Epiphanies 2022: Where is the line crossed

HugalHugal Shipmate
edited January 2024 in Limbo
At on end you have Gary Glitter or Bill Cosby. Both people who’s works we not watch again (but for different reasons). At the other you have She Who Must Not Be Named who despite her comments on transgender lots of people are willing to read her books, watch her films etc. Somewhere between them there must be a line we will not cross. Where is it? Is it different for different people?

[Edited by Alan Cresswell: See below]
«13

Comments

  • I should think it varies from person to person, and time to time. I look at Caravaggio, despite him being on the run for murder.
  • In the same vein, the music of Gesualdo is played and enjoyed today, despite the fact that he murdered his wife and her lover...
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    I think the line is in different places depending on whether the artist is still alive (and to some extent whether their victims are). So Walt Disney was a bit of a Nazi but I don't have major qualms about buying from the company that bears his name. Roman Polanski, on the other hand, is an escaped convict very much still alive and making money and I have no intention of doing anything to put money in his pocket.
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    One point on the line is when someone makes an awful lot of money and then uses it to sue anyone who says something remotely negative about her. Which means we avoid using her name here.

    Alan
    Ship of Fools Admin
  • Wagner?
  • One point on the line is when someone makes an awful lot of money and then uses it to sue anyone who says something remotely negative about her. Which means we avoid using her name here.

    Alan
    Ship of Fools Admin

    Was not aware of this. Thanks
  • First of all, transgender is an adjective not a noun - I know I've raised this before but it would be helpful if those talking about 'the issue of transgender' (transgender *what*?) could remember this. This isn't about saying that anyone's views on trans issues are wrong or otherwise, just that using 'transgender' as a noun feels very dehumanising (and I am aware it's not meant that way by any posters here). People don't talk about 'the issue of disabled' or 'the issue of gay'.

    On the main issue - everyone has blind spots. I note that John Peel for instance is still held in revered esteem by many people including the BBC and Glastonbury, despite him marrying a child and openly discussing his attraction to schoolgirls in his autobiography. It's almost as if his complete openness about being attracted to children (and let's be clear, a 13yo girl is a *child* and was a child even in the 70s) allowed him to hide in plain sight. And I grew up listening to both his Radio 1 show and Home Truths - it's certainly always painful to realise that someone you admired greatly was also an open and brazen paedophile. But nobody talking about it aside from the recent petition to rename the John Peel Stage at Glastonbury, even compared to eg Bowie.
  • I think the line is in different places depending on whether the artist is still alive (and to some extent whether their victims are). So Walt Disney was a bit of a Nazi but I don't have major qualms about buying from the company that bears his name. Roman Polanski, on the other hand, is an escaped convict very much still alive and making money and I have no intention of doing anything to put money in his pocket.

    Walt Disney was antisemitic, he wasn't a Nazi - he was openly and vehemently opposed to the Nazis while also being antisemitic, and this was not seen as being in any way contradictory by the majority of people in Allied countries. Antisemitism was not and never has been exclusive to Nazi ideology, and always has been baked into many aspects of culture for opponents of Nazis. Portraying antisemitism as being exclusively a Nazi issue makes it easier for antisemitism to go undetected or unchallenged in anti-Nazi spaces.
  • Point of order. The term 'paedophilia' though widely used in this way, is incorrect. What you are describing is hebephilia or possibly ephebophilia.



  • Point of order. The term 'paedophilia' though widely used in this way, is incorrect. What you are describing is hebephilia or possibly ephebophilia.



    It's not incorrect, because it's a distinction without a difference, and a distinction that leads to children being treated as if they are consenting adult equals to adults preying on them. A 13yo is a child, and really obviously a child to any adult - using different words to somehow suggest that they are *not* a child is a bad thing. Language is descriptive, not prescriptive.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    Pomona wrote: »
    I think the line is in different places depending on whether the artist is still alive (and to some extent whether their victims are). So Walt Disney was a bit of a Nazi but I don't have major qualms about buying from the company that bears his name. Roman Polanski, on the other hand, is an escaped convict very much still alive and making money and I have no intention of doing anything to put money in his pocket.

