Epiphanies 2023: Beauty and the Beast
Mavis Grind
Shipmate
Nothing to with Mme de Villeneuve, about whose morals I know nothing, nor the animated film based by Disney based on her story, nor yet the David Bowie song, although since his death I'm aware of attempts to equip him with clay feet.
No, I'm thinking of the death of Rolf Harris, gifted children's entertainer revealed late in life as a kiddy-fiddler. Jimmy Savile always gave me the creeps, from the first time I saw him on TV, aged 9 (me that is, not Savile), and I was probably ten years too old to appreciate Gary Glitter when he emerged as a star. Bur Rolf was an important part of my childhood. I loved singing along to Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport, and marvelling at the beautiful images that emerged from a few strokes of his broad brush. I know many feel that those songs are now irretrievably tainted, but the memory still makes me smile. Imagine the obits had he died at the perfectly respectable age of 83 instead of 93.
I do, shamelessly, love the music of Richard Wagner (although Wagner being pious leaves a bad taste in the mouth) even though he was in a whole different league of bastardy from Harris (maybe). The antisemitism isn't the half of it, if we condemned on that alone Puccini would be out of the window for starters. I know there are many great works of art produced by individuals whose personal lives would make us wince.
Is it theologically or philosophically sound to accept that, from out of the wicked, great beauty may emerge? Is there a suitable Bible verse, do you think? Judges 14:14 doesn't quite fit the bill I think.
Or is there a level of wickedness which is so beyond the pale that nothing good can come of it at all?
No, I'm thinking of the death of Rolf Harris, gifted children's entertainer revealed late in life as a kiddy-fiddler. Jimmy Savile always gave me the creeps, from the first time I saw him on TV, aged 9 (me that is, not Savile), and I was probably ten years too old to appreciate Gary Glitter when he emerged as a star. Bur Rolf was an important part of my childhood. I loved singing along to Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport, and marvelling at the beautiful images that emerged from a few strokes of his broad brush. I know many feel that those songs are now irretrievably tainted, but the memory still makes me smile. Imagine the obits had he died at the perfectly respectable age of 83 instead of 93.
I do, shamelessly, love the music of Richard Wagner (although Wagner being pious leaves a bad taste in the mouth) even though he was in a whole different league of bastardy from Harris (maybe). The antisemitism isn't the half of it, if we condemned on that alone Puccini would be out of the window for starters. I know there are many great works of art produced by individuals whose personal lives would make us wince.
Is it theologically or philosophically sound to accept that, from out of the wicked, great beauty may emerge? Is there a suitable Bible verse, do you think? Judges 14:14 doesn't quite fit the bill I think.
Or is there a level of wickedness which is so beyond the pale that nothing good can come of it at all?
Comments
@la vie en rouge
@MaryLouise
@North East Quine
No prob. To be honest, my main dilemma with this topic is that, having just listened with a more discerning ear to Tie Me Kangaroo Down Sport, I can't even say "Separate the art from the person", since I find that song pretty unimpressive, even by the standards of the novelty genre.
Personal tastes aside, though, I DO generally say STAFTP, and I appreciate alot of art and literature by people I think were morally reprehensible in how they behaved. But I also understand it if other people don't want to eg. hear Rolf Harris played outta-the-blue on the radio, and make those sentiments known to the station.
Given that, I think the question has to be considered on a case by case basis.
Where is the line crossed
There is a more current parallel perhaps - the attacks on the Eric Gill sculpture at the BBC. Gill was pretty evidently an abuser of family, children and animals in a number of deeply unpleasant ways. That was rather less long ago.
But one special feature of the Rolf Harris situtation is that the main reason most of us liked the art/performance (and I did - he was a big hero of mine) was that Rolf Harris seemed like such a nice person. I would not have been nearly such a fan of Cartoon Club, or the Stairway to Heaven cover, or Animal Hospital or what-have-you if it weren't for the cuddly image which was, I suppose, his primary work of art. And it is precisely that which has been destroyed by his other actions.
Some time ago, I stopped following an on-line Christian fellowship, after one of their ministers, who wrote some of the prayers, was convicted of
I know, from a Christian perspective, there's no contradiction in saying someone can be an egregious sinner, while still being a genuine Christian. But still, knowing that I had been reading(though not saying, since I don't pray) prayers written by someone who was simultaneously putting his mind to commiting some pretty vile crimes just kinda left a bad feeling all around. The community itself handled the matter quite well(*), and I don't criticize those who decided to stay with the group.
(*) Unequivocal condemnation of the minister's actions, as opposed to the "Yes, it's bad, but..." that we've sometimes heard from certain other religious institutions involved in similar scandals.
Doublethink, Admin
There are always allegations on the go about public figures who have illegal interests but like Saville they have trigger happy lawyers such that even Private Eye is cautious about what they say.
