Jimmy Carr Destroys Art - up for debate

Did it feature the KLF Chestnut?

This was an interactive gathering of about 50 or more people in what looked like a warehouse, where they were asked to decide whether various pieces of art should be destroyed permanently or not. For instance, a watercolour painting by Adolf Hitler, and an ornament by Picasso. Did they destroy them or not?

Should art be destroyed if it is unseemly, or if the artist is evil? What did the audience decide after hearing the story of the art in front of them? A fascinating programme if you haven't seen it.

No I wouldn't have known about it, but for a review if the program.
From the description I read it doesnt sound worth the tax payers money.
But it could be interesting to see why people would destroy this or that art.
Is all art irrespective of its makers actions and politics worth considering?
I believe a painting by Adolph Hitler was up for judgement.
I might have misunderstood.

X posts Chestnut your explanation is better!

Ah, thank you like the Wagner debate.

(The KLF infamously burnt a million pounds about 30 years ago. And Damien Hurst is currently burning his ‘own’ work. Something to do with NFTs or something)

There is also currently a hoo ha about Eric Gill’s sculpture outside the BBC.
Gill was a sex offender.

It’s certainly a problematic area.

From the description I read it doesnt sound worth the tax payers money.
Which tax payers? It was on Channel 4. And it was fascinating to see which items were destroyed and which weren't, because no-one knew until the audience voted.

Sorry I missed this. Sounds like an intriguing idea and one that deserves to to be considered. Only snag being that I don't like Jimmy Carr.

I didn't watch the programme but have read about it and get the gist.

Despite the seemingly crass presentation and shock tactics the concept is certainly thought-provoking.

Hitler and Rolf Harris can hardly be considered artists so I'm not interested if their daubings are destroyed but then what of the likes of Eric Gill a true artist and craftsman, and also a sexual deviant and abuser.

I don't think art should be destroyed - it would make us no better than the zealots who took a bulldozer to Palmyra.

There is also currently a hoo ha about Eric Gill’s sculpture outside the BBC. Gill was a sex offender.
Eric Gill was one of the subjects of the programme! They had to decide whether to destroy some of his work or keep it. He was a prolific sex offender who was never punished I believe.

Aveline

Sorry I missed this. Sounds like an intriguing idea and one that deserves to to be considered. Only snag being that I don't like Jimmy Carr.

I also can't stand Jimmy Carr, but the idea of the programme intrigued me so I gave it a go. He was actually very good, made some relevant comments and stayed serious throughout.

I don’t like Jimmy Carr either. Why? Because he didn’t pay his proper taxes. I don’t watch anything he’s in.

Riverwalk interesting that you consider Rolf Harris and Hitler are not artists therefore we can destroy their art. Some people may not agree with you, they may consider it worth keeping for posterity. That is what the debate is all about. They are both in the programme.

I don’t think art should be destroyed if it has any merit. The fact that Eric Gill was a sex offender is not relevant to his work.

Didn't watch the programme but I am uncomfortable with the concept of destroying something simply because of who produced it. Isn't that what the Nazi's did with anything produced by Jews?

Some of the art under debate was potentially distasteful, nothing to do with the morals of the person who produced it. Naked children, anyone?

Chestnut

Riverwalk interesting that you consider Rolf Harris and Hitler are not artists therefore we can destroy their art. Some people may not agree with you, they may consider it worth keeping for posterity. That is what the debate is all about. They are both in the programme.

For me 'Art' and 'Artist' are the crucial words.

Hitler wasn't a renowned artist so I don't think that destroying his paintings is a bad thing - I wouldn't actively promote it, just don't have a problem. From what I've seen of his paintings they're mawkish sentimental pictures of village life, landscapes, etc - if they were childhood drawings and scribbles they might be worth analysing to maybe gain an insight into his thoughts, which could be an interesting exercise.

However, if written war plans, diaries, memoirs etc were miraculously discovered then they would be kept for posterity, as they'd be relevant to his existence.

No-one commenting seems to have even seen the programme. I'm really hoping someone can comment on the choices made in the programme.........

I saw a few minutes whilst channel hopping . I didn't like it at all. It made me feel uncomfortable for reasons I don't really understand. I suppose I just don't like to see anything deliberately destroyed. It thought it was in bad taste somehow and I turned it off.

But that is the whole point of the programme, to decide whether you agree that any of these items should be destroyed. It's a moral dilemma because it encompasses everything created by humans.

Chestnut

^From the description I read it doesnt sound worth the tax payers money^.
Which tax payers? It was on Channel 4. And it was fascinating to see which items were destroyed and which weren't, because no-one knew until the audience voted.

Isnt channel 4 funded by the gov.? Am I wrong?

I've already said there is some merit to the idea of the program.

As I didnt see it, I'm judging by the description in the review I read.
I might give it a chance at the next episode.
I presume there will be one?

I'll try to find it on catch up.

I would have been interested in this programme but I can't stand the sight or sound of Jimmy Carr. One of the most obnoxious, rude and offensive people I have come across.

Marthjolly1

I would have been interested in this programme but I can't stand the sight or sound of Jimmy Carr. One of the most obnoxious, rude and offensive people I have come across.

I agree! But it was the concept of the programme that intrigued me so I bit my lip and watched. As I said, he was serious and thoughtful throughout, so did not annoy me at all.

I'm not sure he is the best host for a serious program. But on your recommendation I shall give it the once over !