances?? I don't think so.

I think the establishment kept him where he was...on TV and in positions of power because he knew too much about THEIR activities.

And it's funny how it all came out once he was dead and couldn't name anyone else.

I challenge anyone to think back and remember how much they "loved" him at the time before his activities were known.

Oh and of you're so keen to obliterate Gill's work you'd better get cracking on every sign that uses Gill sans or Perpetua typesetting oh and every copy of Ms Word.

Shelley's and Byron's lives were not as problematic as Gill's and even if they were their work is not writ large over public buildings.

Your point about fonts is ridiculous. As if anyone looks at a font on a sign and considers who designed it. Although I actually use Arial as default font on documents.

Why is the fonts point ridiculous? Most people kooky at Eric Gill's public work wouldn't know who made it either. Except on mumsnet, obvs, where everyone is so cultured....

Looking not kooky!

Erm I do care who designed a typeface, as does anyone who has a passing interest in typography. Why is Gill's work as a typographer less problematic? Other people might not care who designed the statues on broadcasting house. The romantic poets are on GCSE and A level syllabuses so ypung people are forced to engage with the work of both men.

What difference does it make if the work is on diaplay or not? It is an object it doesn't have the power to abuse anyone. By looking it and displaying it you aren't condoning the artist's life and crimes
. The statues on the bbc aren't exorting anyone to become a paedophile.

The poets were not pretending to be deeply religious holier than thou men.

And what earthly relevance does that jave to a statue? Eric Gill was a vile man who did vile things no one doubts that. You criteria for removing or destroying art on public display seems utterly arbitrary and nonsensical.

And please explain how a consensual relationship with an adult half-sister is as bad as anally raping your children.

Claire Claremont and Mary were not children when their relationships started.

I did not say anything about destroying art so please don't put words in my mouth. I said removing them. They can be placed in a gallery if anyone wants to see them.

So. What's the cut off point? How bad does an artist's behaviour have to be before his/her work can no longer be displayed?

There is a writer called William Mayne, for example, who wrote children's books of great sensitivity and emotional literacy. I loved them, and so do my children. He turned out to be a paedophile- and I admit to feeling uncomfortable having them on my shelves. But his behaviour does not change the books. What purpose would be solved by getting rid of them?

It's a tricky one and no mistake!

Those books are your choice. I have said nothing about getting rid of art, please stop saying I have. I have referred to removing it from openly public spaces.

I agree OP. He wasn't loved in my household. My parents made 'ik' faces at him when he was on tv. A friend on my road wrote away to go on jim'll fixit and i remember my dad saying that her parents could arrange for her to do that and she'd have a better time with her family. Definitely not as LOVED as they make out.

"Those books are your choice. I have said nothing about getting rid of art, please stop saying I have. I have referred to removing it from openly public spaces."

Sorry- I thought we had moved on. I asked what the cut off point would be for an artist's work not to be displayed- I thought it was an interesting discussion.

I think the work displayed on public buildings should be removed.

Shall we take wrecking ball to the BBC and the London Transport building?

Bit like the Taliban did to the Buddhas in the Hindu Kush a few months before they did for the World Trade Center.

Or maybe we should deface churches like the Puritans did?

I find that attitude scarier than the odd pervert.

Yes of course that's exactly what I said.

I said nothing about destroying the statues or the buildings.

You still haven't said how bad somebody has to be before their work should be removed from public display.

I didn't think it was a serious question. I assumed it was just another of your little digs.

But on the assumption it was serious.There is no definitive answer to that.

Until very recently the works of Richard Wagner and Richard Strauss were not performed in Israel. You will have to make your own mind up on whether that is reasonable or was the Israeli government denying those who were interested the right to hear live performances of these works? The bans seemed disproportionate but I'm not Jewish.

Many MNetters have said they have no wish to see the films of Roman Polanski or Woody Allen. These are of course easy to avoid as they are not permanently and openly visible. Personally I haven't seen a Woody Allan film in a long time. I suspect the gloss of the early, funny ones will have worn off.

More recently HMV has removed CDs by the Lost Prophets. I think that is probably correct although the fact I don't think the music had any artistic merit helps of course.

I have no idea which , if any , public galleries hold paintings by Harris. I wouldn't destroy them either (although to be honest I don't think they're terribly good) but I might put them on restricted display.

Fate I suspect Gill is art and the LPs aren't but that's really one for Hakluyt as she thinks no work of art should ever be destroyed.

I'd be interested to hear if she thinks anything created is "art" or if a work has to have intrinsic merit; if the latter who decides and how is up for debate.

I read about Eric Gill today and, bloody hell! Can't look at that statue on the front of Broadcasting House in the same way now. Apparently he got his sisters and daughters ( all of whom he'd had sex with) to pose for his naked art.

Feels ironically appropriate now for such a man to have his artwork on the entrance to the BBC...:(

But the Gill sculptures are on the outside, so to remove them from public view the buildings would have to be demolished or defaced.

Is that what you would like to be done?

It would be a powerful message. I'd regard it as vandalism but some people would feel it was justified. What do you think phaedra?

"Fate I suspect Gill is art and the LPs aren't but that's really one for Hakluyt as she thinks no work of art should ever be destroyed."

Hmm. Interesting. I'm not absolutely sure what I think about this. What i do know is that knee jerk reactions tend to be wrong reactions. If Eric Gill had made art about paedophilia then of course it should be destroyed. But he didn't. He made art that I personally don't like, but people more knowledgable than me say is very significant. I don't think that people should be denied the right to see it. Or have to ask to see it behind closed doors or something..........