Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

Original poster

To hope dealers will stop selling Rolf Harris's artwork?

105 replies

windchime · 06/07/2014 17:31

Ebay is awash with listings for Rolf Harris's artwork, and there is no shortage of people wanting to bid for it. None of it is going cheap, and it is like nothing happened. Ebay's stance is 'because he isn't a violent felon, the listings are within their policies. AIBU to think everything to do with his work should be buried and forgotten?

OP posts:

ExcuseTypos · 07/07/2014 08:49

happy Why would you want to listen to the voice of a sex attacker?

saffronwblue · 07/07/2014 08:53

A local hardware store here (Melbourne) has a wall covered with a mural done by RH. They are going to offer to victims of sexual abuse to paint over it.

DeWee · 07/07/2014 09:48

That won't hurt RH, will only hurt people that bought it in good faith. Not sure what that would achieve.

SnotandBothered · 07/07/2014 09:53

BBC today

www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-28129274

sanfairyanne · 07/07/2014 09:54

no need for you to buy it
leave everyone else alone

also might be worthwhile investigating the background of many many many famous/talented men (or women if you can find many not airbrushed out of history) over the last 2000 years or so. you might be in for a nasty surprise

sashh · 07/07/2014 10:10

I cannot think of another paedophile artist tbh.

Carravagio
Graham Ovenden
Eric Gill - not just paedophile but had sex with his daughters and it has been claimed a dog
Roman Polanski - OK film not fine art but still an art form

Well if this stance gets adopted the Catholic Church will be up shit creek. Why? Did Rolf Harris design all their stained glass windows

Nope but Eric Gill did the stations of the cross at Westminster Cathedral.

If you are RC the stations are an important part of worship, many people 'do the stations' where prayers are said at the stations in order.

Wet minster Cathedral is the centre of the RC church in England (not sure if all of UK) sort of like the UK Embassy for the Vatican.

Gill's work is also on display at the BBC and I think the UN.

I might seem obsessed. There was a radio 4 programme a couple of years ago about whether art should be on display because it is art, regardless of what the artist has done.

This was before RH and looked mainly at Gill.

ArcheryAnnie · 07/07/2014 10:22

Ebay's stance is 'because he isn't a violent felon

What?! When was sexual assault not a violent crime?

I think MrsCakes made an excellent point about Polanski. I can't watch his film, not Woody Allen's, nor will I get enjoyment from RH's music again. However,Ii do use Gill Sans, and possibly the reason I don't worry about that too much is that anyone he hurt is long dead.

I'm depressed but not surprised to hear RH art is on sale - after all, there is (or was, dunno if it's been removed) plenty of artwork depicting Nigella Lawson being strangled up on Saatchi's art marketplace website. I don't think RH's art will retain its value, though, as much of the value rested on it being the product of a beloved entertainer, not because it was great art, and he's not so beloved any more.

patjen · 07/07/2014 10:54

That's a very good point, ArcheryAnnie, it's not as if Rolf Harris's art is seen as great art in serious art world-it was only because he was a -forgive the phrase- 'national treasure' that it had worth.

ExcuseTypos · 07/07/2014 11:06

I agree with your point very much Archery

"I do use Gill Sans, and possibly the reason I don't worry about that too much is that anyone he hurt is long dead."

Can you imagine what it must be like for any of RH's victims to hear one of his songs on the radio or see people outbidding each other to have one of his prices of art? It's the victims who need thinking about.

MidniteScribbler · 07/07/2014 11:13

We can't erase what has happened to his victims by erasing his artwork. History is full of not so nice people who have done things which we find abhorrent, but they are still a part of our human history and we do no good by trying to brush it under the carpet. One of my favourite quotes from the West Wing is: "It's our history. Better or worse, it's our history. We're not going to lock it in the basement or brush it with a new coat of paint. It's our history."

ExcuseTypos · 07/07/2014 11:17

But RH's victims are still alive. It isn't history for them.

MidniteScribbler · 07/07/2014 11:19

No it isn't, but if we wipe out everything that someone finds difficult there will be very little left. I don't think we need to give his artwork pride of place in the National Gallery, but I don't think it should be destroyed either.

ArcheryAnnie · 07/07/2014 11:21

There's a difference between saying "something exists, and it's part of the record of what happened, and we will keep it as such and not airbrush it out of history", and saying "wahay, this is a great song/painting/whatever, I don't care if hearing it on the radio/seeing it on ebay causes pain to the artist's victims, as they see his work celebrated, it's what I like!"

ExcuseTypos · 07/07/2014 11:25

Yes there is a difference and some people unfortunaltey fit into the second category.

