@TheOrganist my reference to the war memorial was regarding WW1 deaths since they were the ones Gill was commemorating.
I am baffled by the idea that there can only be either total destruction of art by problematic artists, or otherwise no change. That's not the attitude that the Ditchling museum and gallery are taking, for instance.
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.
I guess my question would be, is that because it's a statue of a small naked child or because it's a statue of a small naked child that was created by a specific person? Would the exact same statue carved by someone else be equally upsetting?
To me, it's the art itself that's important, not the artist. The beauty of a statue has nothing to do with the name on a small plaque on its base, so if that name is what's causing the problem then why not just remove the plaque? Let the statue become an anonymous work that can stand or fall on its own merits.
Most art is effectively anonymous anyway - if you were to stand next to even the most famous work of art by Gill and ask passers by who created it they wouldn't have a clue, some might look at the plaque and produce a name but that wouldn't mean anything because people generally don't know what else they produced or any information about their lives.
That works in some instances, but not others, I think.
The one I grapple with is Michael Jackson. Amazing artist, but also horribly messed-up human being who if you believe his accusers (and I do) was also responsible for doing some truly terrible things.
And it seems pretty impossible to me to separate Michael's singing and dancing from Michael as a person. For my money, Smooth Criminal is the greatest pop music video ever made. But that section with the little kids aping Michael's suggestive moves sure looks different now.
If an issue doesn’t touch you, you're less likely to know about it or to care. That's not a great argument though for indifference to those who are affected who do know and who consequently do care very much.
I think that statue is a very complicated case and it won't just be reactions to Gill and to the form the statue takes but to the BBC and the handling of historical child sex abuse cases like Savile that are likely in the mix for some people. There are also modern conspiratorial theories about paedophilia which may move some people and which may also be in play to some extent.
Context matters - which is why I'm less than enthused to hear people's sweeping theories about beauty and art which neatly take out of the equation people who've been raped or groomed and people who've lost family members in the Holocaust (and who fear it really could happen again) and others in similar predicaments and try to remove that context.
Gill is part of the context of that statue and so are modern day experiences of child abuse and of abusers still being celebrated in quite a few contexts - that there is less of that now doesn’t mean the clock can't be turned back to the position I was put in when Gill and the idea that child abuse victims 'enjoy it' was lionised to my face.
I researched a historical case of child abuse from Gill's era where a lot of little girls were molested by a museum curator - thirteen cases of girls 11 and under were brought to court - the abuser got six months, the all male jury recommended him to leniency, and within a few years he was back to presenting his local antiquarian work to royalty.
Is that the kind of world folk would like, so they can enjoy their beauty and art untrammeled? Because deciding art and important chaps doing art trumps acknowledging the impacts of child abuse and how difficult it is for survivors to come forward against important powerful people helps to perpetuate and reinstate that world.
Remembering that powerful, locally respectable or nationally famous people were abusers and saying so and not minimising it is a powerful act that can give hope and comfort to people trying to find the courage to speak up now.
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.
I guess my question would be, is that because it's a statue of a small naked child or because it's a statue of a small naked child that was created by a specific person? Would the exact same statue carved by someone else be equally upsetting?
To me, it's the art itself that's important, not the artist. The beauty of a statue has nothing to do with the name on a small plaque on its base, so if that name is what's causing the problem then why not just remove the plaque? Let the statue become an anonymous work that can stand or fall on its own merits.
There is art Gill made of the daughters he was abusing. Is that different to you?
The staions of the cross in Westminster RC cathedral are by Gill.
Given the RC church's lamentable record when dealimg with abusers and their victims, there has to be a very strong case for removing them.
We could of course have a similar argument about our medical techniques and have nasty groups have refunded them.
As to Gill. I run the YouTube channel for the International Christian Dance Fellowship. I choose not to use any of his fonts. It is very easy to do as there are so many and some better.
If we are saying art and artist can be separated what about Leader of the Gang? Eventually the works of Gary Glitter and, say Johnathan King or a certain US comedian will be works if someone who has been dead a long time. Will their works be seen in the same way as Gill is now in the future?
