Jimmy Carr Destroys Art - up for debate

I wouldn't want to hang that Hindley picture in my house, but I don't see why Art can't represent evil. Art has different purposes, and that was never intended to be a popular choice. I can't imagine Athena stocking posters of it next to the Jack Vettriano prints .

I'm another one who didn't watch because I hate Jimmy Carr.
As far as the naked photos of children go there was an exhibition by a well known photographer which included photos of her children naked. I believe it was closed down. I'm not sure they should be destroyed. After all we accept pictures of naked men and women as art. Should children be different? Do we have to censor art because some people would use it for nefarious purposes? I'll google to see if I can find the photographer's name.

The artist was Sally Mann.
This is very interesting about how censorship changes
www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-sally-mann-s-photographs-children-viewers-uncomfortable

FannyCornforth

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

Sorry, didn't intend to start an argument, just a debate. As I said everyone has different views on what is considered art or whether any of it should be destroyed.
It's this particular piece I personally dislike because of the children's hands. Millions of people might see it as art and they all have their reasons. This isn't a fight, I'm just interested in other people's opinions on the items in the programme.

Thank you, it’s probably me!
I’m just a bit touchy today!

No problem. 🥰
I am interested in what other people think about saving or destroying these controversial pieces of art.

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.

You and me, awful man.

Chestnut

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 have addressed the problem of Jimmy Carr. No-one can stand him but he did okay as host. Maybe he is trying to reinvent himself who knows? 🤔

I wonder if they chose him because he has recently been the centre of a free speech/cancel culture debate and there are links between destroying art and that issue.

Yes, that’s what I thought too Galaxy
It wouldn’t surprise me if he wants to go down the line of more serious broadcasting.
I think that he is trained as a psycho analyst. Or or I might have just totally made that up…

Yes. I have totally made that up. Sorry!

FannyCornforth

Yes, that’s what I thought too Galaxy
It wouldn’t surprise me if he wants to go down the line of more serious broadcasting.
I think that he is trained as a psycho analyst. Or or I might have just totally made that up…

I just checked and it was something along that line. He did neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) which is a pseudoscientific approach to communication, personal development and psychotherapy. Apparently.

Thanks Chestnut! I’m glad to hear that I’m not just spouting random misinformation!

What did they choose to destroy?
And did they really destroy it?
I really want to know what happened, but I don’t want to watch it, as I know that it will wind me up!

Okay, well here's a spoiler, so don't read if you want to see the programme:

They destroyed Myra Hindley (although it wasn't the original which is very large and in a gallery). They kept the naked little girl aged 4. There was a head versus a picture of some white men and a slave, where they destroyed the head. They destroyed Hitler and kept Picasso, which would indicate that the quality of the art outweighs the evil of the artist. However, this was not the case when they destroyed Eric Gill and kept Rolf Harris. So go figure.

Ah, thank you! Yes, that does sound a bit muddled!
I don’t think anything should be destroyed. Just put it out of sight!
Or is that too easy? 😁

It would have been useful if they had filmed two versions with different audiences but the same arguments put by the same presenters, and compared the results.

I'd be surprised if both groups chose the same artefacts to destroy (particularly if they were matched demographically), which would prove the point that these things are arbitrary.

FWIW, (and bearing in mind that I saw about 10 minutes of the programme, which didn't include the photo of the child) I would probably be inclined to destroy that, as there are issues of consent attached to photos, which a 4 year old cannot give. I'd probably vote to lock away the Hitler, so that it couldn't become some sort of icon for neo-Nazis. Rolf Harris' art was pretty disposable anyway, so I would let it stand, and hope that nobody who couldn't afford to lose money hadn't spent a lot on it. I would move the Gill statue to a museum and stipulate that it had to be displayed next to an explanation of his behaviour, so the work would survive but his reputation would not, and I can't help feeling that Picasso's work rises above anything he did (although I don't really know the extent of his transgressions).

My guess is that most of us on this thread would vote differently in at least one case though, so it's probably better to leave things alone and let time be the judge. It pretty much always is where matters of Art are concerned anyway.

I agree two audiences would have been good, especially if one were younger and the other older. I noticed the audience seemed to mostly be younger people, but they weren't chosen. They thought they were seeing an art exhibition but were then hi-jacked and asked to vote. I kept wondering if mostly older people might vote differently.

The Eric Gill was not a statue but some pornographic drawings, which got the boot in favour of the photo of the naked girl aged 4.

Don’t watch anything with Jimmy Carr, find him very creepy he makes my skin creep.. I have mixed feelings about art being destroyed. I personally wouldn’t want anything by Hitler or Rolf Harris, if I had they would have to be sold and the money given to charity, that’s if there was anyone who wanted to purchase it, if not I would burn them myself.. I couldn't bear the thought of what they did having what they created in my home. So for me what they did is more than the art they created so it would go.

Chestnut

I agree two audiences would have been good, especially if one were younger and the other older. I noticed the audience seemed to mostly be younger people, but they weren't chosen. They thought they were seeing an art exhibition but were then hi-jacked and asked to vote. I kept wondering if mostly older people might vote differently.

The Eric Gill was not a statue but some pornographic drawings, which got the boot in favour of the photo of the naked girl aged 4.

I would rather see the audiences matched demographically, to show that it is personal opinion, rather than age, sex, education or whatever that makes people feel as they do. I agree that it would also be interesting to see results separated by demographic factors to see if there are any obvious trends though. I wonder whether screening for an antipathy towards Jimmy Carr would make a difference to the results .

I think this is a serious issue that is ripe for debate - but this sort of programme trivialises it.

I'm not sure how I feel about works of art being destroyed. I can understand why some people think they should be but I am still undecided.

I don’t think any art should be destroyed. Maybe the artists but never the art. A lot of artists in the past and present have pretty ropey moral standards but it is not them we are looking at. Same applies to authors and book burning.

In general I agree with both of you. I am in two minds about the photo of a naked child (although I haven't seen it, so I don't know what I'm talking about ) but that's because it seems to me wrong to make something like that public without the child's consent. I have similar concerns about children on Facebook - it's not just Art.

nanna8

I don’t think any art should be destroyed. Maybe the artists but never the art. A lot of artists in the past and present have pretty ropey moral standards but it is not them we are looking at. Same applies to authors and book burning.

But that depends on whether it is actually art. Not everything said to be art is art. And not all the items under discussion were there because the artist was a monster. The subject matter might be the problem, not the artist.

Doodledog

In general I agree with both of you. I am in two minds about the photo of a naked child (although I haven't seen it, so I don't know what I'm talking about ) but that's because it seems to me wrong to make something like that public without the child's consent. I have similar concerns about children on Facebook - it's not just Art.

The photograph of the naked child I don't consider to be art at all, so I would have no trouble destroying it. Anyone (including me) could mess about with a camera and take pictures of their children playing naked in the garden. Yet this photo is worth thousands of pounds. Emperor's new clothes in my view. In fact all the photos of her naked children were on display for the whole world to see. Janet Street-Porter made the point about the children being unable to give consent.