    Walt Disney was antisemitic, he wasn't a Nazi - he was openly and vehemently opposed to the Nazis while also being antisemitic, and this was not seen as being in any way contradictory by the majority of people in Allied countries. Antisemitism was not and never has been exclusive to Nazi ideology, and always has been baked into many aspects of culture for opponents of Nazis. Portraying antisemitism as being exclusively a Nazi issue makes it easier for antisemitism to go undetected or unchallenged in anti-Nazi spaces.

    Fair enough.

    Roald Dahl is another interesting example (and another, more egregious, anti-semite).
  • Pomona wrote: »
    Point of order. The term 'paedophilia' though widely used in this way, is incorrect. What you are describing is hebephilia or possibly ephebophilia.



    It's not incorrect, because it's a distinction without a difference, and a distinction that leads to children being treated as if they are consenting adult equals to adults preying on them. A 13yo is a child, and really obviously a child to any adult - using different words to somehow suggest that they are *not* a child is a bad thing. Language is descriptive, not prescriptive.

    No, it's difference in terms of both pathology and harms caused.

    I don't want to derail the thread here but throwing the word 'paedo' around doesn't protect children. And yes, I am vehemently opposed to the fiction that a child can consent.

    I speak from personal and professional experience here.

    AFZ
  • MaryLouiseMaryLouise Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Hosting

    A quick reminder that any discussion of paedophilia, hebephilia or ephebophilia belongs in Epiphanies. Could we get back to more Purgatorial ground?

    Thanks,

    MaryLouise, Purgatory and Epiphanies Host

    Hosting off
  • There is another side to this - people saying "Oh, I never really enjoyed Magical Story Books anyway, and they are not very well written" - retrospective rewriting is also bad.

    Draw the line? I don't think the fact that someone is a Bad Person rules out the fact that they can produce good work. It may mean I review what they have done in new terms, but it can still be good.

    So John Peel - did do a huge amount for new music in his time, and alternative music, punk and similar. That is a contribution to the music scene that we can all appreciate and do, whenever we lsiten to an indie artist. Personally, I would rename the Glasto stage because of his other failings. Because a continued celebration of him is not (IMO) appropriate.

    It all strikes me as similar to those who refused to use Vicky Beeching worship songs when she came out as gay. They were fine before hand, but not after? Nothing changed in the song. OK, maybe not invite her to your church if you hate gay people, but what she has produced is just the same, just as good.
  • Then there is the case of David Haas a renowned and popular RC hymn etc composer who abused scores of women aged from their teens to their 60s and used his fame (in the USA) and music as a lure, running music camps and week-ends. There is a deeply upsetting Youtube clip of testimony from his victims for those with a strong stomach.
    His stuff is now widely banned.
    Is being famous and being a wrong'un different from using your gifts as a tool in your wrong doing? Should that be the line?
  • The evidence for either Walt or Roy Disney (there is no Disney without Roy) is difficult to pin down. Yes Walt was a member of a group that had anti semantic tendencies, but he was a member for other reasons and got on with the Jews he was close to very well. Walt has had so much thrown at him over the years that he could be guilty of many opposing things. He was for sure however bad at industrial relations and Roy made things right. I am not a Walt worshipper but do enjoy Disney parks and am part of a podcast team about them.
    Oh and Walt was cremated not frozen.
  • I mean Uncle Walt was clearly a pretty unpleasant character in many ways - his collusion with the McCarthyist witch hunts for example, and being very keen to whitewash the Reconstruction era of US history. Certainly, he had an…interesting view of the future as he imagined the original planned EPCOT community (the YouTube series Defunctland has some very interesting documentaries about the history of his plans for the Florida parks). But the Disney company's current evils don't have much if anything to do with him or his vision for the company - he was never intending to simply consume as much intellectual property as possible.

