I was only suggesting that its interesting to contextualise the art work , by considering its creator.How do you go around contextualising works of art? Should every work of art have a statement about the moral background/behaviour of the artist, or could we have a little chart under each one, like those restaurant safety certificates which rates compliance on a scale of 1 - 5? Who decides?
I think we should treat people like adults and if they are interested in the history and morality of the artist let them do the research.
It may need a different approach if the piece of art itself is of a potentially offensive nature or subject, as with Colston, but it is a very dangerous path to start down.
Personally I felt offended by most of the works of art in St Peter's when I visited the Vatican but that was up to me and I fully understand why others feel differently.
I am not sure of the reasons given by this man for his act of vandalism, and that is relevant to the action, but, as he takes responsibility for his own actions, so he should be prepared to accept there may be a price to pay otherwise it really does become open house to attack/deface works of art that may offend some.
I wasn't suggesting we have to - or destroy anything - or whatever - i was just taking issue with Ians suggestion that the character of the creator had no relevance once the artwork is free in the world..
No idea what that chap was up to either, nor am i defending his actions - if prosecuted he will have to answer for his own actions - just as the Colston four had to...