After the Colston four, the Gill one?

[Deleted member 28]

As I recall you were just being gratuitously and utterly offensive then.

He wasn't offended though?

 

[The Crofted Crest]

I'll accept variations

Kinky. 💋

 

[farfromtheland]

Well that depends a bit on how you see it, but that's the same with Churchill, Colston and many many others.
While some might have been ar$eholes it seems the norm today to concentrate on how they did wrong, how 28th generations further apparently people are still victim of it and so further and so forth.
But if gansta rap suited his dirty money, why is it ok to kill statues of poeple who might/have/etc. traded slaves, why is someone who encourages a death cult like most gangs and gansters are than some kind of a cult hero?
That was exactly my point, put the now politically correct hero up only to be killed again when they realise it isn't correct anymore.. keeps em busy right?
But there's also a pointlessness in it all i mean, with removing an statue killing it or otherwise, it changes nothing about the memory of said person, it changes nothing about the memory of those who want to see that person in a certain way.
And you don't need to remove the statue if you want others to learn the other side of said person...

or to translate it for those who say something like ''word soup'' because my opinion doesn't really suits theirs..
Why should the past action or one person be worse than the past action of a other person if the end result is the same? This being deaths, pain and suffering.
And if we accept that, why do we accept the killing of statues, while we know it does absolutely nothing?



Different timeframe almost the same result, many deaths or suffering people due to their actions..

I almost didn't reply to this as the discussion has progressed onto vegetables, but I will.
Perhaps it depends if you see a bigger picture.

2pac was mainly a rapper. Churchill was mainly a politician. Coulston was mainly a profiteer.

2pac became involved in other currents after and because of his roots in conscious black music. The reasons are very complex. He didn't kill anyone.

Churchill changed his political allegiance over time. He was not most effective in peace time but was able to steer Britain to fight nazis well. People were killed, but the alternative was worse.

Coulston made lots of money dealing in commodities dependent on enslaved African labour. Many people died through this and future generations suffered. His 'philanthropy' to distant white people is horribly tainted. A statue of him is more like a statue of Hitler than one of Churchill.

 

[AndyRM]

He wasn't offended though?

Nope.

Just annoyed, and happy to stick up for myself as well as the rest of team queerio who very often don't have that confidence.

Subtlety and nuance aren't your thing though, but you don't care, so it's all good.

 

[theclaud]

I almost didn't reply to this as the discussion has progressed onto vegetables, but I will.
Perhaps it depends if you see a bigger picture.

2pac was mainly a rapper. Churchill was mainly a politician. Coulston was mainly a profiteer.

2pac became involved in other currents after and because of his roots in conscious black music. The reasons are very complex. He didn't kill anyone.

Churchill changed his political allegiance over time. He was not most effective in peace time but was able to steer Britain to fight nazis well. People were killed, but the alternative was worse.

Coulston made lots of money dealing in commodities dependent on enslaved African labour. Many people died through this and future generations suffered. His 'philanthropy' to distant white people is horribly tainted. A statue of him is more like a statue of Hitler than one of Churchill.

I regard celery as the most underrated of vegetables, and I like a Hip Hop diversion as much as the next woman, but all this came about because 'Dutch' guy has some weird racist obsession with rappers, and it doesn't have much to do with owt. Gill's sculpture isn't a statue of a real person or part of any celebration or depiction of an individual. Neither does it belong to the same kind of civic myth-making process about benevolent philanthropists and public obligation to wealthy individuals.

I didn't dive into this thread from the outset because I like Gill's work and was distressed by the sight of someone taking a hammer to it - I was wary of making a knee-jerk defence of the piece that might not stand up to scrutiny. As I said upthread, I understand the point about the unfortunate intersection of contexts that heap meaning upon the scupture - Gill's abuse of his daughters, the depiction of a naked junior/child figure physically dominated by an older male one, the BBC's historic complicity with child abuse, and the movement to re-evaluate (and possibly remove or relocate) public art that confers status or honour on abusers and oppressors. There are valid arguments for relocating or recontextualising exceptional art as well as chucking mediocre statuary into the harbour.

Anyway, instead of picking a row on here, I spent a day or two revisiting the sork of Gill and his contemporaries, especially Epstein, whose work has suffered from philistine, puritanical, racist and anti-semitic vandalism and censorship in the past. I contemplated the fate of the testicles of the angel on Oscar Wilde's tomb. Now, as anyone who goes on Fridays Christmas rides probably knows already, both Epstein's and Gill's work (along with that of Henry Moore and others) adorns Charles Holden's magnificent building at 55 Broadway / St James's station. Epstein's Day sculpture has similar figures to those in Prospero & Ariel, and was the subject of a contemporary controversy about the length of the boy figure's penis. Many people on social media proclaimed confidently that Prospero & Ariel was a piece celebrating paedophilia. I'm not claiming that's an invalid interpretation, but I do suspect it has more to do with them Googling Gill and finding out what he did than anything fundamentally objectionable about the sculpture. Anyway, I'm not quite sure where I'm going with this, but I note that the broader support for Chick's act of vandalism seems to have melted away as quickly as the enthusiasm for interpreting sculpture descended, when it became more obvious what kind of an act was being committed. I'm not saying that Gill's scupture is unassailable because it's beautiful - but if Gill's intentions or character matter here, then so do Chick's. Misogynist Thugs Smashing Stuff Because They Think It's Peado [sic] Art is not a movement I can get behind.