    Accusations of being a Nazi are a problem simply because of how they distort antisemitism as a phenomenon, which was a perfectly normal part of being American for most Christian Americans in the early to mid 20th Century.
  • @Schroedingers Cat plenty of fans of Magical Book Series were critical fans even at the time, it was obvious that the standard/amount of editing declined over the course of the series beginning with the fourth book. Many people outright hated the fifth and sixth books. The epilogue to the seventh book was widely mocked within the fandom. I was an active member of the fandom at the time and none of the criticism is new or rewriting history, it's simply now more visible because back in 2005 it was on livejournal rather than twitter.

    It's now pretty obvious that the editors really did a lot to make the books better, and that as Author became more powerful she felt that she did not need such close editing. Well, she was clearly wrong. The latest book isn't just bigoted but a genuinely unreadable mess.
  • Alan29 wrote: »
    Then there is the case of David Haas a renowned and popular RC hymn etc composer who abused scores of women aged from their teens to their 60s and used his fame (in the USA) and music as a lure, running music camps and week-ends. There is a deeply upsetting Youtube clip of testimony from his victims for those with a strong stomach.
    His stuff is now widely banned.
    Is being famous and being a wrong'un different from using your gifts as a tool in your wrong doing? Should that be the line?
    I’m pretty sure we had a thread on Haas that raised the same issues as this thread, but I’ve been unable to find it.

    In addition to the point you raised—using one’s gifts as a tool in wrongdoing—I think a situation like Haas is complicated/distinguished by two other factors. First, we’re not just reading or watching what Haas created; if a hymn of his is sung in worship, we’re asking worshippers—including worshippers who’ve experienced sexual abuse—to put those words in their own mouths. And second, the lyrics themselves can perhaps pose a problem when one knows about the accusations against Haas. For example,

    I will come to you in the silence;
    I will lift you from all your fear.
    You will hear My voice;
    I claim you as My choice.
    Be still, and know I am near.

    That can take on a whole different meaning if you know the allegations.

  • jay_emmjay_emm Kerygmania Host
    For me there's lots of lines, the line at which I won't buy it and the line at which I think the law should stop you from reading it are very far apart.

    First would come active danger and issues intrinsic to the works.

    Once down to indirect effects the key factor would be support, either financial or reputational to ill ends.

    Meaning would potentially shift or attract unseemly resonances. On an individual level this would have quite an easily triggered line (I have to prioritise somehow) and often falsely.
  • Alan29 wrote: »
    Then there is the case of David Haas a renowned and popular RC hymn etc composer who abused scores of women aged from their teens to their 60s and used his fame (in the USA) and music as a lure, running music camps and week-ends. There is a deeply upsetting Youtube clip of testimony from his victims for those with a strong stomach.
    His stuff is now widely banned.

    Is his stuff actually "banned", or do people just voluntarily not use his stuff anymore? For example, there is no formal "ban" on minstrel shows, it's just that most people find them repugnant these days so none get staged.
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    I’m pretty sure we had a thread on Haas that raised the same issues as this thread, but I’ve been unable to find it.

    Here, perhaps?
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    I’m pretty sure we had a thread on Haas that raised the same issues as this thread, but I’ve been unable to find it.

    Here, perhaps?
    Yes, thanks!
  • Pomona wrote: »
    @Schroedingers Cat plenty of fans of Magical Book Series were critical fans even at the time, it was obvious that the standard/amount of editing declined over the course of the series beginning with the fourth book. Many people outright hated the fifth and sixth books. The epilogue to the seventh book was widely mocked within the fandom. I was an active member of the fandom at the time and none of the criticism is new or rewriting history, it's simply now more visible because back in 2005 it was on livejournal rather than twitter.

