The title to this piece is wrong. It's not the 'statue' that is controversial, it was the sculptor; Eric Gill.
My first sculpture tutor, Hilary Stratton, worked for Gill, but never talked about his boss's bizarre nature.
It is well known that Gill had unusual relationships with his two daughters, his sisters, and even his dog, but his work should stand apart. It does nobody any good to attack possibly his best known work at the BBC headquarters. What did the attacker hope to achieve; other than either a prison sentence or a hefty fine?
Ever since the removal of the Edward Colston statue in Bristol, certain people seem to think that all statues are 'fair game'; even if their reasoning is not altogether clear.
The Pen has always been mightier than the Sword, so maybe these folk would do better to write articles, or create documentaries, rather than taking the easy way out, and destroy monuments.
If a statue really is seriously offensive, then the local authority should have it removed to a warehouse or cellar where it would no longer be 'admired'. Otherwise just ignore it.
I was thinking he spray painted it or added graffiti, but he CHIPPED at it!! That is so wrong. Better he should dig up the sculptor and chip at him!
ReplyDeleteYes, Gill was an odd-ball, but that's no reason to attack his work.
DeleteAs I recall, there was a tremendous outcry why the Taliban destroyed historic sculptures in Afghanistan, but no-one asked about how politically correct the originators of those sculptures were. My bet is that they were slave traders, mysogenistic and suffering from most of the other -isms that seem to motivate those idle middle clas activists to deface more recent western sculptures. Why weren't these luvvies out there cheering on the Taliban to rid the country of such offensive reminders?
ReplyDeleteThe Taliban are a disgusting bunch of hooligans. I wouldn't be surprised if the man in the video receives donations from them.
DeleteIt would be interesting to find out why the vandal poured his ire onto Eric Gill's sculpture. What exactly was it that motivated him? After all, there are many issues we might protest about such as wars, poverty, factory closures, climate change etc.. Why focus on that sculpture?
ReplyDeleteMost people would have an issue with Gill's 'private life', but that doesn't mean we would wish to destroy his work. As you say, there are far more contemporary issues that this man should focus on. Perhaps he should take up 'Voluntary Work'.
DeleteCan only agree with Y.P's comments above.
ReplyDeleteIs the perpetrator after publicity, and a pat on the back from his pals, like so many of these protesters? There is no sense to this, or any vandalism.
To me this particular vandalism is worse than most. It seems totally pointless.
DeleteGosh Cro - if we removed all the wonderful art works of folk who were odd then a lot of beautiful work would be lost - I would say - maybe controversially- that any art form and a personality that deviates from the so called 'norm' in the person who has created it go together . Most great artists in any branch of the arts almost by definition are 'odd'. Don't you agree? Their minds run along slightly different lines and that is how they create such wonderful things.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely. I can think of many artists who lived dissolute lives, but the idea of destroying their works years later is, frankly, ridiculous.
DeleteI do not understand how defacing/destroying art accomplishes anything. The offender should be prosecuted and required to make restitution.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure he will be prosecuted, but how would he make restitution? It will now take several stone masons to re-build the work to how it was. The Tax-Payer will foot the bill.
DeleteI'm not sure you could just dismiss him as just odd. Reading about him he s**ually abused his daughters and dog. While i don't condone defacing his work, I wouldn't want it on my building or workplace.
ReplyDelete