Mural painted by Rolf Harris, stay or go?

[davidc4430]

Mural painted by sex offender Rolf Harris ignites 'Nazi Germany' controversy at local council

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-18/push-to-remove-mural-painted-by-sex-offender-rolf-harris/92616...

Just where do we draw the line?

i'm sure there are famous people from throughout history who did terrible things but have monuments or art works in museums and gallerys.

i also wonder why peodophiles are not considered mentally challenged in some way, is it not something screwed up in their brain that makes them lust after children?

we wouldnt demand a painting by someone with autism be removed because 'well they just aint right in the head are they?'

or the many other mental issues out there.

not saying rolf harris should be forgiven his sins but his artwork is something else.

[bright.ton42]

I believe a lot of his artwork has been removed from galleries and other places.  

[kopenhagen5]

I think it should be more about the artwork and the benefits it gives irrespective of who painted it.

It's more a historical piece as opposed to a piece that is up for sale.

And eventually people will look at it admiring it for what it is not knowing anything about the artist.

[bright.ton42]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2677244/So-Rolf-s-portrait-Queen-BBC-denies-knowledge-artwor...

Mystery last night surrounded the whereabouts of a portrait of the Queen painted by shamed entertainer Rolf Harris.

The shamed star was commissioned by the BBC to mark the monarch’s 80th birthday and although not well-received by critics, it did, briefly, hang on the walls at Buckingham Palace.

But last night the national broadcaster was denying all knowledge of its whereabouts.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2677244/So-Rolf-s-portrait-Queen-BBC-denies-knowledge-artwor...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[not_for_sale2024]

I think it should go because it's hypocritical to keep it there. And the comment about the Nazis is ridiculous, given their crimes against humanity. A poor and desperate attempt to try and prompt an argument to keep the mural.

[krylekathe1]

Did you seriously put someone with autism at the same level as a convicted sex offender?

I can’t decide if I am more disgusted by your comments or shocked at your idiocy.

[peteepie]

Botox makes you grumpy.

[springyzone]

I believe art work should stand on its own merits. In other words, even if an art critic didn't know who did it-would they think it was a decent piece of work or not?

I understand that some art will get good prices at auction because of the history behind it eg a piece painted by Hitler or Churchill or even some pop star. That doesn't make it a good piece of art. Everyone understands it is getting serious money because of its history.

I think some of Rolf Harris's art has real merit. If it's a good piece of art, let it hang. What's the point of taking it down & hiding it somewhere in a back room where it can't give anyone any pleasure? I don't approve of the things Rolf Harris did but maybe his art work is the one good thing to come out of his life.

If it's going to brighten a wall, make someone's day more interesting, let it stay.

If it was bought simply for who did it and not on merit and it's a **bleep**py piece of art, then it should never have been bought in the first place.

Do we really want to live in such a politically correct world that our art preferences have to be decided by the artist's background or politics?

[imastawka]

Springy, it's where it's hanging that's the problem.  From the OP's link -

But it is the council-run gallery's public stance against domestic violence, through its support of the 16 Days of Activism campaign, that has some questioning how the painting can remain on its walls.

"How can they back a campaign to end gender-based violence, while we have a mural, painted by a convicted paedophile, hidden under perspex?" said Carol Altmann, a Warrnambool-based activist and writer.

[springyzone]

---

@imastawka wrote:

Springy, it's where it's hanging that's the problem.  From the OP's link -

But it is the council-run gallery's public stance against domestic violence, through its support of the 16 Days of Activism campaign, that has some questioning how the painting can remain on its walls.

"How can they back a campaign to end gender-based violence, while we have a mural, painted by a convicted paedophile, hidden under perspex?" said Carol Altmann, a Warrnambool-based activist and writer.

---

I don't see that it is a conflict of interest.

Not if the painting was bought years ago because of its artistic value.

Hanging up a painting doesn't mean you're saying that the painter was a guaranteed perfect human being.

Having it in a gallery seems fine to me.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a big supporter of criminals making a major profit out of their crime eg family members being paid huge amounts for their story or for an interview. But that's about making a profit revolving around the crime. In this case, it isn't about the crime, it is about the art.

I'll put it another way. Leonardo Da Vinci's work has been on display for many years, even during the time when it was considered a crime to be homosexual. Should his work have been removed? Does valuing his work or looking at it mean the people doing so necessarily condoned homosexuality?