Pretty sure Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy weren't in favour of tossing pies at random individuals.
Sorry, I'm confused as to why this is connected to the subject at hand.
(ETA Hidden texted to avoid confusion following a thread split, DT, Admin)
Which is then not really the case with someone like Rolf Harris. I think it would be quite a stretch to claim that God was working through him.
If he had died ten years ago he would have had gushingly positive obituaries, but the same happened to Savile so who knows how long they would have stayed that way? Your memories would not have been tainted, but his victims would also have not been given justice which is surely far more important.
I know it sucks to find out that someone you hugely admired was actually a terrible person. I don't really have an answer, but I think certainly wishing the revelations hadn't come out is not the answer. And with regards to David Bowie, it's pretty well-established that he and *many* artists (and radio DJs etc) of the time slept with children. Because people didn't see 13, 14yo girls as really being children. Pointing that out isn't trying to give anyone 'feet of clay' but pointing out that young girls including children were really failed by the music/media industry then and continue to be.
I think Marlowe's secretive activities rather enhances his reputation rather than diminishes it, for many people anyway. It's not like he was a Savile or a Rolf Harris, he wasn't an abuser as far as we know.
I think there's a wide gulf between abusive and illegal. Eating a mince pie on Christmas Day in England is illegal but it doesn't make someone a bad person.
Gill is a really difficult one. His work is beautiful, and also frequently depicted the daughters he abused. I think his ecclesiastical work is a much bigger problem for me.
He was also responsible for a number of village war memorials. I think there might be problems around those.
[open quote fixed - L]
Thanks - I agree up to a point but in Marlowe's case, the distance of time sees only the illegal not the abusive (the latter being, I suppose, the negative impact on another).
Sorry I should've said abusive not illegal. I'm aware of strong concerns about 2 people - both "national treasures" in their fields.
Gill is a tough one but we have had recent discussions of how to address abuse by considering the removal of monuments. FWIW in my view where Gill's work is clearly modelled on his children, then to leave it up on display is to say that abuse doesn't matter. Take it down.
There's a live issue )of saint vs sinner) in CofE circles with the latest major safeguarding disaster. The leader of Soul Survivor is currently suspended pending investigation of inappropriate behaviour which has been detailed in the Times and Telegraph. A lot of youth work was done through this organization but it appears that there was a fast track to glory and a lack of reporting lines/accountability. The leader - saint for working with young people or sinner for alleged abuses?
Doublethink, Admin
Point noted but it's being reported in the national press and even Premier has referenced it. I'd argue that if we over stretch then we speculate and if we ignore then by consent we acquiesce.
Louise
Epiphanies Host
Ships business goes in Styx.
Doublethink, Admin
Doublethink, (Temporary Epiphanies Hosting)
@ExclamationMark following Admin discussion, further to the warning above and the issues outlined here, we are suspending your posting privileges in Epiphanies for a minimum of six weeks.
Doublethink, Admin
/Admin
Oh I completely agree that the revelation of the truth was essential - I am not arguing for its suppression at all. But I thought the question was: "can beauty emerge from wickedness and wicked people?" to which the answer would seem to be yes. But that does not justify the wickedness or make it "worth it". Like you said, the victims are more important.
Didn't C.S. Lewis write somewhere that "all the art ever produced is not worth the loss of one human soul"? Not that he thought the art was worthless, but that the souls were worth incomparably more.
Someone should tell the gammons that a Christian artist who produced biblical images and war memorials is being cancelled partly due to feminist criticisms, and see how many of them take the bait.
It would be a pity if they were removed. His war memorials tend to be radically different from the norm and can be things of beauty, as this shows.
@HelenEva - are you able to give an example of something you found interesting in the book you mention?
I'm not sure that's obvious at all. It's very possible to destroy art (some sorts more easily than others), or to suppress it. One might feel that this is taboo, but it is a choice that can be made.
I think a lot of Gill's work is incredibly beautiful. But it doesn't remove the problems.
Well, yes, but the fact of the work of art having been created can't be undone, even if the item itself is destroyed.
I don't think so, because I think they are very different criticisms. Modern criticism of how children were sexually exploited by the music industry isn't related to contemporary criticism of rock music as promoting sexual experimentation and consensual sex between adults. It's not like the contemporary critics would see groupies as needing protection rather than condemnation.
What struck me most is that the author covers roughly the same ground as this thread and the other one on related subjects that's called Crossing the Line or some such. She starts from the position that she loves the films of Roman Polanski but is deeply troubled by what he's done and is trying to rationalise whether she can or should stop watching the films. She covers a range of other artists/writers - Woody Allen, Wagner, Eric Gill, the Writer we Don't Name - and unpicks what she finds troubling. She ultimately reaches the conclusion that it's possible to recognise that someone or something is indelibly stained by wrongdoing but still love them/it. It seemed a rather Christian conclusion, although wasn't written as such.