    It's now pretty obvious that the editors really did a lot to make the books better, and that as Author became more powerful she felt that she did not need such close editing. Well, she was clearly wrong. The latest book isn't just bigoted but a genuinely unreadable mess.

    Oh yes agreed - I had all sorts of issues with the later books. They did need much better editing. But also - I enjoyed them. I will not deny that. I was making the point that some people seem to be claiming that they knew all along. Maybe they did, or maybe they are pretenders.

    The Vacancy book is mediocre. Other-Name-Crime novels make reasonable TV. The latest book I will never know about. I suppose I want to acknowledge that Unnamed Author did have some real positives, and at the time I was an enthusiast. I am not rewriting history because said author turns out to be Not A Good Person After All.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    Then there is the case of David Haas a renowned and popular RC hymn etc composer who abused scores of women aged from their teens to their 60s and used his fame (in the USA) and music as a lure, running music camps and week-ends. There is a deeply upsetting Youtube clip of testimony from his victims for those with a strong stomach.
    His stuff is now widely banned.

    Is his stuff actually "banned", or do people just voluntarily not use his stuff anymore? For example, there is no formal "ban" on minstrel shows, it's just that most people find them repugnant these days so none get staged.
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    I’m pretty sure we had a thread on Haas that raised the same issues as this thread, but I’ve been unable to find it.

    Here, perhaps?

    Yes certain dioceses have instructed that his stuff should not be used. It has been taken out of current publication. It no longer appears on hymn planners.
  • Not read any of the crime novels, but is it rather ironic that the female author is writing under a male name?
  • I think that it was to prove a point, that the quality of the writing was such that people would buy the book whatever name was attached to it.
  • Alan29 wrote: »
    It has been taken out of current publication. It no longer appears on hymn planners.

    Being out of current publication is a fate that eventually befalls most published writers. No one is guaranteed that their work will be published in perpetuity.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    It has been taken out of current publication. It no longer appears on hymn planners.

    Being out of current publication is a fate that eventually befalls most published writers. No one is guaranteed that their work will be published in perpetuity.

    That's a bit disingenuous, don't you think? Until the revelations about his behaviour, Haas's music was popular. His Mass settings were used in all kinds of places. Following the revelations about his behaviour, a number of churches and dioceses chose not to use his stuff any more, and GIA has removed his works from their catalogues.

    This is not the typical "there's not enough sales of this item to support another print run / warehouse space / marketing" of the publishing life cycle of print books, but a deliberate choice to remove Haas's works from use as a result of his reported behaviour.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    It has been taken out of current publication. It no longer appears on hymn planners.
    Being out of current publication is a fate that eventually befalls most published writers. No one is guaranteed that their work will be published in perpetuity.
    That's a bit disingenuous, don't you think? Until the revelations about his behaviour, Haas's music was popular. His Mass settings were used in all kinds of places. Following the revelations about his behaviour, a number of churches and dioceses chose not to use his stuff any more, and GIA has removed his works from their catalogues.

    This is not the typical "there's not enough sales of this item to support another print run / warehouse space / marketing" of the publishing life cycle of print books, but a deliberate choice to remove Haas's works from use as a result of his reported behaviour.

    It seems to be of a similar type. I'm not sure I can go along with the idea that there are legitimate and illegitimate reasons certain artistic works become less popular. No one is obligated to like Haas' work, and they're certainly not under any obligation to spend money on it. No one is owed an audience and I'm not sure policing people's æsthetic choices to make sure they're made for the "right" reasons is a valuable endeavor. Is "makes me think of sexual assault" really a less valid reason for no longer liking an artistic work than "no longer meets current musical fashion"?
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    It has been taken out of current publication. It no longer appears on hymn planners.
    Being out of current publication is a fate that eventually befalls most published writers. No one is guaranteed that their work will be published in perpetuity.
    That's a bit disingenuous, don't you think? Until the revelations about his behaviour, Haas's music was popular. His Mass settings were used in all kinds of places. Following the revelations about his behaviour, a number of churches and dioceses chose not to use his stuff any more, and GIA has removed his works from their catalogues.

