Should the Gill Sans typeface be banned, or just shunned? Neither? Is it immoral to use it? Is it immoral to see it? How about Perpetua?

How about when tourists stroll through Westminster Cathedral and happen upon Eric Gill’s reliefs depicting the Stations Of The Cross? Is Westminster Cathedral immoral for displaying this art? Is an admiring tourist immoral for admiring this art? Can the same be questioned and said about his Prospero and Ariel sculpture fronting the BBC building in London?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Prospero_and_Ariel-1.jpg

With your answer in mind, what if you learned that Eric Gill, the creator of Gill Sans and Perpetua, the sculpture of the above and other works, also was a serial adulterer? Does that change the answer? How about if he had incestuous relations with his sisters and then his daughters? Does that change anything? How about if Eric Gill was so randy that he couldn’t even leave his dog alone?

Peter Hitchens wonders about all this:

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2020/02/evildoers-and-their-art

Opening paragraph:

The story goes that the great sculptor Eric Gill (1882–1940) was inclined—for reasons we will come to—to over-emphasize sexual organs in some of his work. When he was commissioned in 1932 to carve Prospero and Ariel on the London headquarters of the British Broadcasting Corporation, the result was supposedly inspected by the grizzled headmaster of one of the country’s leading boys’ boarding schools, a man presumed to have some knowledge of this sort of thing. He stared for a while at Ariel’s parts of manhood, and then pronounced, “I must say, the lad does seem to be remarkably, ah, well-hung.”

As I say elsewhere, some people boycott Polanski, even though he is a decent director, while Led Zeppelin's Jimmy Page is freely played on the radio. The difference is that one of these people was prosecuted by the police, while the other is still praised, despite the fact he is known to have slept with underage girls knowingly and repeatedly.

Take it from a former roadie (well, local crew):

Jimmy Page did only what nearly every other rocker on the radio did.

Polanski, Page, Gill, or Benvenuto Cellini...where does the banning, the shunning end?

Polanski will go to prison if he sets foot in the USA, but Page won't for the same thing.

Yes, a lot of rockers did it. Steve Tyler adopted his underage girlfriend from her parents. Then there's Woody Allen (I like some of his stuff, but in one of them his character even dates a girl thar age!)

Then there's Pete Townsend of the Who. He was caught with a number of images on his computer and the English police let him off, because he said it was research. He is the most dangerous of the lot, but won't be prosecuted either.

Question is, if the girl in question was a close relative, would you put up with it?

I don't condone any of it! None! Absolutely, lock Polanski up.


But the question I'm asking is, does the artist's behaviour change the quality of the art? Is this:

http://www.thehistoryblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Perseus-with-the-Head-of-Medusa-Benvenuto-Cellini.jpg

any less or more because Cellini buggered boys all day?

Is Woody Allen's "Manhattan" any less or more because he married Soon-Yi Previn?

According to Wikipedia:

"Manhattan is a 1979 American romantic comedy film directed by Woody Allen and produced by Charles H. Joffe. The screenplay was written by Allen and Marshall Brickman. Allen co-stars as a twice-divorced 42-year-old comedy writer who dates a 17-year-old girl (Mariel Hemingway)"

The Hemingway girl's character was twice as mature as Woody's character.

I get the need to set an arbitrary limit, so I just shrug my shoulders and remain content to let ghawd sort it out. HA!

The Hemingway girl's character was twice as mature as Woody's character.

I get the need to set an arbitrary limit, so I just shrug my shoulders and remain content to let ghawd sort it out. HA!



     ETA: Four hours later and I still agree with myself ...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2020 03:03PM by elderolddog.

>      ETA: Four hours later and I still agree
> with myself...

Me too, a day later...

I don't think it was Pete Townsend. It was the bassist, John Entwistle, who has since died that got caught with the images, later claiming it was research.........

DaveinTX Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think it was Pete Townsend. It was the
> bassist, John Entwistle, who has since died that
> got caught with the images, later claiming it was
> research.........


Maybe Entwistle too, I don't know, but Pete was definitely found guilty of his "research" project. He spent five years on the sex offenders’ register. How he got his name off that list, I don't know.

So, to the question: must I never hear Baba O'Riley again?

Let he who is without balls be the judge.

But let the marketplace be the executioner.

When I discover that an artist be it Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, Bill Cosby or Garrison Kelihor is a sexual predator, I lose all interest in that person's work.

The quality of the work doesn't change; I just don't want to see it or hear it or read it any more.

