Eric Gill At Guildford Cathedral

[poliphilo]

Eric Gill was a paedophile- and all round sex maniac- who abused his daughters- but, also, arguably, the most significant British artist of the first half of the 20th century. There have been mutterings about removing his work from public display (much of it is in ecclesiastical buildings) but I don't think anyone has actually done so. Guildford cathedral- which we were wandering round this morning- owns his statue of St John the Baptist- and seems rather proud of it. In the wake of the revelations about Michael Jackson (and Kevin Spacey and others) there's been a lot of debate about whether one can separate an artist from their art; in the case of Gill the owners of his work seem to have decided that "Yes, of course they can. End of."

Comments

[cmcmck]

Prince Gesualdo da Venosa was a double murderer, Richard Dadd a murderer but do I stop listening or looking?...........

[poliphilo]

Exactly. The value of a work of art has very little to do with the moral character of the person who produced it.

[oakmouse]

If we start rejecting all creative products by people who were iffy in some way or other, what will we have left? Not bloody much, really.

Most works of art aren't meaningfully affected by the morals and ethics of their creators. The few that are can be made the exception to the rule.

[poliphilo]

It gets a little complicated with someone like Michael Jackson- where the persona was an integral part of the package.

[oakmouse]

Very true. Jackson wasn't only a creator, he was also a persona, an image, and an act ("act" as in a performance, not as in an action) --- a package deal. Anyone can read a Dylan Thomas poem, but only Michael Jackson could sing one of his songs.