Statue smashing

M

MagicMike

Active member
preface this post by stating i didnt give a mpnkeys about all the statue smashing of what was it 2021? But this i whole heartedly endorse - what disappoints me is the difference in police response - i dont recall them doing much of anything at the time the colonial type statues were being destroyed or vandalised but looks like a fairly rapid response to the gentleman taking a hammer to the eric gill relief (possibly not the best choice of word) outside the bbc In london

apple.news

Man hits BBC HQ statue with hammer — BBC News

A man wearing a Spiderman mask is using a hammer to hit a controversial statue on the building.
apple.news apple.news
 
Tricky one. The colonial statues represented and glorified the individuals involved in the horrific trade of human beings.I do believe they should be removed, but put into a museum as reminders of the past.
This statue is done by a horrific individual and I don't think the art glorified sexual abuse( I may be wrong).The eternal question is whether you can separate the art from the artist?If not then most art needs smashing up,from Caravaggio to Picasso to Morrissey,all horrible individuals to some extent.
 
Last edited:
SNEEKERS said:
Tricky one. The colonial statues represented and glorified the individuals involved in the horrific trade of human beings.I do believe they should be removed and put in a museu, .This statue is done by a horrific individual and I don't think the art glorified sexual abuse( I may be wrong).The eternal question is whether you can separate the individual from his art.If not then most art needs smashing up.From Caravaggio to Picasso to Morrissey.
Click to expand...
Its not tricky at all and given bbcs recent horrendous track record with protecting peadophiles then youd expect them to be hoghly sensitive to any further links to child abuse

Some of the statues damaged or listed as targets had tenuous links to the slave trade but if there is a legitimate connection then yes they should be removed. Eric gill was an absolute monster and theres no doubt he sought to somehow manifest his sexual preferences in his art. It has no place anywhere much less on the hq of a body in which people are compelled to fund. So no i dont think you can separate it because i stated its a physical
Manifestation of their emotions and desires. I dont know what caravaggio or picasso etc done and is reflected in their art thats at all comparable. The bbc insistence it remains and is repaired at licence fee payers expense further demonstrates their contempt for public opinion.
 
MagicMike said:
Its not tricky at all and given bbcs recent horrendous track record with protecting peadophiles then youd expect them to be hoghly sensitive to any further links to child abuse

Some of the statues damaged or listed as targets had tenuous links to the slave trade but if there is a legitimate connection then yes they should be removed. Eric gill was an absolute monster and theres no doubt he sought to somehow manifest his sexual preferences in his art. It has no place anywhere much less on the hq of a body in which people are compelled to fund. So no i dont think you can separate it because i stated its a physical
Manifestation of their emotions and desires. I dont know what caravaggio or picasso etc done and is reflected in their art thats at all comparable. The bbc insistence it remains and is repaired at licence fee payers expense further demonstrates their contempt for public opinion.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't.
Eric Gill was a phenomenal sculptor. But yes he has since been exposed for his horrendous actions. But it is not a statue to Eric Gill it is a statue by him. It is something that should be debated. Definitely. But I think there will be many that disagree with your assessment. I can see that if it was by the Austrian painter Adolf Hitler then yes we would want it removing. Pretty unlikely the BBC would have an emblem from Hitler.
Certainly the actions have highlighted Eric Gill's crimes to the greater general public.
 
This is such a difficult discussion and we should be careful not to virtue signal,we all agree what he did was horrendous.
I do think you are having a pop at being"woke" and the BBC however. There is nothing tenuous about the link between slave traders and the statues,as you imply. How does destroying art make a difference to anything? Do we destroy all of his works? Because of your interpretation of the motivation. Do we have a sliding scale of what misdemeanors are acceptable? Caravaggio thug and Murderer, Picasso Misoganist and abuser? Ok?I don't see having a statue or art on display is an act of approval and complicity with the artist. Destroying them only conceals their crimes, while also suppressing the stories of those people they wronged.
 
I went to see some of his work at an exhibition at Ditchling Gallery a few years ago. It was very good.