If we are saying art and artist can be separated what about Leader of the Gang? Eventually the works of Gary Glitter and, say Johnathan King or a certain US comedian will be works if someone who has been dead a long time. Will their works be seen in the same way as Gill is now in the future?
I don’t see why not. Well, aside from Leader of the Gang being a distinctly forgettable example of 80s pop music.
We could of course have a similar argument about our medical techniques and have nasty groups have refunded them.
As to Gill. I run the YouTube channel for the International Christian Dance Fellowship. I choose not to use any of his fonts. It is very easy to do as there are so many and some better.
If we are saying art and artist can be separated what about Leader of the Gang? Eventually the works of Gary Glitter and, say Johnathan King or a certain US comedian will be works if someone who has been dead a long time. Will their works be seen in the same way as Gill is now in the future?
I think where the art is at least partially a performance by the artist the separation is harder. A piece of music by Wagner doesn't point directly to the man in the same way as a Michael Jackson music video.
I wonder, also, if quality makes a difference. Everyone now knows that Pablo Picasso was, to use the vernacular, skeevy as fuck but the quality of his work seems to mean that fades into the background. Meanwhile Gary Glitter's mediocre offerings are more easily overshadowed by his greater crimes. Gill seems to be at the high end on both scales - a great artist who committed awful crimes - hence the difficulties over his work.
Going by Louise's post, the problem with Gill is not so much the evil of what he did as the evil of what other people use his example to excuse and enable.
We were a bit shocked to hear ‘Rock’n’Roll Part 2’ played by a marching band in a US theme park (in a Dr Seuss themed area even!) but I gather it is not associated with the Glitter Band in the US.
I wonder, also, if quality makes a difference. Everyone now knows that Pablo Picasso was, to use the vernacular, skeevy as fuck but the quality of his work seems to mean that fades into the background. Meanwhile Gary Glitter's mediocre offerings are more easily overshadowed by his greater crimes. Gill seems to be at the high end on both scales - a great artist who committed awful crimes - hence the difficulties over his work.
That argument(which I realize you're not neccessarily making) is pure elitism. If the presence of certain artwork is causing harm to abuse victims, and we believe that there is therefore a moral imperative to remove the art from the public realm, then it shouldn't matter whether the art is by a genius or a hack.
I would say that time since the author's death is the biggest reason I'm fine with Picasso. He is dead, everyone who didn't help his victims is dead. His victims and anyone who helped them deal with the effects is dead too.
We were a bit shocked to hear ‘Rock’n’Roll Part 2’ played by a marching band in a US theme park (in a Dr Seuss themed area even!) but I gather it is not associated with the Glitter Band in the US.
It's such a generic sports-stadium tune, I suspect alot of people don't associate it with any particular artist. Prob'ly just lump it in with "Nah, nah, nah, nah, hey hey, good-bye" and similar stuff.
I would say that time since the author's death is the biggest reason I'm fine with Picasso. He is dead, everyone who didn't help his victims is dead. His victims and anyone who helped them deal with the effects is dead too.
So, if we had known about Picasso's wrongdoings when he was still alive, we woulda been justified in removing his work from the public space, but then when everyone involved has died, we can then bring the work back?
I wonder, also, if quality makes a difference. Everyone now knows that Pablo Picasso was, to use the vernacular, skeevy as fuck but the quality of his work seems to mean that fades into the background. Meanwhile Gary Glitter's mediocre offerings are more easily overshadowed by his greater crimes. Gill seems to be at the high end on both scales - a great artist who committed awful crimes - hence the difficulties over his work.
That argument(which I realize you're not neccessarily making) is pure elitism. If the presence of certain artwork is causing harm to abuse victims, and we believe that there is therefore a moral imperative to remove the art from the public realm, then it shouldn't matter whether the art is by a genius or a hack.
For clarification, I was observing what I think does happen, rather than what I think should.
Eric Gill died in 1940.I don't know if his daughters are dead but I think there is a good chance that they are. Should people agree with what Gwai has said about Picasso shouldn't we look upon Gill's work in the same way ?
