How can we condone damaging works of art just because of the artist ?
Many artists have dubious pasts .
The Colston stature whatever you might think of Colston was a skilful bronze statue .
Now this nutter damaging statues which although I don’t admire them are still works of art
Meanwhile the police stand by and so nothing .
Should have put a hose on him
I have second thoughts on this not because he was a pedophile but because I don’t like them they could be replaced by something else but I still don’t condone damaging property
No right to destroy anything but, given the artist’s history, I can understand why people would be offended by it.
Shame, it’s a beautiful sculpture.
Much of the worlds great art and music has come from disturbed minds, are we to destroy it all?
Yes they have Caravaggio was a murderer and many great artists have spent time in mental institutions . Where will it end ?
1 Like
I don’t refute this at all, however it begs the question where do we stop? Everyone in history, literally everyone in history I’m sure you’re going to find those that are offended by that person, no matter who the person is. I just don’t get it destroying someone’s work or defacing a statue or painting of that person doesn’t in any way shape or from erase what they did.
I guess somewhere in a secret meeting I wasn’t invited to. The decision was made to try an erase those parts of our past that offend. I know I wasn’t there because I see the danger of history repeating itself, if we choose to forget it.
Seeing as he died in 1940 and is not that well known I bet the majority of people have never heard of him .
To be honest I had never heard of him .
That absolutely appalling verdict was just the thin end of a very thick wedge that likes of which we have never seen before. If I were on that jury I would have put guilty into the pot and there’d be no way I would have budged with the video evidence seen.
Roger Daltrey during a BBC interview said…
"Pete was, at the time, at art school, studying Gustav Metzger and auto-destructive art, and of course, he’d be studying that all day at the bloody art school and decided that he’d suddenly become Gustav Metzger in The Who and destroy the bloody thing.
Damaging something, even something that others think of as art. Can be an act of expression it’s self.
Thats is vandalism not art .
My short post clearly states that there was no right to destroy anything although I understand why some people would find it offensive so I have no idea why your response implies that I may have suggested that “destroying someone’s work or defacing a statue or painting of that person” erases what they did.
Had your reference to a secret meeting been fact, and had I been invited, I may have voted to have the statue removed given his sexual abuse of his daughters, sister and a dog.
That is a fair point Muddy. I have heard of him but probably only because I have an interest in photographing statues and the like around London.
@Tr1sh My intention was not to suggest anything. I was simply building on a point you had made. I removed it though, I meant no disrespect.
@Danny No worries Danny and you need not have removed your post. I did however feel the need to address your comments but, of course, we are all entitled to our opinions and I hope you will continue to express yours. 
1 Like
I think we are on a slippery slope if we allow a minority of offended people to damage or destroy works of art, or historical artifacts. Things that are unacceptable today were probably not illegal or unacceptable when they were produced.