    This is not the typical "there's not enough sales of this item to support another print run / warehouse space / marketing" of the publishing life cycle of print books, but a deliberate choice to remove Haas's works from use as a result of his reported behaviour.

    It seems to be of a similar type. I'm not sure I can go along with the idea that there are legitimate and illegitimate reasons certain artistic works become less popular. No one is obligated to like Haas' work, and they're certainly not under any obligation to spend money on it. No one is owed an audience and I'm not sure policing people's æsthetic choices to make sure they're made for the "right" reasons is a valuable endeavor. Is "makes me think of sexual assault" really a less valid reason for no longer liking an artistic work than "no longer meets current musical fashion"?

    Well, sure - but in the case of Haas's work, GIA proactively said "we're not listing his stuff any more because of what he has been accused of". They're not responding to a lack of demand (for whatever reason), but are part of the decision to create that lack of demand.
  • Well, sure - but in the case of Haas's work, GIA proactively said "we're not listing his stuff any more because of what he has been accused of". They're not responding to a lack of demand (for whatever reason), but are part of the decision to create that lack of demand.

    GIA is also under no obligation to publish anyone, nor are they obligated to keep publishing someone in perpetuity if they've ever published their work at any time in the past. Policing the business decisions of corporate entities (especially closely-held corporate entities like GIA) for proper motives (e.g. ceasing publication because of substandard returns on investment is okay, ceasing publication to avoid the reputational damage for promoting a self-confessed sex offender is not) also seems like a dubious endeavor.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    It has been taken out of current publication. It no longer appears on hymn planners.

    Being out of current publication is a fate that eventually befalls most published writers. No one is guaranteed that their work will be published in perpetuity.

    There's a difference between becoming old hat and being cut from lists.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    It has been taken out of current publication. It no longer appears on hymn planners.
    Being out of current publication is a fate that eventually befalls most published writers. No one is guaranteed that their work will be published in perpetuity.
    That's a bit disingenuous, don't you think? Until the revelations about his behaviour, Haas's music was popular. His Mass settings were used in all kinds of places. Following the revelations about his behaviour, a number of churches and dioceses chose not to use his stuff any more, and GIA has removed his works from their catalogues.

    This is not the typical "there's not enough sales of this item to support another print run / warehouse space / marketing" of the publishing life cycle of print books, but a deliberate choice to remove Haas's works from use as a result of his reported behaviour.

    It seems to be of a similar type. I'm not sure I can go along with the idea that there are legitimate and illegitimate reasons certain artistic works become less popular. No one is obligated to like Haas' work, and they're certainly not under any obligation to spend money on it. No one is owed an audience and I'm not sure policing people's æsthetic choices to make sure they're made for the "right" reasons is a valuable endeavor. Is "makes me think of sexual assault" really a less valid reason for no longer liking an artistic work than "no longer meets current musical fashion"?

    His music was well loved and widely used until his victims started coming forward. The banning is a direct result.
    The things are not remotely comparable.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Well, sure - but in the case of Haas's work, GIA proactively said "we're not listing his stuff any more because of what he has been accused of". They're not responding to a lack of demand (for whatever reason), but are part of the decision to create that lack of demand.

    GIA is also under no obligation to publish anyone, nor are they obligated to keep publishing someone in perpetuity if they've ever published their work at any time in the past. Policing the business decisions of corporate entities (especially closely-held corporate entities like GIA) for proper motives (e.g. ceasing publication because of substandard returns on investment is okay, ceasing publication to avoid the reputational damage for promoting a self-confessed sex offender is not) also seems like a dubious endeavor.
    Who’s “policing” GIA’s decisions? People have simply noted the fact that GIA’s decision to discontinue publishing Haas’s music was directly related to the allegations made against Haas (including perhaps that many dioceses have directed that his music not be used), not to decreased popularity of his music.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Well, sure - but in the case of Haas's work, GIA proactively said "we're not listing his stuff any more because of what he has been accused of". They're not responding to a lack of demand (for whatever reason), but are part of the decision to create that lack of demand.