I would say that time since the author's death is the biggest reason I'm fine with Picasso. He is dead, everyone who didn't help his victims is dead. His victims and anyone who helped them deal with the effects is dead too.
So, if we had known about Picasso's wrongdoings when he was still alive, we woulda been justified in removing his work from the public space, but then when everyone involved has died, we can then bring the work back?
That's close to my personal way of handling harmful people, for example child abusers or loud anti-trans campaigners.* I do not spend money where it will profit them or anyone who I know enabled them. So if X is evil and their wife helped them be evil, I will not directly buy X's work during their lifetime or their wife's. But I might buy X's work at a yard sale if I can enjoy it without giving X publicity. (so a book yes, a painting no)
*Here's a reminder that I'm not naming anyone and neither are you, particularly if they're sue-happy.
So, if we had known about Picasso's wrongdoings when he was still alive, we woulda been justified in removing his work from the public space, but then when everyone involved has died, we can then bring the work back?
So just to be clear, yes we should avoid supporting Picassos when they are alive. Despite the loss that would be. Normalizing evil is even worse. When they are dead, we can enjoy them without supporting evil at least. I think a note about their deeds would be appropriate though.
And also, emotional reactions - especially when a famous person has perpetrated a type of wrongdoing that has played a role in our own lives - don't have to be logically and ethically perfect to be permitted. People are allowed to have their own personal lines in the sand which are perhaps hypocritical in terms of theoretical logic, but are entirely reasonable on a personal emotional level.
Thanks for that comment @Pomona. I know I have reacted strongly and not always logically in that way, often without being immediately aware of the reasons until later when I think about a situation more clearly.
If we are saying art and artist can be separated what about Leader of the Gang? Eventually the works of Gary Glitter and, say Johnathan King or a certain US comedian will be works if someone who has been dead a long time. Will their works be seen in the same way as Gill is now in the future?
I don’t see why not. Well, aside from Leader of the Gang being a distinctly forgettable example of 80s pop music.
I believe they use it at baseball games to rouse the crowd. It's a crap song but it does have an almost primeval martial rhythm to it.
And also, emotional reactions - especially when a famous person has perpetrated a type of wrongdoing that has played a role in our own lives - don't have to be logically and ethically perfect to be permitted. People are allowed to have their own personal lines in the sand which are perhaps hypocritical in terms of theoretical logic, but are entirely reasonable on a personal emotional level.
Oh, sure. Like I said on another thread a while back, I boycotted that right-wing "newsmagazine" in my hometown for years, but I never really saw it as imperative that anyone else do so. I was basically just wanting the malicious glee of seeing them go bankrupt, and doing what I could to make that happen.
So, if we had known about Picasso's wrongdoings when he was still alive, we woulda been justified in removing his work from the public space, but then when everyone involved has died, we can then bring the work back?
So just to be clear, yes we should avoid supporting Picassos when they are alive. Despite the loss that would be. Normalizing evil is even worse. When they are dead, we can enjoy them without supporting evil at least. I think a note about their deeds would be appropriate though.
I don’t believe that anybody is wholly good or wholly evil, which is why I don’t have a problem with supporting the good they do/have done even while condemning the evil they do/have done.
I kind of draw a distinction between wronguns who actively used their art as a tool to entrap others into their murky world, and those who didn't. Which is why the music of Favid Haas has been banished from hymn books. I find myself wary of not taking account of the mores of the time.
Gill was revolting by any modern western set of mores, Gaugin maybe less so, and Wagners anti Semitism was possibly pretty commonplace.
I posted the stuff in another, nethermost,region, but (it was pointed out to me) it may be much more pertinent for this thread. In
Hell, as a tangent one poor fellow was being taken to task for his appeciation of of Benny Hill. It was pointed out what an unpleasant BH was, with the implication (I think) that his work should forever fester in Outer Darkness. I protested (and sorry if this is going over old ground):
"Er .... what has this got to do with the quality (or not) of his work?
