Jimmy Carr Destroys Art - up for debate

Namsnanny

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?

You been listening to Nadine?

Channel 4 isn't funded by the government.

I watched the programme, but I didn’t like how it was hosted or most of the people who put up arguments for or against destroying the art work.
But I found the concept strangely intriguing, I was upset at the thought of art work by Picasso or Eric Gill being destroyed but couldn’t care less about Rolf Harris or Hitler because I don’t consider either of them artists. Was I wrong, they were all guilty of atrocities so should they have all been destroyed or does all art have merit therefore none destroyed.
Is it right to wipe these peoples work from history. I am not sure but it was thought provoking.

I loved the thought provoking aspect of it. Of the various choices the audience had there were one or two where I would have destroyed both, or destroyed neither!

What about the naked children? I was in agreement with Janet Street-Porter and definitely for destroying all of them. They had no artistic merit whatsoever in my book, they were black and white photos that anyone with a camera could have taken of their own children. And being naked they were intrusive to the child and of possible interest to paedos. Horrible, I would never want naked pictures of children in the public domain at all.

It sounds really interesting, I think those are two quite different concepts though, art where the artist has done something terrible and art that is in itself 'problematic' eg. children

I am probably of the view that no art should be destroyed because of the crimes of the artist.

Galaxy, I think so too.
Revered is one thing; but just existing?
What is the point in its destruction?

It's hard though isnt it. It's quite an important belief to me, linked to free speech etc, but I am genuinely furious if people play a Gary Glitter song. I know that's not 'art' but it's the same concept.

Galaxy

I am probably of the view that no art should be destroyed because of the crimes of the artist.

Me too, it's akin to burning books.

Well music comes under the same umbrella (see the Jerry Lee Lewis discussion). You could say some music is more significant just as you could say some works of art are more significant. One of the questions posed by the programme is whether the importance of the piece of art makes it worth saving even though the artist is an evil monster.

Chestnut I'm glad you started this thread as I had all but decided (because of J Carr, it has to be said) decided to give this program a swerve.
But I will certainly look it up.

Considering what has recently happened with statues around the country
What we feel about art, architecture etc. matters

But playing Devils advocate, (which this program was)If statues are deemed fair game to be judged by today's standards, why not all art?
Who would judge it? By whose standards?
How often would they change?
And why?

It's all very Orwellian.

As I dont know the outcome I'm all fired up to see it now.
It had better be on catch up!!!🤣

I realise Jimmy Carr hosting may have put most people off! It was just the idea of debating the fate of various pieces of art that intrigued me. Really glad I watched it.

I saw a bit of it (also put off by JC).

I don't know what I think about art made by monsters. I haven't seen anything painted by Hitler, but he wasn't an artist, and I'm guessing that any value attached to his works will have come from admirers wanting vicarious links to his memory, and for that reason I would happily see it destroyed. Picasso? Apparently he was a rotter in his private life, and a misogynist to boot, but his work is marvellous, so no, I think it would be very wrong to destroy it. I would happily give it a home if it were to be declared worthless. Eric Gill is more dodgy. His daughters have died recently (the last one a couple of years ago) and had to see his work including, presumably, the statue beside the BBC, and hear his praises sung. That can't have been easy.

But where does it end, and what about friends and family of the monsters? That bloke from Lost Prophets - what about the other band members? Should their lives be ruined too? And if you like the music, whether it is Wagner or Gary Glitter, should you be denied the right to listen to it because of something you didn't know about when your interest in it began? Michael Jackson's Thriller was the best selling album ever. Lots of people loved it - can they switch that off now?

And what about people who seem a bit unpleasant, or whose behaviour was basically ok in the times they lived? Ted Hughes? Lord Byron? Or the people about whom we know nothing of their dark side? There must be numerous artists, poets, composers and so on who got up to no good but got away with it. And then there are people like Oscar Wilde who were shunned by some for behaviour we now see as perfectly ok.

On balance, I think it's an interesting subject for debate, although I don't know any answers, but wouldn't want to condemn a piece of art to destruction on the sayso of a studio audience, with people like Jimmy Carr and Janet Street-Porter (although I like her) leading the discussion.

An interesting comment, Doodledog. I'm trying to bite my lip here because I don't want to give away any of the decisions made on the show in case someone wants to watch it.

I would keep the painting by Hitler but not to be shared by collectors for vast sums of money. Keep it stored away for posterity but don't show it off or treasure it!

I would destroy the black and white photo of the naked child/girl for reasons I've explained. I don't even consider it art at all. That was up against a sick collage of Myra Hindley, so they had to choose between the two. I'd destroy both without hesitation, so how could I choose?

I suppose we all have differing views on what we deem suitable to keep or destroy and the reasoning behind it. There is art that brings pleasure to the viewer or listener and art which outrages or shocks people in trying to put forward some kind of message. Some of them are worthwhile, some distasteful, and others complete nonsense with no real artistic merit. Everyone has their own view, and presumably would be happy to see at least some of it destroyed.

Good points Doodledog. I'm inclined to agree with you. Especially about not having the answers.

It's never a good thing (imo) to have one group with the over arching ability to dictate what others do see or say.
Who ever they are.

It's excellent that it's being discussed as a topic. Such a refreshing change from all the usual TV programmes around.

Namsnanny It's never a good thing (imo) to have one group with the over arching ability to dictate what others do see or say. Who ever they are.
Well in a court of law we have a jury of 12 with exactly that ability, to decide the fate of the person in the dock. And that is a much greater responsibility than destroying some items which may or may not be considered works of art.

I think I know the Myra Hindley picture, and I was quite taken with it.

MissAdventure

I think I know the Myra Hindley picture, and I was quite taken with it.

Was it this painting by Marcus Harvey? (Not a collage)
Yes, I think that it’s brilliant.
I saw it in ‘97 when it was included in the Sensation exhibition.

My problem is getting past Carr - silly man.

So I haven’t seen the programme.

However, I have difficulty getting past the destruction tbh.

Too many pasts😄😄😄.

Let’s look to the future I say!

Was it this painting by Marcus Harvey? (Not a collage)
Quote: Harvey is known for his tabloid-provoking 9 by 11 feet (2.7 by 3.4 m) portrayal of Moors murderer Myra Hindley, created from handprints taken from a plaster cast of a child’s hand. I think that is sick, and why should she receive immortality through a work of art? Shall we do paintings of all child murderers and paedophiles?

That's the one.

I’m not going to argue with you Chestnut.
You think it’s ‘sick’, I don’t.
I hope that you don’t think that I’m ‘sick’ by extension.
I could write an essay about it, but I won’t.
This is why I haven’t commented much on this thread.
I’m sick to death of arguments on here

Why shouldn't evil be captured forever in a painting?