Crosswords0 min ago
Should He Be Given Jail Or A Bigger Hammer?
104 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by royfromaus. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
.I don't separate the art from the artist.
hmm depends
In June, 1908, the self-appointed guardians of London's morals, became decidedly hot under the collar over a series of statues, some of them nude, which had appeared on the upper level of the new British Medical Association (BMA) building on the Strand.
the whole article is good
there is even a turbulent roman catholic priest involved
first commission for epstein which I didnt know
[no no campers, not BMA hse tavistock square, put your sledge hammers away)
hmm depends
In June, 1908, the self-appointed guardians of London's morals, became decidedly hot under the collar over a series of statues, some of them nude, which had appeared on the upper level of the new British Medical Association (BMA) building on the Strand.
the whole article is good
there is even a turbulent roman catholic priest involved
first commission for epstein which I didnt know
[no no campers, not BMA hse tavistock square, put your sledge hammers away)
https:/
I dont think there were cases
some young jacknapes climbed fifty feet to do it ( in)
I dont think there were cases
some young jacknapes climbed fifty feet to do it ( in)
Two things, Andy, I think...
Firstly, what is the purpose of a statue, rather than a stadium? Surely, a statue is there purely for the purpose of celebrating a person? I wouldn't "censor" a person, but have no problem in cancelling statues. They have no aim or purpose, except to say this person deserves praise.
Secondly, and I know you'll correct me if necessary. I think, because your work involves a lot of analysing music- to some degree, you have to be objective, whether you personally like it or not?
Where, I have the luxury of purely going with personal feelings, in what I decide to listen to.
Firstly, what is the purpose of a statue, rather than a stadium? Surely, a statue is there purely for the purpose of celebrating a person? I wouldn't "censor" a person, but have no problem in cancelling statues. They have no aim or purpose, except to say this person deserves praise.
Secondly, and I know you'll correct me if necessary. I think, because your work involves a lot of analysing music- to some degree, you have to be objective, whether you personally like it or not?
Where, I have the luxury of purely going with personal feelings, in what I decide to listen to.
pixie - // Two things, Andy, I think...
Firstly, what is the purpose of a statue, rather than a stadium? Surely, a statue is there purely for the purpose of celebrating a person? I wouldn't "censor" a person, but have no problem in cancelling statues. They have no aim or purpose, except to say this person deserves praise. //
My point about using destruction of stadium as an example, is simply to illustrate my point, that if we sanction the destruction of a statue based on one person's need to advise everyone that he objects to it by destroying it, then where do we draw the line?
Statues, stadiums, the subject is not the issue, it is the attitude and the sanctioning of behaviour that is the problem.
//Secondly, and I know you'll correct me if necessary. I think, because your work involves a lot of analysing music- to some degree, you have to be objective, whether you personally like it or not?
Where, I have the luxury of purely going with personal feelings, in what I decide to listen to. //
I can see what you mean, but that's not how it works.
I do analyse music critically, which can be music that I don't like.
But obviously I have my own personal tastes and artists whose work I enjoy and collect, and the two operate together.
My view on separating the art from the artist is not governed by my liking, or disliking it, simply that I feel that for me, one does not intrude on the other, and of course I accept that other people, yourself included, feel the opposite.
Where I have a problem, is the uneven application of the approach to art versus the artist.
Radio Two bans Gary Glitter records because he is an abuser, but Radio Three plays Wagner, even though he was a raving Nazi and gleeful anti-Semite.
And as debated directly on here, the BBC - responsible for the dichotomy I have outlined, have the statue of a self-acknowledged child abuser decorating one of its buildings.
If we are going to censor art because of the artist, we have a long and difficult road ahead - judging what behaviour of which artists crosses the line into an area where we 'cancel' their output.
And who makes those decisions?
Firstly, what is the purpose of a statue, rather than a stadium? Surely, a statue is there purely for the purpose of celebrating a person? I wouldn't "censor" a person, but have no problem in cancelling statues. They have no aim or purpose, except to say this person deserves praise. //
My point about using destruction of stadium as an example, is simply to illustrate my point, that if we sanction the destruction of a statue based on one person's need to advise everyone that he objects to it by destroying it, then where do we draw the line?
Statues, stadiums, the subject is not the issue, it is the attitude and the sanctioning of behaviour that is the problem.
//Secondly, and I know you'll correct me if necessary. I think, because your work involves a lot of analysing music- to some degree, you have to be objective, whether you personally like it or not?
Where, I have the luxury of purely going with personal feelings, in what I decide to listen to. //
I can see what you mean, but that's not how it works.
I do analyse music critically, which can be music that I don't like.
But obviously I have my own personal tastes and artists whose work I enjoy and collect, and the two operate together.
My view on separating the art from the artist is not governed by my liking, or disliking it, simply that I feel that for me, one does not intrude on the other, and of course I accept that other people, yourself included, feel the opposite.
Where I have a problem, is the uneven application of the approach to art versus the artist.
Radio Two bans Gary Glitter records because he is an abuser, but Radio Three plays Wagner, even though he was a raving Nazi and gleeful anti-Semite.
And as debated directly on here, the BBC - responsible for the dichotomy I have outlined, have the statue of a self-acknowledged child abuser decorating one of its buildings.
If we are going to censor art because of the artist, we have a long and difficult road ahead - judging what behaviour of which artists crosses the line into an area where we 'cancel' their output.