At his best, at least in his earlier days, Hill was clever and funny. My mother would say,"with some seaside postcard humour".
If we only watched,read, listened to creative people who were unflawed we would end up watching, reading, listening to nobody.
Think: no Wagner, no Amis, no Wilde .... no Gaugin [also Woody Allen] etc.....
And nobody should ever, ever, read my posts ....."
This is I think is where I'm at:
Your comment makes it look as though you haven’t actually read this thread before posting.
The trouble I have with much of Benny Hill’s material, which I’ve not watched for decades, nor sought out, is its world view in relation to women.
It tends to a binary ‘dolly bird’/monster view of women, and definitely objectifies them, not treating them as real people with thoughts, feelings, hopes, fears and characters of their own.
When it appears that these attitudes are reflected in his life and not just in his comic shtick it makes me even less inclined to watch, and less well-disposed towards him and his work.
I posted the stuff in another, nethermost,region, but (it was pointed out to me) it may be much more pertinent for this thread. In
Hell, as a tangent one poor fellow was being taken to task for his appeciation of of Benny Hill. It was pointed out what an unpleasant BH was, with the implication (I think) that his work should forever fester in Outer Darkness. I protested (and sorry if this is going over old ground):
"Er .... what has this got to do with the quality (or not) of his work?
At his best, at least in his earlier days, Hill was clever and funny. My mother would say,"with some seaside postcard humour".
If we only watched,read, listened to creative people who were unflawed we would end up watching, reading, listening to nobody.
Think: no Wagner, no Amis, no Wilde .... no Gaugin [also Woody Allen] etc.....
And nobody should ever, ever, read my posts ....."
This is I think is where I'm at:
I don't dislike Benny Hill for any human frailties he may have had, though they were many. I dislike Benny Hill because I found his brand of potty humour elaborately unfunny and borderline offensive.
@RockyRoger there is quite a difference between being 'flawed' and being a child molester, for example. Reducing serious harm done to others as simply 'being a flawed human being' is dangerous. In any case, the list of artists you use as an example ignores the wide array of artists who are both normal flawed humans and also not people who have committed serious harm against others. It also seems pretty offensive to list Wilde with the others.
Your comment makes it look as though you haven’t actually read this thread before posting.
The trouble I have with much of Benny Hill’s material, which I’ve not watched for decades, nor sought out, is its world view in relation to women.
It tends to a binary ‘dolly bird’/monster view of women, and definitely objectifies them, not treating them as real people with thoughts, feelings, hopes, fears and characters of their own.
When it appears that these attitudes are reflected in his life and not just in his comic shtick it makes me even less inclined to watch, and less well-disposed towards him and his work.
Guilty as charged, I'm afraid and I do repent in dust and ashes. Your comment on Hill's binary view of women is spot on and one I hated at the time.
As for Wilde, I love his work and some (not all) aspects of his character.
I shall now shut up, apart from pointing out that Claire Dederer's 'Monsters' has just been published. It had a poor review in 'Private Eye' but it's BBC Radio 4's 'Book of the Week' next week.
@RockyRoger why are you going to shut up? Nobody has asked you to do so.
What aspects of Wilde's character do you dislike?
Promiscuity and as a consequence (in my view) letting down his wife and children.
But I love his generosity of spirit. He was very badly treated by the law of his time.
As to me 'shutting up' ... not reading the thread through properly before postng is a bad of me and I have little to add to the debate that hasn't been better said before.
@RockyRoger why are you going to shut up? Nobody has asked you to do so.
What aspects of Wilde's character do you dislike?
Promiscuity and as a consequence (in my view) letting down his wife and children.
But I love his generosity of spirit. He was very badly treated by the law of his time.
As to me 'shutting up' ... not reading the thread through properly before postng is a bad of me and I have little to add to the debate that hasn't been better said before.
But he wasn't given a choice by the law of the time. I also don't see how having consensual sex is in any way comparable to something like antisemitism - consensual sex isn't harmful.
Consensual adulterous sex is harmful to the spouse and children of the adulterer.
