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

[windchime]

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?

But if we're talking about protecting victims, why would it hurt them if I had a RH painting in my house? (I don't, cause they're shit) I can sort of see the point when they are on public display, but private collections? Doesn't make sense.

Private collections I don't care about, though I'd side-eye you a bit if I came to tea and saw one. It's public celebration I think is the issue.

Why should anyone have to justify themselves if they keep his paintings up or play his music? If they like his work and derive enjoyment from it, they are entitled to do so, it's not justifying anything to explain that, it's a simple fact.

If people prefer to avoid his work or the work of others who fail to meet their moral standards, that's fine, what's not fine is trying to censor others. I don't take this guilt tripping any more seriously than I would a religious nut who's trying to ban that which they consider sinful and offensive. People who like moralising are always trying to censor what others can see and hear, this case is an excuse for that type of person.

"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."

Would you refuse cancer treatment if it had been developed by a scientist who turned out to be a paedophile? Do you use Gill Sans?

Artistic works can and should be separated from their creator. I love Charles Dickens' writings, but I don't believe that the appalling domestic abuse he inflicted on his wife and the creepy relationship he had with his 17 year old SIL change the fact that he was a genius. Amazing writer, dreadful human being. RH may not be a genius, but his artistic works stand apart from his wrongdoing.

If he's no longer painting, they may appreciate more in value.

If I owned a Rolf Harris original bought in the past, I wouldn't feel obliged to be removing it.

I think that's the key isn't it?

Public Displays/Retrospectives/Collections - anything that publicly celebrates his work? Big no (not that I think that would happen now anyway).

Private collections? Personal choice of art owner. To leave a picture on display does not in any way suggest to me that you don't recognise his crimes.

A debate on the BBC website asking the same question back in 2007

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6979731.stm

Washington Green have dropped him, I believe, so there won't be any new prints released.

what's not fine is trying to censor others

Who has tried to do this?

I've already said I use Gill Sans. A great many of the long-dead people I admire were probably total assholes in their real lives. The main difference between me admiring their work in public and admiring a Rolf Harris in public is that the people who might have been hurt by Gill or whoever are long dead.

Enjoy what you like, buy what you like, nobody is stopping you. But if you are celebrating a living artist who is also a famous child abuser, I think that does send a signal that their abuse doesn't matter in the face of their great talent. I can't enjoy Polanski films knowing that he drugged and raped a child, and had got away with it ever since, and he's still out there. I hate that he's so celebrated, still, and I wonder what all the people who have been abused by someone famous feel when they look at the way the acknowledged abuse he did is constantly excused, with the abuser himself continuing to have a very nice life.

No response to what would happen if a paedophile found a cure for cancer, I notice.

Happy to give you one, Hakluyt.

First of all, there's a qualitative difference between a cure for cancer and a rendition of "Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport" played over the radio. One may be necessary for someone's survival, and the other isn't.

Secondly, there are already continuing discussions within the medical and scientific communities about what to do with scientific data that has been produced by assholes, and that's an ongoing process. For some scientists and medical people, it makes a difference if the data was produced unethically (eg using torture, like the Nazis, or by racist neglect as with the infamous Tuskegee experiments), or in an ethical manner (informed consent, etc etc) by someone who behaved unethically in another, unrelated part of their lives. I think the broad consensus is, in the second instance (ethical work by unethical scientist), to use the data, and in the first case to take it case by case.

Well, we aren't talking about a rendition of Tie Me Kangaroo Down Sport, so that's irrelevant, Archery

We are talking about some impressive drawings or paintings.

I understand why you feel this way OP but I think it is a complicated issue. I was trying to think of the name of a successful children's writer who was convicted of sex offences and whose work was withdrawn but it escapes me.

I could only find this example.

There have been some longstanding debates about Lewis Carroll (who some might saw was 'dodgy as fuck', to use a phrase circulating here) and to a lesser extent J. M. Barrie. I have never seen anyone advocate censorship of their works.

I was trying to make a distinction between something that is there for entertainment (music, painting, film, whatever, and that may be consumed in public), and something that is there for the purpose of saving someone's life, and will necessarily be made use of in private.

And we are also talking about "Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport". That's part of Rolf's er, artistic legacy. (And, incidentally, one I enjoyed at the time. I saw him bring the marquee down at Womad.)

We aren't talking about his songs! The OP specifically states to hope dealers stop selling Rolf Harris's artwork

Personally his songs mean nothing to me. Dont care if i dont hear 'Two Little Boys' again.

I really admire his artwork though.

You might not be talking about his songs, and the OP wasn't, but I was. If you've read the whole thread, you will see that it turned into a general discussion about what to do with the works of people who are subsequently found out to be abusers. The OP didn't state anything about curing cancer, either, but that's come up, too.

I believe evidence of these men should remain in our lives, this is how they will get talked about and their presence will serve to remind us of the horrors .
We have to learn from the past , not erase and forget it .
I think the art works In public should remain . With a large carefully worded piece with them ; a reminder to us to be less trusting- and a warning to others of their type .

There was a writer called William Mayne who produced some wonderful, sensitive, emotionally complex children's books.. And he turned out to be a paedophile. I thought hard about giving them to my children, but decided that his behaviour did not impact on his work.

ArcheryAnnie,

Two points:

1, As has been said countless times before, a person's art/work is NOT the thing that carried out the abuse-the person who created it is. Most people here get that, you don't but you are in the minority for not getting that. Having known some survivors of abuse, their (and I'm not taking about ALL, just them) attitude is, 'Well it's not the thing the person created that abused me'.

2, If work (by 'work' I mean art/songs/whatever) that is deemed to have worth is censored/uncelebrated/banned because the person who created it is a repugnant human being, then by default only work that is carried out by good people is celebrated.

If children are taught that only good people carry out good things then if there is another Saville who appears superficially nice appears, then the abuse will begin again.

Children need to learn that bad people can do things that appear to be good.

Your simplistic attitude gets on my nerves, as does the general principle that everybody who creates something good must be good themselves.

People who believe this are being very childlike.

patjen you seem to be reading my posts from some parallel universe, because that's not what I've said at all.

If you are too "childlike" and "simplistic" to understand what I've said here, then I'm not sure there is any point in continuing this conversation with you.

"I think the broad consensus is, in the second instance (ethical work by unethical scientist), to use the data, and in the first case to take it case by case."

Then presumably the same principle should be applied to art- good art by bad people is still good art and should be left on display.

But art and medicine operate on very different levels. Medicine either works or it doesn't. Art is subjective, not objective.

No. You are the childlike one, ArcheryAnnie, what a person produces artistically or through some endeavour unconnected to their personality has nothing to do with any crimes they commit.

Most people understand that. Frankly, it makes no difference if a work of art is destroyed/censored.

It won't make the crime go away whether it is played/displayed or not. That's the bottom line.

Displaying art by only good people doesn't stop crime being committed by bad people.

What difference does it make if Rolf Harris' work is continued to be displayed? None.

As for scientific data obtained by unethical means, well my attitude is that those who suffered via unethical means truly have suffered in vain if that scientific data is not used for a good cause.

This does not mean to say that I think scientists should use unethical means at all, only that the data still should be put to good use if discovered to be unethically obtained at a later time.

So, what we are saying here, is if Jimmy Saville has produced works of art, then they would still be hanging on your walls? Somehow, I don't think so.