To think the BBC need to remove the Eric Gill sculpture?

[Twoshoesnewshoes]

Is there a thread on this? Couldn’t find one.

I’ve just been reading that someone has scaled the BBC building and attacked the sculpture by Eric Gill with a hammer.
Apparently it’s still being repaired from the last attack.
It prompted me to revisit info on the sculpture and sculptor.

AIBU in thinking it needs to be removed?

Gill is dead, the people he abused are dead. What is the objection - that the crimes of the man permanently and irrevocably taint the art, appreciating the art counts as tacit approval of the man and his crimes or is it we take the view that someone guilty of such crimes can never produce art of merit.

I'm not in favour of destroying historic art but I don't think it's a good association for the BBC to have considering their track record.

It's also in a highly prominent position which seems distasteful, welcoming you to the building/institution.

I feel awful for his victims (one of whom is likely to have posed for this?).

It would be better relocated elsewhere with some context provided.

The fact that the BBC are so keen to preserve it, in its current location is fairly revolting.

You've uninstalled the font from your computer then?

Michael Jackson still gets plenty of airplay on the radio, as do the Rolling Stones (Bill Wyman)

Led Zepplin too. And John Peel is still idolised.

@GarethSouthgatesWaistcoat it is not entirely in the BBCs gift - thebstatue is part of the building and the buioding is listed.

This does seem a bit like BBC bashing, Gill's art is everywhere - Westminster Cathedral, Broadway House, every London Undergound sign

Do you still bop along to Gary Glitter songs?

No. But I never did. His music is terrible and I am not at a disco in the seventies.

But i don't think playing or listening to Gary Glitter is beyond the pale if someone wishes to do so.

Gill was an utterly repulsive human being, but that does not diminish the beauty of his work imo.

The sculptures at Broadcasting House are an integral part of the building, which is an iconic piece of Art Deco architecture. To remove them would be to the detriment of the integrity of a remarkable and culturally significant part of the London landscape.

Gill designed the war memorial in the village where he lived. Should that be ripped down, too?

I didn't realise the sculptures at Broadway were Gill's too, for some reason I thought they were by Epstein.

That's a truly stunning building, I was lucky enough to get a look around the inside when I went out with someone who worked there.

Eric Gill was a revolting man, but Art history reveals that many male artists were/are egotistical, narcissistic, entitled and treated women poorly. See Picasso for example. There are plenty of other artists whose work is dodgy as heck including Balthus and the aptly named Hans Bellmer who had an articulated doll which he used to pose and photograph. But I dislike iconoclasm in general because it’s a slippery slope.

Definitely needs to go. You’d have thought the wokerati at the BBC would have been onto it some time ago. Eric Gill regularly raped his daughters and wrote about it. There’s also a sculpture by him Winchester cathedral

It's a valid debate Op, you are not wasting your time.
I can live without his typeface/font.
I can live without his art.
Wouldn't be against all his work being put into a self funding museum and see how that goes.

A lot of his work is incorporated in to the structure of listed and historic buildings, or is memorials so it may be difficult to remove it all to a musuem.

I am not sure I understand the objections of the "put it in a museum" view. Is it that you think having his work visible in the public realm is somehow an endorsement of the man and his crimes?

These are all fair points. Perhaps they're unable to remove it if it's listed? Perhaps they don't feel there's any issue.

All I can say is that I find the association distasteful. Others are free to disagree, all opinions are valid and it's an interesting discussion certainly. For me I think it's that the subject features a child (and a looming adult man), the sculptor was a child abuser and that the BBC has historically protected child sexual abusers. Combined I don't like the implication.
If it was a font or a statue without a child perhaps my reaction wouldn't be so visceral which I appreciate is hypocritical.

I question why an institution associated with CSA would want to be prominently represented by a well known paedophile.

Also hypocritical of me, these events all happened in the last century or so and feel more current. The BBC scandal is still ongoing with living victims. If it was an work by an artist from hundreds of years ago, located in a side wing or courtyard I probably wouldn't react as instinctively. I still don't think I'd be comfortable with the association/implication without any explanation or context which is unlikely to be provided with corporate/private art. In such cases it feels very much like the organisation is condoning it.

If it was an organisation without a recent (ongoing? Victims are still surfacing) history of CSA I still don't think I'd be entirely receptive. However in this case the BBC/CSA connection is overwhelming.

If it's part of the fabric of the building (listed status, carved into it etc) then I accept that. I mistakenly thought it was mounted and could be removed with ease.

I still don't think it's a great association for the BBC but I understand if their options are limited.

Interestingly when the pp said it's part of the fabric of an art deco building my first instinct was 'nooo, definitely don't interfere with any of it' so you can see I'm conflicted.

Tbh it’s a slippery slope once you imbue a work of art with a moral judgement owing to the criminal and evil behaviour of its creator. Why not rip up a few Caravaggios while you are cleaving the Gill statue from the Beeb building?

Have looked at a picture and it doesn't look integral.

The Saville stuff is a bit different IMO. No one knew what Gill was doing in his lifetime or for a long period after his death. The people that commissioned his art didn't enable his abuse.

No, but I’d still like to see every one of his art pieces destroyed. It’s like saying you’re ok to abuse children ( and an animal in his case) because you can make nice things. Vile person.

@Villagetoraiseachild It is a lot less integral than, say, the sculptures at 55 Broadway. But I think it would be a challenge to remove it without damaging both the building and the sculpture.

@AgrathaChristie interesting interpretation. Is owning a Caravaggio painting saying it is ok to to murder people?

Is owning a book of Byron's poems saying it is ok to have sex with your sister?

Is owning a Led Zepplin or Chuck Berry album saying it is ok to sexually abuse women and teenage girls?

I understand what you're saying @Twoshoesnewshoes , I loved Salvador Dali's work as a teenager until I found out that he was horribly cruel to animals, he actually said that be slept better listening to an animal suffer. I took down my Dali posters and will ignore any reference to his work now, just because someone makes something beautiful doesn't justify them being a lousy human being

The official English Heritage listing (Grade II*) includes ‘Prospero and Ariel'.

To be correct and adding to my post above 👆 , it’s Historic England's listing.

The pyramids weren't built by slaves.