Radio 4 was interviewing a DJ who wanted to play "Two Little Boys" on his own national radio show- he immediatly got a call from his boss to say he mustn't play it. The DJ was rather miffed

patjen · 07/07/2014 11:44

Why ArcheryAnnie? If people like the art then they should be able to celebrate it; why treat the victims as if they're stupid and can't separate the art from the artist?

Why insult the victims intelligence by implicitly implying that they are too dumb to differentiate between a painting/song/whatever and the actual abuse? It's not the painting that hurt them; it's the artist behind it. That's just obvious.

ArcheryAnnie · 07/07/2014 11:54

That's a lot of assumptions in a very small space, patjen. It isn't treating victims as "stupid" or "insulting their intelligence" to refrain from celebrating in public an artist who very badly hurt them - it's common decency.

Maybe some victims are totally fine with it. Maybe some aren't. I'm just sick of the constant stream of people excusing famous men for ther abuse they committed because they made a great film, or did a great deal for the organisation, or because they raised so much money for charity. Maybe it's time, for once, to focus on the women and girls they hurt.

If you want to sit in the comfort and safety of your own home, and watch endless repeats of Jim'll Fix It, interspersed with dancing around to "Jake The Peg", nobody is stopping you.

ExcuseTypos · 07/07/2014 12:04

It's common decency

Amen to that.

Bluebelljumpsoverthemoon · 07/07/2014 12:16

Rolf Harris isn't to my taste but if a writer, musician, artist, actor or director who's work I loved turned out to be a sex offender or any other type of criminal, I'd still enjoy their work. When I'm listening to music, admiring a beautiful painting, reading a book or watching a movie it's because I like it, not because their pr claims the creators to be morally righteous individuals.

If you want to limit yourself to appreciating work only from those who meet your moral standards, that's your business, you don't have the right impose that ban on others. There wouldn't be anything left if every creator who was morally repugnant to someone had their work destroyed.

patjen · 07/07/2014 13:31

Nobody is 'excusing' Rolf Harris and his ilk at all for the crimes he committed; they are morally repugnant just that any art he does is a separate thing and if worth celebrating the art, it is worth celebrating.

The trouble with this sort of thing is that by confusing the artist with what he's produced, then the logical extension is ban everything created by a repulsive person destroyed. And while it is easy to see that what Harris did is repulsive, what about adulterers or drink drivers?

So what if somebody found a cure for, say, breast cancer and they turned out to be a child abuser, do we say 'well can't use the cure'? Or do we just accept like reasonable people that bad people can do good things?

ArcheryAnnie · 07/07/2014 13:40

Who has called for a ban? Who has called for the works to be destroyed? It's perfectly possible to be repulsed by the idea of people trading in Rolf artworks, and not wanting him to be played on the radio, without calling for all his works to be banned or burned.

And as for the radio stations: if you have a platform, you are not obliged to offer it to every person that comes your way. Refusing people access to your platform =/= censorship.

FyreFly · 07/07/2014 13:50

When one considers the amount of morally-reprehensible products on the market that I can guarantee 100% of the people on this thread own, including me by the way (mobile phones, tablets, computers, headphones, some jewellery), then I think getting het up about one artist is a little over the top.

Hakluyt · 07/07/2014 13:57

Interesting point about somebody discovering a cure for cancer then turning out to be a child abuser. I presume nobody is suggesting not using the cure?

patjen · 07/07/2014 14:26

The thing is: by confusing Harris' repulsive actions with any good deeds he did and airbrushing out his work, what it is saying in effect that no person who is horrible can ever do good things, that's not a lesson to be teaching children because they may meet an abuser who does do apparently good things so I think it's important to say, 'bad people can do good things ' otherwise, if children believe good is done only by good people, then everybody they see doing good will, by extension, be seen as good even though they may be abhorrent in other ways.

If that makes any sense. Probably doesn't (!)

ArcheryAnnie · 07/07/2014 16:07

Nobody is saying those works suddenly don't have worth (although as I said before, a great deal of the worth of RH's art was because of who did it, not its intrinsic beauty). What many people do say is that it's no longer possible for them to enjoy those works, however much they did before, and that even if they did, they don't want to cause inadvertent hurt to the people the artist hurt.

For all those of the "victims aren't stupid" bent: one of Rolf's songs was about teaching children that they have bodily autonomy and can say no to being touched by people they don't want touching them. It's still a great message - should that song be played?

Original poster

windchime · 07/07/2014 16:51

I would be ashamed to have a piece of his art on display in my home. But I think there are a few people on this thread trying to justify why they haven't taken their paintings down.

OP posts:

Flip

1 2 3 4 5