 

[Ian H]

I regard celery as the most underrated of vegetables, and I like a Hip Hop diversion as much as the next woman, but all this came about because 'Dutch' guy has some weird racist obsession with rappers, and it doesn't have much to do with owt. Gill's sculpture isn't a statue of a real person or part of any celebration or depiction of an individual. Neither does it belong to the same kind of civic myth-making process about benevolent philanthropists and public obligation to wealthy individuals.

I didn't dive into this thread from the outset because I like Gill's work and was distressed by the sight of someone taking a hammer to it - I was wary of making a knee-jerk defence of the piece that might not stand up to scrutiny. As I said upthread, I understand the point about the unfortunate intersection of contexts that heap meaning upon the scupture - Gill's abuse of his daughters, the depiction of a naked junior/child figure physically dominated by an older male one, the BBC's historic complicity with child abuse, and the movement to re-evaluate (and possibly remove or relocate) public art that confers status or honour on abusers and oppressors. There are valid arguments for relocating or recontextualising exceptional art as well as chucking mediocre statuary into the harbour.

Anyway, instead of picking a row on here, I spent a day or two revisiting the sork of Gill and his contemporaries, especially Epstein, whose work has suffered from philistine, puritanical, racist and anti-semitic vandalism and censorship in the past. I contemplated the fate of the testicles of the angel on Oscar Wilde's tomb. Now, as anyone who goes on Fridays Christmas rides probably knows already, both Epstein's and Gill's work (along with that of Henry Moore and others) adorns Charles Holden's magnificent building at 55 Broadway / St James's station. Epstein's Day sculpture has similar figures to those in Prospero & Ariel, and was the subject of a contemporary controversy about the length of the boy figure's penis. Many people on social media proclaimed confidently that Prospero & Ariel was a piece celebrating paedophilia. I'm not claiming that's an invalid interpretation, but I do suspect it has more to do with them Googling Gill and finding out what he did than anything fundamentally objectionable about the sculpture. Anyway, I'm not quite sure where I'm going with this, but I note that the broader support for Chick's act of vandalism seems to have melted away as quickly as the enthusiasm for interpreting sculpture descended, when it became more obvious what kind of an act was being committed. I'm not saying that Gill's scupture is unassailable because it's beautiful - but if Gill's intentions or character matter here, then so do Chick's. Misogynist Thugs Smashing Stuff Because They Think It's Peado [sic] Art is not a movement I can get behind.

Thank-you for this... and not to forget Gill's wonderful typographical designs.

In spending a few years as an estate gardener, I developed an appreciation of all kinds of vegetables. It has to be said that fresh-picked is a revelation compared to anything shop-bought.

 

[farfromtheland]

Thank-you for this...

Indeed.

 

[Deleted member 49]

Celery and baby tomatoes finely chopped,fresh garlic,capers,fresh hot chillis,glug of olive oil and salt and pepper as required.
Mix it up and let it sit a while....my favourite !
Sorry the mention of celery got me hungry.

 

[swansonj]

I contemplated the fate of the testicles of the angel on Oscar Wilde's tomb.

Context is everything

 

[icowden]

Maybe they should replace it with Tupac or something, then they can send statue killers a few years later when it's political correct enough to say that Tupac was actually mainly an gangster and therefore the killing of the statue is justified.

Perhaps a better comparison to the issue of statues would be to compare the music of Gary Glitter, Rolf Harris and Michael Jackson. All of them were involved in very questionable and illegal activities, but only the music of one of them is now regularly played. Does the music carry the taint of the artist, or can you enjoy the music separately?

 

[Ian H]

I contemplated the fate of the testicles of the angel on Oscar Wilde's tomb. ..

Context is everything

Just eat your sprouts.

 

[mudsticks]

Just eat your sprouts.

How am i supposed to resist a call such as this??

Beetroot have feelings too you know ...

And its 'Art' because i say it is - you can thank me later for not posting the tomatoes that look just like testicles

 

[Ian H]

How am i supposed to resist a call such as this??

View attachment 591
Beetroot have feelings too you know ...

And its 'Art' because i say it is - you can thank me later for not posting the tomatoes that look just like testicles

The Greeks thought large ones were vulgar (testicles, not tomatoes... or beetroot).

 

[mudsticks]

The Greeks thought large ones were vulgar (testicles, not tomatoes... or beetroot).

I guess I'm pretty much with the Greeks on that .

Although i could probs be persuaded to 'see past them' - fnarr fnarr - if all other ducks were in a row - so to speak -

Anyway - lets not lower the tone any further - If t'were even possible

 

[Xipe Totec]

Perhaps a better comparison to the issue of statues would be to compare the music of Gary Glitter, Rolf Harris and Michael Jackson. All of them were involved in very questionable and illegal activities, but only the music of one of them is now regularly played. Does the music carry the taint of the artist, or can you enjoy the music separately?

I would say not, at least personally - I think it's difficult to separate an individual's art from the individual. Having some metally/gothy/industrial genes in my own musical makeup, I would have considered myself to be a borderline Marilyn Manson fan back in the late 90s/early'00s - following the allegations about his behaviour with former partners I think I'd struggle to enjoy listening to him these days - in fact I'd actively avoid doing so.

As far as the three mentioned are concerned, I'm not a fan of any - but I think it's interesting (but possibly irrelevant) that the one who still gets airplay is the only one who ever had any real credibility as an artist. Also happens to be the one who's the most successful by an enormous margin - and the one who's dead. Those details are also possibly entirely irrelevant.