But that's just me.

It's me, too. Fat Albert isn't funny anymore.


But how far does this go? For example, I don't know that I could lose interest in the following produced by a monster:

Altman’s Prêt-a-Porter: Ready to Wear

Zeffirelli’s Jane Eyre

Van Sant’s Good Will Hunting

Multiple Oscar winning Shakespeare in Love

Scorsese’s Gangs Of New York

Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11

Hooper’s The King’s Speech

The quirky, poignant St. Vincent

The weird Big Eyes

Carol, by Todd Haynes

And multiple Tarantino films

Harvey Weinstein is a monster who possessed out-sized Power over so many individuals, and he exercised that power monstrously. And yet, lose interest in Good Will Hunting?


Then again, I haven't watched and will never watch again Charlie Rose interview anybody.

My problem is that even though I enjoyed the work in the past, I can't look at it now without thinking of the monstrous acts the "artist" perpetrated.

I myself was the victim of a Powerful Important Man, so the empathy factor is huge.

Maybe "The Cosby Show" is Great Television, but I hope I never have to watch another episode again, ever.

Now Woody Allen has come out with his memoirs so he can put his version of the story out there.

Dylan Farrow is not happy with this.
But at least she got to share her memories, her experiences. Up until now, victims of sexual abuse have largely been voiceless.

Nope, can't watch Woody Allen movies either. They may be works of pure genius, but I can't watch them without thinking of the depraved individual who created the movie.

Time's up.

I hear you. It’s visceral.

But I feel it somehow punishes Diane Keaton if I never see Annie Hall again.

Where do you stop though? Amadeus and Ferris Bueller are two of the most enjoyable films of the eighties, for very different reasons. However, both of them feature Jones in supporting roles - as the Emperor and the School Principal. The guy's a notorious molester.

I can separate him from his characters. That's harder with Woody Allen, although Annie Hall and Hannah & her Sisters are both films I love.

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's me, too. Fat Albert isn't funny anymore.
>
>
> But how far does this go? For example, I don't
> know that I could lose interest in the following
> produced by a monster:
>
> Altman’s Prêt-a-Porter: Ready to Wear
>
> Zeffirelli’s Jane Eyre
>
> Van Sant’s Good Will Hunting
>
> Multiple Oscar winning Shakespeare in Love
>
> Scorsese’s Gangs Of New York
>
> Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11
>
> Hooper’s The King’s Speech
>
> The quirky, poignant St. Vincent
>
> The weird Big Eyes
>
> Carol, by Todd Haynes
>
> And multiple Tarantino films

Once Upon a Time In Hollywood proves Tarantino doesn't need Weinstein. It was the best film last year.

I would exchange some of these - Carol for Silver Linings Playbook, Gangs of New York for The Master etc. In fact, the Master is probably the movie which brought about Weinstein's downfall. You don't attack Scientology publicly without something happening to you. They probably has a dossier a mile long.

But here's the other question: why Weinstein? Or more precisely, why mostly/only Weinstein? The man is a jerk of the first order, but he is not the only one in Hollywood. Why aren't more producers getting roped in?

My list of Weinstein produced films was chosen randomly. But to your taste, I agree with The Master but not with Silver Linings.


> But here's the other question: why Weinstein? Or
> more precisely, why mostly/only Weinstein? The man
> is a jerk of the first order, but he is not the
> only one in Hollywood. Why aren't more producers
> getting roped in?

Very good question. For another example, Cosby's behaviour was rampant back in the day. Are we to believe he was an aberration? And of course Weinstein isn't the sole monster of Hollywood. The way he used power over others is far more egregious than "jerk of the first order," but it is ubiquitous and as old as Hollywood itself.

All this goes to the main question, where does the banning, the shunning end? Artists and the variations of Maecenas that support them have always been 'a little messed up'. They're different, and sometimes evil, as was Eric Gill in my opinion. So, shun Gill Sans? Not that far? Just the ones the MSM teaches to hate and leave it at that? How about the ones the MSM doesn't report all that much or not at all? Why aren't the Clintons and Dershowitz et. al. at least shunned, banned from polite society forever? Everyone has a different answer on where the end should end.

But none of that is a comment about prosecuting criminal behaviour. If there's a case to be made, all the Weinsteins, Cosbys and Clintons ought to be prosecuted to the upmost the law provides.

Many veterans add Jane Fonda to the list.

kathleen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Many veterans add Jane Fonda to the list.

Except for "Barbarella", in which she scted up a storm!!