@janeababe wrote:
@springyzone wrote:
@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?
Good Lord Springy........
(1) Leonardo Da Vinci was never convicted of homosexuality, charged yes, but the charges were dropped. What happened back in the late 1400's has been long gone and buried! Just because he never married, never had a relationship with a woman, nor fathered any children DOES NOT MAKE HIM GAY!!!
(2) Homosexuality is between two (or more) CONSENTING persons. If you cant see the blatantly obvious difference between an artist who you claim is homosexual, and an artist who has been proven and charged with being a Paedophile, then what flerkin hope does humanity have left???
SMH!!!
Rolf Harris was a brilliant artist spanning across many genre's .... but he destroyed his credibility! HE destroyed it.
He is not longer an Great Australian Idol, his talent is no longer worthy of admiration, and his works should be banished from all forms of publication. (I know this will never ever happen)
When a charity is standing up against domestic violence, (the assault of the human rights against another) HOW ON EARTH can you advocate a Rolf Harris painting hanging in the same zone?
Listen, Jane. I never said I can't see the difference between a paedophile & a gay person.
I think it is pretty well documented Da Vinci was gay. To me, that doesn't matter. I don't care what he was. I just used that as a quick example.
But whether you like it or not, there are sectors in society that considered or still consider that a crime. Some muslim groups still throw gay men off rooftops.
The question is NOT about which is the greater crime, it is about perceptions. If someone perceives something as a crime, should they refuse to look at art by that person?
If that art depicted paedophilia, I would say that would cross a lot of lines.
But it doesn't.
Harris is no longer a great Australian idol, he most likely won't be able to make a career out of entertainment ever again.
But as for his art, let time decide. Either the work can stand on its own merit or it can't.
If anyone were to be writing a book about Australian art styles of the 20th century, it could not be done properly without a reference to Harris.
Your attitude reminds me very much of some countries where holocaust references are being removed from history books.
