We’re all gonna log on one day and the forum will be green with dancing paperclips everywhere and somehow whatever you did caused it.
Ask the Staff Anything
- Thread starter Keaton
- Start date
Dark Drakan
Well-known Member
To far to far! For the love of Bob Ross to far!!!!!!!!!!
1st Mods I love ya all! You haven't banned me yet lol.
2nd Have you guys and girls ever considered allowing bigger avatar pictures?
2nd Have you guys and girls ever considered allowing bigger avatar pictures?
A. Would you hang an eye and mind pleasing painting on your wall if you knew it was painted by a convicted criminal?
B. Would your answer be the same if you knew the criminal would get no royalties or other benefits from it?
C. Would your answer be the same if you could be sure no one else knew who the artist is?
D. Would your answers for A-C be the same if the artist was a long time deceased, but known, totalitarian dictator or e.g. Nazi Germany leader?
No other reason to ask for this but an interesting theoretical discussion I had last night. Feel free to skip any question you feel uncomfortable to ponder.
B. Would your answer be the same if you knew the criminal would get no royalties or other benefits from it?
C. Would your answer be the same if you could be sure no one else knew who the artist is?
D. Would your answers for A-C be the same if the artist was a long time deceased, but known, totalitarian dictator or e.g. Nazi Germany leader?
No other reason to ask for this but an interesting theoretical discussion I had last night. Feel free to skip any question you feel uncomfortable to ponder.
Why do you ask? If I say yes, will you immediately try to sell me your paintings? I kid, I kid.
Seriously though, it’s a good question. No artist or figure in history is entirely good. For the most part, I separate art from the artist. But if the crimes are too extreme or too recent, I struggle to view the art objectively. For example, House of Cards used to be my favorite show. Now it’s a show that exists but I have no interest in.
It is an interesting discussion indeed. Generally speaking I can separate the artist from the artwork and I don't have a problem with what anyone wants to do in their private life - even that one guy who was obsessed with collecting Nazi memorabilia, so long as it doesn't break the law obviously. But where I do draw a line is when it is not appropriate - my go to example to explain what I mean would be the fact that the BBC our state media (putting aside the ethics of even having a state broadcaster) has a troubled history of shielding pedophiles and perhaps not uncoincidentally, their headquarters proudly displays a statue that was gifted to them by one such pedophile. I don't think the BBC which represents the country (for better or worse) should have that on display at their HQ. If it were up to me, I'd take it down, sell it to a private individual and give the money to a charity. But the BBC seem weirdly protective of it - one can only wonder why...
It's ah..."Ariel and Prospero" based on Shakespeare's "The Tempest" and is of a grown man holding up a naked boy (with genitalia on full display). It was created by the now infamous sculptor Eric Gill for the BBC's new broadcasting house in London. Obviously he was not outed as a pedophile at the time, nor even during his life but rather forty years after his death.
Needless to say, the statue remains controversial and there have even been attempts by some people to deface it which I disavow but I am as I mentioned in the camp that don't feel the BBC should be displaying it in front of their HQ.