Not in the sense of causing actual harm. It might be upsetting but it's wrong to suggest that it is equivalent to abuse.
And how do you define “actual harm”? And do we really want to invite a “my harm’s worse than your harm” contest?
It's not about making it into a contest but avoiding a reductionist attitude towards sin, which flattens all bad things into being equally as bad as each other. It's not that adultery isn't bad, but it's essentially a private matter that doesn't affect anyone else aside from the parties involved and their partners. Antisemitism is a type of sin that harms all Jewish people and those perceived as Jewish. It's the scale of the sin that's different. Also, people whose partners have cheated on them are not a marginalised group who have experienced genocide.
Consensual adulterous sex is harmful to the spouse and children of the adulterer.
Not in the sense of causing actual harm. It might be upsetting but it's wrong to suggest that it is equivalent to abuse.
And how do you define “actual harm”? And do we really want to invite a “my harm’s worse than your harm” contest?
It's not about making it into a contest but avoiding a reductionist attitude towards sin, which flattens all bad things into being equally as bad as each other. It's not that adultery isn't bad, but it's essentially a private matter that doesn't affect anyone else aside from the parties involved and their partners. Antisemitism is a type of sin that harms all Jewish people and those perceived as Jewish. It's the scale of the sin that's different. Also, people whose partners have cheated on them are not a marginalised group who have experienced genocide.
What you said that I’m responding to was that adultery isn’t harmful “in the sense of causing actual harm.” How is the harm that might be felt by a spouse or by children not “actual harm”? (That’s without getting into the possibility of multigenerational effects.)
It’s not reductionism to acknowledge adultery can sometimes inflict harm on others. No one is trying to equate the harm that might result from adultery to the harm caused by, say, antisemitism.
But it is dismissive of other people’s experiences to say that any harm resulting from adultery isn’t “actual harm.”
Right now the argument on adultery is getting rather heated and eclipsing more pertinent parts of the thread. Let's try to stay on the main point of the thread.
@Nick Tamen I was referring to @RockyRoger suggesting that Oscar Wilde and Richard Wagner are equally problematic people. While of course all humans are flawed I doubt most people would categorise them similarly.
@Nick Tamen I was referring to @RockyRoger suggesting that Oscar Wilde and Richard Wagner are equally problematic people. While of course all humans are flawed I doubt most people would categorise them similarly.
I wouldn't categorise them at all. But I do see what you mean.
Consensual adulterous sex is harmful to the spouse and children of the adulterer.
Not in the sense of causing actual harm. It might be upsetting but it's wrong to suggest that it is equivalent to abuse.
The real emotion harm and the destruction of family relationships are actual to those affected. I speak as one who has suffered this both as a child and as an adult.
Consensual adulterous sex is harmful to the spouse and children of the adulterer.
Not in the sense of causing actual harm. It might be upsetting but it's wrong to suggest that it is equivalent to abuse.
The real emotion harm and the destruction of family relationships are actual to those affected. I speak as one who has suffered this both as a child and as an adult.
I understood @Gwai 's comment as requesting that we change subject so I'm not sure why you're bringing this up again.
Comments
I am baffled by the idea that there can only be either total destruction of art by problematic artists, or otherwise no change. That's not the attitude that the Ditchling museum and gallery are taking, for instance.
I guess my question would be, is that because it's a statue of a small naked child or because it's a statue of a small naked child that was created by a specific person? Would the exact same statue carved by someone else be equally upsetting?
To me, it's the art itself that's important, not the artist. The beauty of a statue has nothing to do with the name on a small plaque on its base, so if that name is what's causing the problem then why not just remove the plaque? Let the statue become an anonymous work that can stand or fall on its own merits.
The one I grapple with is Michael Jackson. Amazing artist, but also horribly messed-up human being who if you believe his accusers (and I do) was also responsible for doing some truly terrible things.
And it seems pretty impossible to me to separate Michael's singing and dancing from Michael as a person. For my money, Smooth Criminal is the greatest pop music video ever made. But that section with the little kids aping Michael's suggestive moves sure looks different now.
