@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?