We were reminded of his abusive past by staff members before going in, and it did make me feel and think differently about his work I'm sure.

I didn't feel compelled to take a hammer a chisel to any of it.
 
FlapJacks said:
I went to see some of his work at an exhibition at Ditchling Gallery a few years ago. It was very good.

We were reminded of his abusive past by staff members before going in, and it did make me feel and think differently about his work I'm sure.

I didn't feel compelled to take a hammer a chisel to any of it.
Click to expand...
Slightly different to having the work permanently and publicly displayed in London for all to see (whether they want to or not).
 
I don’t understand anyone supporting criminal damage. By all means protest for lawful removal, you can’t have vigilantes making unilateral decisons, where is the line in the sand, surely it is whatever the law states.
 
TeaCider said:
I don't think the BBC should have statues made by a self-admitted child molester.

Smash them all.

Get somebody else to make statues to replace them.
Click to expand...

The sculpture was made in 1933. His abuse came to light many years after his death in 1940 through his own diaries. I happen to know one of his grandsons - his mother was one of the abused daughters. If they can separate the art from the crimes then I'm sure we can do so. If we want to erase all his work it will mean burning a hell of a lot of books and anything adorned with his most famous typeface, which is still one of my favourites.
 
pierrequiroule said:
The sculpture was made in 1933. His abuse came to light many years after his death in 1940 through his own diaries. I happen to know one of his grandsons - his mother was one of the abused daughters. If they can separate the art from the crimes then I'm sure we can do so. If we want to erase all his work it will mean burning a hell of a lot of books and anything adorned with his most famous typeface, which is still one of my favourites.
Click to expand...

I don't think you can separate the art from the crime though

Everything he ever made will always have been the work of a disgusting child rapist.

The typeface is slightly different as it's the work of other people using his design.
Though I can't see how the world would be a worse place for just striking it from the record and using a different typeface anyway.

I presume the statues were all personally designed by the sick b****d
 
Last edited:
History is history. Things done can’t be undone, destroying everything that relates to dark times doesn’t change anything, it doesn’t usually heal wounds. Use history to educate people, to learn the mistakes of others and the consequences of actions to try to make a better world as we live in the present and look to the future.

We‘ve all evolved as humans from some brutal times, we probably all have genes running through our bodies from people in the past who have done bad things at some point, somewhere.

I totally understand why people would want some things removed, replaced or occasionally destroyed and in some cases destruction would be a good thing. However, look how the concentration camps like Auschwitz have been used for good, to educate, a reminder of the brutality of the Nazi’s and the futility of war, the pain & suffering of innocent Jews, it allows us to pay homage to the 1.1 million people that were murdered, should we maybe turn up with a bulldozer and destroy that too?
 
You're missing the point. Auschwitz is set up as a reminder of the atrocities to make sure we never repeat it again. That statue is just sitting on the side of a building belonging to a British institution who appear to be silently condoning what went on by their inactions.

There are 2 choices. Remove the statue and send the message that child abuse is not okay. Or leave it there, bury your head in the sand and send the message that if you're famous then child abuse is fine.

I really don't understand why this is an any more challenging decision than the one taken to not play those particular artists I mentioned further up the thread.
 
And if you ever come to the US and find yourself discussing slavery or racial discrimination with any African Americans in a bar, please do not use the argument "history is history" to try and justify why there should not be reparations of some description in this modern age. It won't go down well at all.
 
Thank god for you goalscrounger because i am appalled at tje apologist tone of some on here. You cant isolate gill and the tone of this particular work (i dont care about a bloody typeface fgs) from the bbc shielding paedophiles. It has to go. Im astonished and concerned that people think otherwise
 
MagicMike said:
Thank god for you goalscrounger because i am appalled at tje apologist tone of some on here. You cant isolate gill and the tone of this particular work (i dont care about a bloody typeface fgs) from the bbc shielding paedophiles. It has to go. Im astonished and concerned that people think otherwise
Click to expand...
Ooooh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top