I think that statue is a very complicated case and it won't just be reactions to Gill and to the form the statue takes but to the BBC and the handling of historical child sex abuse cases like Savile that are likely in the mix for some people. There are also modern conspiratorial theories about paedophilia which may move some people and which may also be in play to some extent.
Context matters - which is why I'm less than enthused to hear people's sweeping theories about beauty and art which neatly take out of the equation people who've been raped or groomed and people who've lost family members in the Holocaust (and who fear it really could happen again) and others in similar predicaments and try to remove that context.
Gill is part of the context of that statue and so are modern day experiences of child abuse and of abusers still being celebrated in quite a few contexts - that there is less of that now doesn’t mean the clock can't be turned back to the position I was put in when Gill and the idea that child abuse victims 'enjoy it' was lionised to my face.
I researched a historical case of child abuse from Gill's era where a lot of little girls were molested by a museum curator - thirteen cases of girls 11 and under were brought to court - the abuser got six months, the all male jury recommended him to leniency, and within a few years he was back to presenting his local antiquarian work to royalty.
Is that the kind of world folk would like, so they can enjoy their beauty and art untrammeled? Because deciding art and important chaps doing art trumps acknowledging the impacts of child abuse and how difficult it is for survivors to come forward against important powerful people helps to perpetuate and reinstate that world.
Remembering that powerful, locally respectable or nationally famous people were abusers and saying so and not minimising it is a powerful act that can give hope and comfort to people trying to find the courage to speak up now.
There is art Gill made of the daughters he was abusing. Is that different to you?
Given the RC church's lamentable record when dealimg with abusers and their victims, there has to be a very strong case for removing them.
As to Gill. I run the YouTube channel for the International Christian Dance Fellowship. I choose not to use any of his fonts. It is very easy to do as there are so many and some better.
If we are saying art and artist can be separated what about Leader of the Gang? Eventually the works of Gary Glitter and, say Johnathan King or a certain US comedian will be works if someone who has been dead a long time. Will their works be seen in the same way as Gill is now in the future?
I don’t see why not. Well, aside from Leader of the Gang being a distinctly forgettable example of 80s pop music.
I think where the art is at least partially a performance by the artist the separation is harder. A piece of music by Wagner doesn't point directly to the man in the same way as a Michael Jackson music video.
I wonder, also, if quality makes a difference. Everyone now knows that Pablo Picasso was, to use the vernacular, skeevy as fuck but the quality of his work seems to mean that fades into the background. Meanwhile Gary Glitter's mediocre offerings are more easily overshadowed by his greater crimes. Gill seems to be at the high end on both scales - a great artist who committed awful crimes - hence the difficulties over his work.
That argument(which I realize you're not neccessarily making) is pure elitism. If the presence of certain artwork is causing harm to abuse victims, and we believe that there is therefore a moral imperative to remove the art from the public realm, then it shouldn't matter whether the art is by a genius or a hack.
It's such a generic sports-stadium tune, I suspect alot of people don't associate it with any particular artist. Prob'ly just lump it in with "Nah, nah, nah, nah, hey hey, good-bye" and similar stuff.
So, if we had known about Picasso's wrongdoings when he was still alive, we woulda been justified in removing his work from the public space, but then when everyone involved has died, we can then bring the work back?
For clarification, I was observing what I think does happen, rather than what I think should.
That's close to my personal way of handling harmful people, for example child abusers or loud anti-trans campaigners.* I do not spend money where it will profit them or anyone who I know enabled them. So if X is evil and their wife helped them be evil, I will not directly buy X's work during their lifetime or their wife's. But I might buy X's work at a yard sale if I can enjoy it without giving X publicity. (so a book yes, a painting no)
*Here's a reminder that I'm not naming anyone and neither are you, particularly if they're sue-happy.
So just to be clear, yes we should avoid supporting Picassos when they are alive. Despite the loss that would be. Normalizing evil is even worse. When they are dead, we can enjoy them without supporting evil at least. I think a note about their deeds would be appropriate though.