    GIA is also under no obligation to publish anyone, nor are they obligated to keep publishing someone in perpetuity if they've ever published their work at any time in the past. Policing the business decisions of corporate entities (especially closely-held corporate entities like GIA) for proper motives (e.g. ceasing publication because of substandard returns on investment is okay, ceasing publication to avoid the reputational damage for promoting a self-confessed sex offender is not) also seems like a dubious endeavor.

    Nobody is "policing GIA's decisions". We are noting that they have decided to stop selling Haas's music because of the allegations against him. This is cause-and-effect.

    Cause: A large number of women came forward alleging serious sexual crimes and misconduct by Haas.
    Effect: GIA chose to stop selling Haas's work, quickly followed by similar actions from a number of other music publishers. A large series of dioceses and churches start issuing anything between an outright ban on the use of Haas's work and a strong suggestion that Haas's work not be used.

    Characterizing this as a "ban" rather than just "people choosing not to use his stuff" is not unreasonable.

  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Who’s “policing” GIA’s decisions?

    @Alan29 and @Leorning Cniht, who have suggested that GIA's decision is illegitimate in some not-very-clearly defined manner.
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    People have simply noted the fact that GIA’s decision to discontinue publishing Haas’s music was directly related to the allegations made against Haas (including perhaps that many dioceses have directed that his music not be used), not to decreased popularity of his music.

    I guess it depends on how you define "popularity". You could certainly say Haas' music is a lot less popular with the kind of people who run sacred music publication companies or Catholic dioceses. I suppose you could semantically argue that this doesn't count because a corporation or diocese isn't a natural person and therefore shouldn't be included in the purview of "popularity", but that seems like hair splitting.

    I'll note that GIA does not have a monopoly on the sacred music market. Even if they were unwilling to sell their rights to Haas' past work (a point I'm not at all certain about, nor am I clear that they have exclusive rights or just permission to publish) Haas still has the ability to try to market his subsequent works to any other publisher. In this day and age he even has the option to self-publish, if he feels (like many here apparently do) that there is a massive, unmet commercial demand for the works of David Haas.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Who’s “policing” GIA’s decisions?

    @Alan29 and @Leorning Cniht, who have suggested that GIA's decision is illegitimate in some not-very-clearly defined manner.
    No, they haven’t. You have inferred that, and with little basis as far as I can tell.

  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited September 2022
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Who’s “policing” GIA’s decisions?

    @Alan29 and @Leorning Cniht, who have suggested that GIA's decision is illegitimate in some not-very-clearly defined manner.

    Bollocks.

    Neither of us have suggested that GIA's decision was in any way illegitimate.

    We have both said that GIA (and others) stopped selling Haas's work because of the accusations made against him, rather than as a natural consequence of nobody wanting to buy his stuff.

    Neither of us have said that this is illegitimate.

    I'd actually argue the opposite - that publishers stopping selling his stuff, and dioceses and church bodies asking for his stuff not to be used - is a perfectly legitimate and correct response to his case, and that it would be quite wrong for everyone to just shrug their shoulders and say "we'll keep singing his stuff unless enough people in the pews complain".

    And I'm quite sure that there are some people in every congregation who like his music, do not connect his music with his misconduct, and will be disappointed by its absence - but I think their disappointment is outweighed by the care that churches owe to those of their members who do (and perhaps very personally) link the music of an abuser to the abuse that he carried out.

    (I think we're all agreeing that the change in demand for Haas's works is entirely related to the man himself and his reported actions, and not to do with the music.)
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Who’s “policing” GIA’s decisions?