Yes, it does indeed have a Christian ring to it. Thank you.
I noted in the context of news reports of someone attacking the Gill statue on a BBC building, that there is a plan to put a plaque up with a qr code on that people could scan for contextual information about the statue. It’s not a perfect solution, but it is something.
Maybe the time has come for us to make a clear distinction between the artwork and the creator - in the same way the USA got it's astronauts to the moon because of Von Braun, for example.
Just out of curiousity, but have you ever heard the Tom Lehrer song called Werner von Braun?
I mean those mentioned on the memorial didn't 'die for their country' but died because they were conscripted - nobody benefited by their deaths, and the UK wasn't better off because they died. Also, nobody has suggested dismantling every instance of a problematic artist's work - the 'choice' you present is a straw man. I said that there were problems with Gill's work, I didn't say anywhere that it should all be destroyed.
Operation Paperclip is barely taught about in the first place! Given the rise of neo-Nazism in the US, we need more focus on the fact that the US aided and abetted Nazis post-WW2 and not less. What you suggest re von Braun merely perpetuates the myth of the Clean Wehrmacht. And it had very real global political ramifications - China was absolutely pushed into the arms of Maoism by the way the Allies completely failed them by shoring up Japan as anti-communist allies after the war.
Like no, actually, getting to the moon faster doesn't make up for harbouring Nazis - especially when your country has the legacy of refusing Anne Frank's visa application.
Maybe it would be good for us not to use straw man arguments or false dichotomies? Sometimes legacies of cruelty and abuse can't be easily disentangled from art/science/organisations. It then becomes important how to handle that with compassion and not the opposite.
I've had Gill's sexually abusive habits used to harass me when I was the only young female professional present at a visit to see a collection belonging to a religious group. The person doing it just wanted to be a nasty old sexist going on creepily about Gill's children having 'enjoyed it' - he wouldn't have known what I'd actually experienced. It was horrific for me as I was junior in my job and didn't feel I could answer back or leave and I certainly couldn't say what was going on for me. My poor colleague who'd arranged the visit was absolutely mortified.
The way things are displayed, interpreted and contextualised is key. A historian might acknowledge Von Braun's contribution in a book or article but likely wouldn't do so without at least some mention of the context of the Hell on earth at Peenemünd which was integral to his work. Now this context is known, an organisation wouldn't put up a heroic memorial or statue to him unless they deliberately wanted to be cruel or thoughtless to those whose relatives and communities were affected by the Holocaust.
It's the same with known child abusers. Where and how their work is displayed and how it's contextualised is also key.
If it was a statue of Savile being put up to honour him in a public place then that would be a horrifically cruel thing to do. But his programmes belong in archives with appropriate warnings and his history needs to be written.
Likewise Gill's art and archives belong in collections, but if you have one up in a public place of honour with a spirit depicted as a small naked child - then yes that's going to end up being upsetting for a lot of people who have been raped and bring up all sorts for them. It depends how you want to be compassionate about that, how you treat it.
War memorials are something else again where you would have to be very careful and sensitive because the hurt can go the other way. Under all but the most extreme circumstances, I'd be more inclined because of their particular context to leave them alone and leave it up to the community they're meant to comfort.
I think QR codes are going to go the way of the dodo but the principle is sound of acknowledging the hurt and the context.
There's also the approach of an 'answering' artwork which I've heard someone suggest to go with and be in dialogue with a controversial statue (not Gill) elsewhere. It would be hard to get right but it's an interesting approach.
"Nobody benefited by their deaths" - I think the liberated populations of formerly nazi-occupied Europe would disagree with that.
If nobody is suggesting dismantling "problematic" artists' works why bring up the subject in the first place? The "problem" isn't with the works, it is with the artist and, since he is long dead, there is nothing to be done about it, is there?
I was definitely not promoting the idea of a "clean" Wehrmacht because it is nonsense, just as the notion that the Austrians were somehow "non-nazi".
Operation Surgeon, the rest of the Allies version of Paperclip, was certainly discussed at my school. We also covered those US owned corporations that operated in Nazi Germany throughout the war such as Ford, Coca-Cola, etc. Where do you think the brand name Fanta came from?
Enough: this is a tangent.
Yes the fact that they are dead doesn't stop some of that stuff being a problem which it's good to find ways to address constructively and compassionately.
And no, if we take the history of NASA seriously we don't separate the science from its human and sometimes inhuman context when we write. That's stuff we really really need to remember.
Well, if you're writing a history of NASA, then absolutely, the chapters on von Braun and company should definitely include Operation Paperclip.
But if you're writing a physics paper using von Braun's mathematical formulae, I don't think you should put a footnote about Paperclip in.
The question for me is...
Is displaying Gill's artwork closer to the history book or the physics paper?
Please reflect this in your posting.
Doublethink, Temporary Hosting