Eric Gill and the BBC

[lucillelarusso]

Listened to the today show and feeling sick.
Another example of the BBC's utter misogyny. They describe him as 'having sex' with his daughters rather than raping them, they defend his work. Revolting.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb3-tlyuhVo

1.20: queer jeapardy

That was to TropicalSound on Queer Theory and link with pedophilia. It's just the beginning really.

It’s a very valid conversation but the answers I don’t think are clear.

The world is full of beautiful creations, sculptures, ceramics, paintings, music, film, theatre, architecture - all spanning decades, centuries, millennia. An awful lot of those things will have been created by morally repugnant people - there is no connection between artistic skill and moral virtue.

Some of those creations will have pre-dated whatever actions made the creator so repugnant, some will have been created afterwards.

Some will have been created by people whose actions were considered normal at the time but are repugnant now, others will have been considered repugnant at one point, but perhaps no longer. Many will have done things considered repugnant no matter what era they happened in.

Once they are released into the world can those creations stand or fall purely on their own merits with a life of their own, or are they forever tarnished by the actions of their creator?

Should works be destroyed, or hidden? If they are hidden, then where, and who is allowed to see them?

What if they are too big to be hidden? If we are talking about a building designed by an architect who committed terrible crimes should the building be destroyed? Left empty?

What about the other people involved in bringing these creations into reality (students, assistants, craftspeople) must their work be tarnished/destroyed too?

Can we love a creation whilst we condemn its creator? Is condemning the creation not unlike blaming a child for the sins of its parents?

If this particular statue is vile, what makes it vile? Is it vile as an object viewed in isolation, or vile purely because of its creator? Would an identical statue created by an entirely different artist also be vile?

I think these are all reasonable questions for a society to ask itself, but it is also quite reasonable for people to come to different conclusions.

@IvyTwines

On a more general point, I can't help feeling the fuss around Qanon has been very useful for these apologists and enablers. 'Feeling concerned about a potential safeguarding issue? What are you, some kind of Qanon crazy person?'.

Yes this. It's happening a lot. Concern about the Scottish anal sex survey was reported as concerns from "right wing parent groups".

I really think focusing on language like the word sex is barking up the wrong tree. This idea that rape isn't sex is not helpful. Sex is a description of a biological act that happens in animals that reproduce sexually. Minimizing or an inaccurate descriptions in the article overall aren't caused by using language accurately, they are caused by an inadequate or flawed analysis. Like not questioning more the daughter's report - though as an interviewer I think you do actually have to give some thought to what people say about themselves even if it doesn't seem likely to you.

I'd really like to see people get away from basing so much of their ire on people not toeing the line on using approved language that someone demands of them. It's already backfired for women.

I would rather see good explanations of controversial statues rather than them not being seen. Discussion and debate are essential in a democracy. Gill, to my mind, is abhorrent but I want to know about him and I want to know who revers him

There's a certain man who I interact with occasionally on Facebook. Every time I raise any kind of safeguarding issue relating to women or children he accuses me of being "right-wing". I assume he imagines it's an effective way of shutting me up. (It isn't.)

@RoyalCorgi

There's a certain man who I interact with occasionally on Facebook. Every time I raise any kind of safeguarding issue relating to women or children he accuses me of being "right-wing". I assume he imagines it's an effective way of shutting me up. (It isn't.)

And the line that we are funded by the US Christian Right, and arranging 'organised attacks', as Brian Paddick was claiming yesterday, as though we are some sort of Bond villain's minions or Wicked Witch of the West sending forth blue flying monkeys.

Ironically, according to the BBC Radio 4 series The Hackers, in the episode 'End User', it's actually happening the other way around...

@Nesbo

It’s a very valid conversation but the answers I don’t think are clear.

The world is full of beautiful creations, sculptures, ceramics, paintings, music, film, theatre, architecture - all spanning decades, centuries, millennia. An awful lot of those things will have been created by morally repugnant people - there is no connection between artistic skill and moral virtue.

Some of those creations will have pre-dated whatever actions made the creator so repugnant, some will have been created afterwards.

Some will have been created by people whose actions were considered normal at the time but are repugnant now, others will have been considered repugnant at one point, but perhaps no longer. Many will have done things considered repugnant no matter what era they happened in.

Once they are released into the world can those creations stand or fall purely on their own merits with a life of their own, or are they forever tarnished by the actions of their creator?

Should works be destroyed, or hidden? If they are hidden, then where, and who is allowed to see them?

What if they are too big to be hidden? If we are talking about a building designed by an architect who committed terrible crimes should the building be destroyed? Left empty?

What about the other people involved in bringing these creations into reality (students, assistants, craftspeople) must their work be tarnished/destroyed too?

Can we love a creation whilst we condemn its creator? Is condemning the creation not unlike blaming a child for the sins of its parents?

If this particular statue is vile, what makes it vile? Is it vile as an object viewed in isolation, or vile purely because of its creator? Would an identical statue created by an entirely different artist also be vile?

I think these are all reasonable questions for a society to ask itself, but it is also quite reasonable for people to come to different conclusions.

Yes this. I've always loved Eric Gills work and struggle to separate the artist from the man since that biography was published. The fact remains every time I walk past Broadcasting House it fills my heart with joy because it is one of the most beautiful buildings in London. Yes, Gill was a monster but he died in 1940, do we need to punish the building which is a work of art.

