Rolf's going down.
(Too soon?)

Mark

those/they/them that covered this up are sick, but then again those/they/them are management ...

Very disappointed in him.

So that’s it - we have to expunge another person from the “this was my childhood” list? It’s all looking pretty bleak now. I expect very soon I won’t be able to recall any TV from the 1970s without some spectre of misdeeds lurking in the background.

So, Rolf did some very bad things; we can agree on that. But at the same time, he was making a lot of good TV, entertaining us, educating us. I was in awe at his ability to create an image from seemingly nothing but some large rollers and tins of emulsion paint. He did that every week on the telly. Should I decide that now that talent/skill is unsafe? Should discount his part in influencing my life choices? He, Tony Hart, and others are responsible for me wanting to peruse a life in the arts. Is that a bad choice I made because of those influences? Would I have been better off in the science labs?

I actually saw some of his paintings in a gallery in London once. I’m glad I did - or should I re-invent my memories and decide that that was a bad thing, and the paintings were, in reflection, the deranged daubings of a psychopath?

The problem we face is that because someone who actually did a lot of good ends up having a darker, more sinister side, we are being compelled through the media, social media, and peer pressure to consign the entire person, his life and works, to the bin.

History is littered with individuals who have found their ways into the nation’s hearts, but have a far seedier, creepier background.

Eric Gill
We love Eric. We see his work every day through his lettering. Gill Sans and Perpetua being the two of his most famous typefaces. He was also a calligrapher and a sculptor, working in the Arts and Crafts movement. His work has become almost symbolic of the nation itself - the BBC use Gill Sans as its corporate font, and broadcasting house in Regent Street has a number of his stone carvings adorning the older, stone facade.

Penguin Books were redesigned to his specifications, and Jan Tschichold specified Gill Sans for book titles in their Pelican imprint. You’ll even find Gill Sans on those annoying “Keep Calm” posters as probably the best fit typeface which is readily available today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Gill

Eric Gill’s work is everywhere.

But, Eric was a bad person. He sexually abused his own children, and even kept a diary of his deeds. He had an incestuous relationship with his daughter and even molested his dog. Clearly crimes that are equal to, if not going beyond, those of which Rolf has been convicted.

So do we decide to excise his work from our lives? Should we petition the BBC to pick another font? Seek out and destroy his life’s work? Tear up our Penguin books?

Ah, well, Eric wasn’t on kid’s telly. Maybe he’s OK really.

Oh, hang on. What about

Charles Dodgson
You’ll know this chap by his nom de plume - Lewis Carroll. He wrote the Alice in Wonderland books. He was in real life a clergyman, and a mathematician, amongst other things. His Alice books are full of wonderful imagery, and logic puzzles, and even today, they have an attraction that has spawned two Disney films, as well as computer games, comic books and a whole host of critiques. We love good old Lewis, and will quite happily read his stories to our children.

However, and this is where it gets sketchy because of the passage of time and conflicting interpretations, it can be argued that he was pedophile. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Carr ... _mysteries
He liked drawing and photographic children in the nude, and while this wasn’t uncommon in Victorian times, some feel that his motives may have been more sinister. To put this into context, though, there was a lot of child mortality in Victorian times, and if you child lived past two, it was likely that it would survive into adulthood.

There was a “Cult of the Child” where it was acceptable to take an interest in children that may be seen as creepy by today’s standards.

http://www.representingchildhood.pitt.edu/victorian.htm

So, is it right that we celebrate Carroll’s work? Should Disney have made those films? Should we be reading his stories to our children?

OK, so I’m placing today’s values on historical events, but I’ve not gone that far back in time. We still live in the shadows of the Victorians and their sensibilities.

I’m not seeing a great deal of difference between Harris, Gill, and Dodgson in their crimes (and I expect that if you scratch the surface of many well known name, you’ll not like what you find - my selection is not exhaustive). They all did some ghastly things, but they also did some good things. We seem to be forgetting that there is an irreconcilable conflict that we may have to put up with to enjoy the arts, and indeed the sciences.

Very well put and a nice agrument - I certainly dont disagree witrh it

I personally find it very hard to enjoy someone's work if I know they're a scumbag, even if I've previously enjoyed it. I know I should be able to put it out of my head whilst consuming it, but I can't.

It is entirely up to you how you decide those things you ask questions about.
If you want this decision about his "darker, more sinister side" to impact on how you think he impacted on you and your artistic abilities and ambitions, go ahead. *shrug*Just because you are being compelled to do something, to see a person in a certain light now that this recent information has been made public, doesn't mean you actually have to do that same thing.

Judge for yourself. Make your own decisions. Make up your own mind.

Mark

Exactly oh wobbly one.

I remember his on screen presence as inspiring. The same with looking at art in a gallery, I much prefer to look at art as art, rather than to have any pre-conceptions.

I went around the National last time I was in London and looked at the art and said, I like that or that one doesn't appeal to me, only after I had taken in the image did I look at who had painted it.

Should all the good be thrown in the bin, because these people were 'evil' off screen? What about all the dreams that were fulfilled on Jim 'll Fix It? Are they suddenly invalid, because he crushed the dreams of other people by abusing them? I would say no, their good works were good works, their bad works were bad. I think we can see the person as bad, but that doesn't mean we have to discount the good that they did - we should probably not say that that redeems them, it doesn't, but those things should be appreciated separately.

What about computers? Should we have destroyed them all after Alan Turing was convicted of homosexuality?

Here we go....


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-28124959


http://www.essexchronicle.co.uk/Rolf-Ha ... story.html


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28105318


http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/shor ... -queen-art


http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/visu ... 136024.ece (Paywall, but you get the gist from the preview)

It's not that surprising though, is it?

If they didn't take down plaques and such, the Daily Mail brigade would be up in arms. It's probably as much about avoiding the inevitable grief they'll get.

I'm disappointed in him as I had so many fond memories of him on TV as a child.
Having said that, I'd never want a guilty person found not guilty just because I liked them in the past.
The silly thing is that I'm sure in his time there must have been any number of consenting adult women throwing themselves at him. So why do what he did?

Entertainer Rolf Harris, 84, jailed for five years and nine months for 12 indecent assaults on four girls.

How long before his lawyers claim he too old and frail to go to prison for that long?

Sentance is a joke - should be far longer.

I don't care how old he is or who is is but less than 6-months for each of his 12 convictions for indecent assault is an insult to his victims.

I see the sentancing has already been referred for review as being unduly lenient so we'll see what happens.