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.

[springyzone]

---

@janeababe wrote:

😳😳😳😳

gawd struth springy, 

i think you would be best to stop right there! 

You're referencing is appalling and it is not doing you any favours! 

If you feel that RH deserves the benefit of the doubt, and you're happy to recognise his artwork whilst ignoring his abhorrent crimes, then go ahead...... and then crawl back under your rock!!!!!!! 

Unbelievable! 

---

I'm not sure what you are on about.

You seem to infer things that I have definitely never said. Personally, I don't think you're being logical.

For instance, show me where I said I would give RH the 'benefit of the doubt'.

Throughout this, I have said we need to separate the person from the art work. I have never suggested he is innocent, what i have suggested is art work (or any work really) should be judged by the quality of the work, not necessarily by how much we like or approve of the person who did it.

Nor have I suggested it is a good thing to support criminals financially in their endeavours.

If you'd ever read any of my posts on other topics you would also know I am not one who wants to 'ignore abhorrent crimes' either. I am probably a lot stronger against crime than you are, I'd support the death penalty in some cases. As for favours, I don't think you do yourself any by being hysterical and accusing me of being under some rock, simply for having an opinion that isn't yours.

A piece of art is a piece of art & it's either good on its own merits or not. 

Can i just ask-where does it end?

Does every piece of art on display anywhere need to have the tick of approval about the artist's moral life?

[janeababe]

......and I'm suggesting that to admire a piece of art, you are admiring the artist..... whether you know the artist or not!

That being said, the real issue here is the location of said piece of art and how it is represented by face value when connected to the wonderful charity work of those whose aim is to fight the uprising of domestic violence in the community. 

I believe you stated you didn't think there was a conflict of interest!  I wholeheartedly disagree! 

......and you made reference to Da Vinci, Faulty Towers AND the Holocaust but you think I'M not being logical??? 😯😯

ok springy.... 

".....whaaaaat eeeeeeever! ". 😒

[go-tazz]

---

@kopenhagen5 wrote:

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.

---

And then you have these,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-17/five-criminals-turned-artists-who-came-to-fame-in-the-art-worl...

https://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/213939/11-psycho-killers-and-their-paintings/