Yes, thanks xxxxx and ekap.
I had absolutely no idea.
If I had, I hope you know me well enough to know that I would not have posted this.
Sincere apologies.

Cheers. I've now read the interview. Bloody hell! Certainly not the sort of man that I would want anything to do with. I've voted labour all my life. Hardly likely to share views like that!

Couldn't agree more.

Dr Plip (emphasis added). I don't see why StolenSpace would do that. I just abbreviated the name which gives rise to an unfortunate coincidence... surely not? Anyway, Krafft is part of their stable of artists and they've shown and sold his work for years. The article posted by @xxxxx posits the pertinent question how is Krafft's art to be reassessed in light of what people know now. If his views were known by members on here presumably dating from the time of the article and other similar articles around the same time, one could safely assume that StolenSpace would be aware of them too. The continued support of Krafft by Stolen Space and the sale of his work on their website including the perfume bottles "Forgiveness" arguably indicate their thought or lack of it. I for one, intend to find out directly.

Are the opinions held by a person more objectionable than their behaviour or actions?

Is the passage of time, or exceptional talent, sufficient to forgive?

I ask merely for the sake of debate, because an artist you've previously mentioned in favourable terms — Caravaggio — was a murderer (or at least a manslaughterer), brawler, pederast and whoremonger, braggart and prima donna.

Leaving aside his painterly skills, he could be described as a right prat, even by the standards of his time.

Caravaggio is a figure so far removed from us in history he is not really a person or a moral agent, merely a concept and style that ties together a collection of paintings. This clearly does not make any logical sense but beauty and artistic quality are emotive not logical.


 

Beauty and artistic quality may be such that everything else arguably becomes insignificant, and can therefore be overlooked. In which case, we could be talking about the work of a contemporary figure, not necessarily a distant historical one.

This is probably one reason why people are commonly willing to offer the artists they love a free pass, excusing their poor behaviour. It isn't dissimilar to the way movie stars, pop stars or professional athletes will often be forgiven for things ordinary individuals could not get away with. Real talent or merely the aura of celebrity can have a hypnotic effect on the public.

I alluded to the phenomenon in relation to Mike Tyson here. He's a convicted rapist, he was an alleged wife-beater and spousal abuser, he was a thug in his Brooklyn youth who took part in armed robberies, muggings, etc. He was also an outstanding boxer and showman, utterly watchable. Objectively, I could be classed as a Tyson apologist, despite finding many of his flaws repugnant.

I've no time for Charles Krafft or this show at all, but the general discussion is an interesting one. I used to love (and still do) the prints and book illustrations of Eric Gill, who is a relatively recent figure. His sculptures are prominent in several well known buildings. His personal life would have put him in the Rolf Harris category today - what should we make of his art in light of that? Should it be assigned to the dustbin of history? Should the sculptures be removed?

(Think I'll hang onto my books though!).

Does D*Face own Stolenspace? 

Very interesting......hadn't seen that.  Thank you.

I think that there's no doubt that passage of time is one of the things which influences our attitudes.

Indeed. That was my point.

 
And then the question arises, how long is long enough?   It's unlikely that any of Eric Gill's victims are still alive, but their children may be.  The evidence suggests that is long enough, as there doesn't seem any great clamour to remove his art from public view.

The longer that passes, the more likely the art is to be judged on its own merits.   And the more abhorrent the crimes, the less likely the art to be judged on its own merits.

We're starting to veer towards an equation similar to the one expressed with self-satisfaction by Lester in Crimes and Misdemeanors — a film directed by a man, at the time in his mid-fifties, who had an affair with (and later married) his long-term girlfriend's 21-year-old adopted daughter.






Connection between Woody Allen and Siouxsie Sioux? There are three (or, at most, four) degrees of separation.