    @Alan29 and @Leorning Cniht, who have suggested that GIA's decision is illegitimate in some not-very-clearly defined manner.
    No, they haven’t. You have inferred that, and with little basis as far as I can tell.

    A very good basis actually. For example:
    That's a bit disingenuous, don't you think? Until the revelations about his behaviour, Haas's music was popular. His Mass settings were used in all kinds of places. Following the revelations about his behaviour, a number of churches and dioceses chose not to use his stuff any more, and GIA has removed his works from their catalogues.

    This is not the typical "there's not enough sales of this item to support another print run / warehouse space / marketing" of the publishing life cycle of print books, but a deliberate choice to remove Haas's works from use as a result of his reported behaviour.
    Alan29 wrote: »
    There's a difference between becoming old hat and being cut from lists.

    They're trying to make a distinction that individual consumers deciding not to spend any of their money on Haas' work for the purposes of consumption is somehow different in character from a corporate entity deciding not to spend any of their money on Haas' work for the purposes of resale. (Leaving aside how much of the market for sacred music is composed of individual consumers rather than corporate entities like churches.) I'm arguing that this is a distinction without a difference.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited September 2022
    I don’t see that argument in their posts at all, @Crœsos. They’ve said nothing to suggest any illegitimacy; they’ve only stating that the cause was x rather than the more common y. You’re the one imposing some idea that x is therefore more illegitimate, “in some not-very-clearly defined manner,” than y.

    Perhaps the reason you find the purported illegitimacy to be “not-very-clearly defined” is because it hasn’t been suggested in the first place.
  • What about Gill typefaces? Gill is very controversial and his art is protested regularly. His typefaces not so. In fact Gill Sans is a go to
  • Hugal wrote: »
    What about Gill typefaces? Gill is very controversial and his art is protested regularly. His typefaces not so. In fact Gill Sans is a go to

    It's arguable that typefaces are functional and utilitarian creations, not artistic ones. We tend to be more forgiving of technical creations than we are of artistic ones. Probably because we don't really examine the underlying message of steam engines or double-entry accounting.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    What about Gill typefaces? Gill is very controversial and his art is protested regularly. His typefaces not so. In fact Gill Sans is a go to

    It's arguable that typefaces are functional and utilitarian creations, not artistic ones. We tend to be more forgiving of technical creations than we are of artistic ones. Probably because we don't really examine the underlying message of steam engines or double-entry accounting.

    Although the ethical arguments about the use of data from Nazi medical "research" suggest that there's a limit to this.
  • HeavenlyannieHeavenlyannie Shipmate
    edited September 2022
    As I have mentioned here before on previous similar threads, our village war memorial is a Gill, a lovely design though much weathered.
  • Does anyone from the Gill estate financially benefit? That would generally be where I draw the line. Many many churches have Gill designs - notably Westminster Cathedral - and I personally feel comfortable leaving them intact as nobody appears to profit from those images directly. He was a particularly monstrous person though. I think things like that are trickier than something like a novel published by a living author where the line of who benefits is very clear.
  • Pomona wrote: »
    Does anyone from the Gill estate financially benefit? . . . He was a particularly monstrous person though.

    Wouldn't the relevant question be whether the beneficiaries of the Gill estate are particularly monstrous people?
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited September 2022
    I think the argument against eschewing someone like Gill is pretty vulnerable to an
    ad absurdum counterpoint...

    If it was discovered by historians that Shakespeare had engaged in the same kind of sex crimes that Gill did, should we stop reading and watching his plays?
  • As Gill died in 1940, anything he did or designed should be out of copyright.

  • DafydDafyd Hell Host
    Pomona wrote: »
    Does anyone from the Gill estate financially benefit? That would generally be where I draw the line.
    AIUI the people from the Gill estate were Gill's victims, which complicates that criterion.

  • Yes the pictures of his daughter for one thing.
Sign In or Register to comment.