... or something decided about its long term future and position?
I have just read about this statue being vandalised. I don't condone vandalism of works of art.
I know art is subjective and can also be provocative and controversial - as it should be. I also know there are many artists/performers/writers with horrific private lives /awful views and actions. I think censorship and what goes in public spaces should be discussed carefully and there are always specific contexts. The Rhodes statue, the Colston one, the Confederate ones in America I suppose have a mostyl political or milatary aspect, I don't know if the fact it is meant primarily as a work of art or the fame of the artist should have an impact.
But for me it is just the visceral reaction I have seeing that figure of a naked child/childlike fiigure positioned between the male figure's legs. Knowing the background of Gill, what he wrote about his daughers in his diaries and what he did to them just makes me sick. And I can't disassociate the two = the work of art, from the artist who made it. Some of this feeling is from my own experiences, which I won't talk about, but also about the building its on and I suppose the wider history of women and young girls being abused by men in positions of privelege and power.