Column in todays Times

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/these-moral-avengers-risk-destroying-all-art-s836dbfqk?shareToken=db6c6c83c16ba233152e63c7b35e6b7e

@Bonhex

The BBC has linked to a Guardian piece from 2009 which refers to Gill's "sexual experiments" with his daughters and claims that "Their history challenges received opinion on the inevitability of damage done by child abuse."

Wtf.
BBC and Guardian need to sort this asap.

They fucking WHAT?

Gill was cleary a monstrous abusive perverted arsehole. As were/are many artists/writers/musicians/politicians/etc.

But we do need to consider whether attacking/boycotting statues/art is useful, or going to actually achieve anything, or might actually just be an outlet for destructive vengeful rage. Might there be more sensible ways to protect children than hammering random statues?

Anyone wishing to boycott the man's work should be careful about typefaces, btw:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gill_Sans

The question of departing the art and the artist is one we need to work on and am sure there isn’t one answer. For me personally, I find I have just naturally stopped watching work by Roman Polanski or Woody Allen, and avoid listening to Michael Jackson and will question the reliance on Foucault’s work. But I wouldn’t dream of trying to stop others doing so if they chose - that way lies the Cultural Revolution.

Bloody hell. Separating not departing.

Yes, it's a good question, Working. I agree that it is complex and nuanced, too. We were talking about Gary Glitter yesterday - I can't listen to him now, but perhaps it's a very personal thing? I suppose the problem is yes, when we start to suggest that nobody else should listen/look/read etc.

@ErrolTheDragon

Column in todays Times

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/these-moral-avengers-risk-destroying-all-art-s836dbfqk?shareToken=db6c6c83c16ba233152e63c7b35e6b7e

Thanks for posting. Good article.

@WorkingItOutAsIGo

The question of departing the art and the artist is one we need to work on and am sure there isn’t one answer. For me personally, I find I have just naturally stopped watching work by Roman Polanski or Woody Allen, and avoid listening to Michael Jackson and will question the reliance on Foucault’s work. But I wouldn’t dream of trying to stop others doing so if they chose - that way lies the Cultural Revolution.

I've come to the conclusion that being personally awful is not incompatible with something like being a brilliant philosopher or artist necessarily. It may be - the person may be to blind to self to function with the necessary insights that these things require.

But I just don't think the evidence supports that it is always true. I have doubts about Foucault because of what he said seeming thin to me, I'm not sure it's even held up so far. But the fact is there are plenty of great things made by bad people, and probably lots more than we think, too.

While I'm generally on the page of 'retain and explain' (not excuse!), there perhaps needs to be some distinction between works of art which happen to be by deeply flawed people, and works of art which are in some way themselves glorifying 'evil'?
But even then - we'll never know the full extent of works which were considered 'evil' in their time and consigned to the Bonfire of the Vanities because they're irretrievably lost. Or the frescos and statues lost from our churches due to puritan iconoclasm.
So I'm not sure that idea helps much.

For me, it's not as black and white as remove/destroy versus keep and glorify. I'd like to see the BBC sculpture removed from its current position and displayed somewhere where there is the ability to place it in context with information about the artist and their actions during their life. Not hide it away or destroy it, but enable people to recognise the issues around it and be informed about it. If I were the owner of the building I would be consulting widely on how to do that.

I certainly don't want art to be smashed and destroyed by anyone with an issue about it.

Yeah, that's an interesting point, Errol. I think there is not a clear answer.

Generally speaking I am willing to give an almost total free pass to art in terms of what it says, if it does so in a compelling way. But I will say that is clearly a risky proposition. But I really think the kind of perspective that comes from a visible long material history, with all it's changes and chances, is preferable to the kind of historical revisionism that we saw in places like Soviet Russia, China, and now people push for in the US, Canada, the UK.

I also don't think in general that art should be explained by a plaque. It's in any case just another person who is telling the viewer how to understand it, do we know they are better than the artist was?

On a purely pragmatic note, re the assertion that not all paedophilic behaviour will have a negative effect on its 'recipient' - surely this can only be known in hindsight, i.e. when the putative damage would already be done.

Not really a risk it's ok to take.

We might end up needing plaques about earlier plaques.

It maybe depends what we are 'using' the art/literature/music for. If we read a book with a strong message about morality, say, and give the author's worldview credence based on what they say that turns out to be contradicted by their actions, I think that's a good reason to discount the work. If Harper Lee had turned out to be a raging racist in secret, I suppose would be a hypothetical.

But - a typeface? Does it matter how the person conducted themselves; surely we can separate craft and skill and vision from the artist and the work from the maker in many cases?

being personally awful is not incompatible with something like being a brilliant philosopher or artist necessarily.

Quite often outliers who are capable of creating great work are almost inevitably difficult people in their personal lives. I'm not equating that with being outright criminals like Gill, just saying that creating great works often requires quite extreme personalities and drive.

@ArabellaScott

being personally awful is not incompatible with something like being a brilliant philosopher or artist necessarily.

Quite often outliers who are capable of creating great work are almost inevitably difficult people in their personal lives. I'm not equating that with being outright criminals like Gill, just saying that creating great works often requires quite extreme personalities and drive.

Yes, I would agree with this.

I had a professor who was of this type, and also, as it turned out, capable of some pretty horrific things, though that wasn't known until much later. And it certainly brought up questions about hypocrisy and whether his ideas weren't a kind of illusion, as in the Harper Lee example above.

I had to come to the conclusion in the end that they weren't, that somehow he was simultaneously both things, a sort of hellish person and also a visionary, a supreme egoist but also with startling insight into people. And also, I came to know, quite damaged by his own early life. That these things are related seems like a real, though not entirely pleasant, possibility.