And who makes those decisions?
gness - // To separate the art from the artist and support them by enjoying looking at or listening to the work of a paedophile is .... do you know I can't think an allowable word for anyone who does that. //
I am not sure that looking at or listening to art actually 'supports' the artist, and obviously we differ in our view, based on our differing experiences.
// Being sexually abused is slightly more upsetting than having my football team unfairly penalised. //
I think you are deliberately missing the point I was making because you are still upset with me for something I have not actually done - apart from holding a different view from you, which I am sure you will agree, is actually allowed.
My point about the football comparison was directly linked to the notion of allowable destruction carried to a ludicrous degree in order to make a point.
It has nothing to do with abuse, and you would know that if you read it without your angry glasses on.
I am not sure that looking at or listening to art actually 'supports' the artist, and obviously we differ in our view, based on our differing experiences.
// Being sexually abused is slightly more upsetting than having my football team unfairly penalised. //
I think you are deliberately missing the point I was making because you are still upset with me for something I have not actually done - apart from holding a different view from you, which I am sure you will agree, is actually allowed.
My point about the football comparison was directly linked to the notion of allowable destruction carried to a ludicrous degree in order to make a point.
It has nothing to do with abuse, and you would know that if you read it without your angry glasses on.
13:33, Andy, you aren't comparing like with like.
I haven't checked, and may well be wrong, but I imagine that Gary Glitter, say, would still show up on wiki. It's still legal to play his music, for those that do want to. And so it should be. He hasn't been cancelled. But, if a statue was raised to him in my village, I would willingly push it over.
I haven't checked, and may well be wrong, but I imagine that Gary Glitter, say, would still show up on wiki. It's still legal to play his music, for those that do want to. And so it should be. He hasn't been cancelled. But, if a statue was raised to him in my village, I would willingly push it over.
gness - // Andy you don't mean enough to me for me to be upset. I do think you're a bit odd though which your post at 13.33 would seem to confirm. //
Clearly I did last night, judging by your unpleasant tirade.
I refer you to my post at 12:42 - other than that I have nothing else to say to you on the subject.
Clearly I did last night, judging by your unpleasant tirade.
I refer you to my post at 12:42 - other than that I have nothing else to say to you on the subject.
pixie - // 13:33, Andy, you aren't comparing like with like.
I haven't checked, and may well be wrong, but I imagine that Gary Glitter, say, would still show up on wiki. It's still legal to play his music, for those that do want to. And so it should be. He hasn't been cancelled. But, if a statue was raised to him in my village, I would willingly push it over. //
Then you are also not comparing like with like.
Colston is a historical figure, dead a long time, who lived and made money by the culture of his time.
Glitter is alive, and he is a convicted abuser - no comparison at all.
I haven't checked, and may well be wrong, but I imagine that Gary Glitter, say, would still show up on wiki. It's still legal to play his music, for those that do want to. And so it should be. He hasn't been cancelled. But, if a statue was raised to him in my village, I would willingly push it over. //
Then you are also not comparing like with like.
Colston is a historical figure, dead a long time, who lived and made money by the culture of his time.
Glitter is alive, and he is a convicted abuser - no comparison at all.
I'm not comparing the people. I'm saying, we can celebrate whoever we like. Deciding not to, is not a cancellation, just a change of views over time.
To me, the problem is statues and what they imply. I wouldn't put one up to a single human.
Maybe, if we have to,a statue of a hospital, with an accurate plaque,but not a tribute to an individual.
To me, the problem is statues and what they imply. I wouldn't put one up to a single human.
Maybe, if we have to,a statue of a hospital, with an accurate plaque,but not a tribute to an individual.
pixie - // I'm not comparing the people. I'm saying, we can celebrate whoever we like. Deciding not to, is not a cancellation, just a change of views over time.
To me, the problem is statues and what they imply. I wouldn't put one up to a single human.
Maybe, if we have to,a statue of a hospital, with an accurate plaque,but not a tribute to an individual. //
Fair enough, but I think we are in danger of drifting away from the point of the OP.
I have opinions of statues, the same as anyone else, but I do not believe that any negative opinion entitles me to pull a statue down.
The proper way is for a discussion to be held, interested parties to be consulted, and then a decision about the future of the object to be reached and implemented.
Simply allowing people to smash something purely on the basis that it offends them, and they have an immense desire to advertise how right-on and offended they are, is not the way any civilsed society can operate.
I think the day of the statue is long gone - but that doesn't mean that we smash them because times, and tolerances, have changed.
To me, the problem is statues and what they imply. I wouldn't put one up to a single human.
Maybe, if we have to,a statue of a hospital, with an accurate plaque,but not a tribute to an individual. //
Fair enough, but I think we are in danger of drifting away from the point of the OP.
I have opinions of statues, the same as anyone else, but I do not believe that any negative opinion entitles me to pull a statue down.
The proper way is for a discussion to be held, interested parties to be consulted, and then a decision about the future of the object to be reached and implemented.
Simply allowing people to smash something purely on the basis that it offends them, and they have an immense desire to advertise how right-on and offended they are, is not the way any civilsed society can operate.
I think the day of the statue is long gone - but that doesn't mean that we smash them because times, and tolerances, have changed.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Jobs & Education3 mins ago
Film, Media & TV9 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.