I believe they use it at baseball games to rouse the crowd. It's a crap song but it does have an almost primeval martial rhythm to it.
Oh, sure. Like I said on another thread a while back, I boycotted that right-wing "newsmagazine" in my hometown for years, but I never really saw it as imperative that anyone else do so. I was basically just wanting the malicious glee of seeing them go bankrupt, and doing what I could to make that happen.
I don’t believe that anybody is wholly good or wholly evil, which is why I don’t have a problem with supporting the good they do/have done even while condemning the evil they do/have done.
Gill was revolting by any modern western set of mores, Gaugin maybe less so, and Wagners anti Semitism was possibly pretty commonplace.
That does seem reasonable.
Hell, as a tangent one poor fellow was being taken to task for his appeciation of of Benny Hill. It was pointed out what an unpleasant BH was, with the implication (I think) that his work should forever fester in Outer Darkness. I protested (and sorry if this is going over old ground):
"Er .... what has this got to do with the quality (or not) of his work?
At his best, at least in his earlier days, Hill was clever and funny. My mother would say,"with some seaside postcard humour".
If we only watched,read, listened to creative people who were unflawed we would end up watching, reading, listening to nobody.
Think: no Wagner, no Amis, no Wilde .... no Gaugin [also Woody Allen] etc.....
And nobody should ever, ever, read my posts ....."
This is I think is where I'm at:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001m54l
And puts the case far better than I ever could!
The trouble I have with much of Benny Hill’s material, which I’ve not watched for decades, nor sought out, is its world view in relation to women.
It tends to a binary ‘dolly bird’/monster view of women, and definitely objectifies them, not treating them as real people with thoughts, feelings, hopes, fears and characters of their own.
When it appears that these attitudes are reflected in his life and not just in his comic shtick it makes me even less inclined to watch, and less well-disposed towards him and his work.
I don't dislike Benny Hill for any human frailties he may have had, though they were many. I dislike Benny Hill because I found his brand of potty humour elaborately unfunny and borderline offensive.
Guilty as charged, I'm afraid and I do repent in dust and ashes. Your comment on Hill's binary view of women is spot on and one I hated at the time.
As for Wilde, I love his work and some (not all) aspects of his character.
I shall now shut up, apart from pointing out that Claire Dederer's 'Monsters' has just been published. It had a poor review in 'Private Eye' but it's BBC Radio 4's 'Book of the Week' next week.
What aspects of Wilde's character do you dislike?
Promiscuity and as a consequence (in my view) letting down his wife and children.
But I love his generosity of spirit. He was very badly treated by the law of his time.
As to me 'shutting up' ... not reading the thread through properly before postng is a bad of me and I have little to add to the debate that hasn't been better said before.
But he wasn't given a choice by the law of the time. I also don't see how having consensual sex is in any way comparable to something like antisemitism - consensual sex isn't harmful.
Is it?
Not in the sense of causing actual harm. It might be upsetting but it's wrong to suggest that it is equivalent to abuse.
It's not about making it into a contest but avoiding a reductionist attitude towards sin, which flattens all bad things into being equally as bad as each other. It's not that adultery isn't bad, but it's essentially a private matter that doesn't affect anyone else aside from the parties involved and their partners. Antisemitism is a type of sin that harms all Jewish people and those perceived as Jewish. It's the scale of the sin that's different. Also, people whose partners have cheated on them are not a marginalised group who have experienced genocide.
It’s not reductionism to acknowledge adultery can sometimes inflict harm on others. No one is trying to equate the harm that might result from adultery to the harm caused by, say, antisemitism.
But it is dismissive of other people’s experiences to say that any harm resulting from adultery isn’t “actual harm.”
Gwai,
Epiphanies Host
I wouldn't categorise them at all. But I do see what you mean.
The real emotion harm and the destruction of family relationships are actual to those affected. I speak as one who has suffered this both as a child and as an adult.
I understood @Gwai 's comment as requesting that we change subject so I'm not sure why you're bringing this up again.