Toots 12,167 Posted May 29 22 minutes ago, unzippy said: They're better paintings than Hitler's? No idea, was he nonce? A quick look at wikipedia reveals no criminal record. Sorry art history isn't my strongest subject Picasso wasn't an abuser of children but he was an abuser of women. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
unzippy 3,874 Posted May 29 35 minutes ago, Toots said: Picasso wasn't an abuser of children but he was an abuser of women. I had no idea, surprised he didn't make it to be president of the US! 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
InnerVoice 1,021 Posted May 29 7 hours ago, Marisawright said: Why haven't all Picasso's paintings been removed from galleries? 3 hours ago, Toots said: Picasso wasn't an abuser of children but he was an abuser of women. How many of his works would've been created without the inspiration of his muses. Behind every great man.. https://www.riseart.com/article/2292/art-world-news-picasso-s-muses Australian Citizen since 2007 | Returned to the UK 2008-2011 | Lived in Sydney, Brisbane and Cairns. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
InnerVoice 1,021 Posted May 29 3 hours ago, unzippy said: They're better paintings than Hitler's? No idea, was he nonce? A quick look at wikipedia reveals no criminal record. Sorry art history isn't my strongest subject Art is very subjective, but if there's one point on which this entire forum could probably agree on then it's Picasso's paintings are better than Hitler's! Australian Citizen since 2007 | Returned to the UK 2008-2011 | Lived in Sydney, Brisbane and Cairns. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
simmo 21,836 Posted May 29 2 hours ago, InnerVoice said: Art is very subjective, but if there's one point on which this entire forum could probably agree on then it's Picasso's paintings are better than Hitler's! No so sure. Hitler had a keen eye for architectural detail. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
InnerVoice 1,021 Posted June 1 On 29/05/2023 at 21:22, simmo said: No so sure. Hitler had a keen eye for architectural detail. The one on the bottom left is quite accomplished, but the other's look like painting by numbers. Australian Citizen since 2007 | Returned to the UK 2008-2011 | Lived in Sydney, Brisbane and Cairns. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
simmo 21,836 Posted June 1 13 minutes ago, InnerVoice said: The one on the bottom left is quite accomplished, but the other's look like painting by numbers. I must disagree. The tree thing looks like what Bob Ross would knock out in half an hour whereas the buildings have great depth. But hey art is different things to different people. vive la difference. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
InnerVoice 1,021 Posted June 1 I agree. What constitutes art is highly subjective, but I wouldn't hang any of them on my wall - and that has nothing to do with artist. 1 Australian Citizen since 2007 | Returned to the UK 2008-2011 | Lived in Sydney, Brisbane and Cairns. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marisawright 10,724 Posted June 1 (edited) 2 hours ago, InnerVoice said: I agree. What constitutes art is highly subjective, but I wouldn't hang any of them on my wall - and that has nothing to do with artist. ....and the debate isn't relevant anyway. Are you seriously saying that if someone is talented at something, like Rolf Harris, all of his life's work gets trashed when he's found to have feet of clay. Whereas if someone is supremely talented, they're forgiven everything? The big problem, really, is that most exceptionally talented people DO have feet of clay, in some form or another. Exceptional people are rarely perfect in every sense. Society used to separate the art from the person, so it was easy to overlook, but nowadays thanks to the cult of celebrity, their personal life belongs to the public just as much as their art. Whether that's a good thing is debatable. There are people who won't enter public life now because they're afraid of past scandals being discovered, while others are drummed out because of scandals (except for teflon Trump and Johnson of course). But Gandhi hit his wife and possibly sexually abused his grandnieces, John F Kennedy was a notorious womanizer, the list goes on. Nowadays I wonder if they'd ever have got the chance to do any good. Edited June 1 by Marisawright 3 Scot by birth, emigrated 1985 | Aussie husband granted UK spouse visa, moved to UK May 2015 | Returned to Oz June 2016 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theonetruechris 291 Posted June 1 2 hours ago, Marisawright said: ....and the debate isn't relevant anyway. Are you seriously saying that if someone is talented at something, like Rolf Harris, all of his life's work gets trashed when he's found to have feet of clay. Whereas if someone is supremely talented, they're forgiven everything? The big problem, really, is that most exceptionally talented people DO have feet of clay, in some form or another. Exceptional people are rarely perfect in every sense. Society used to separate the art from the person, so it was easy to overlook, but nowadays thanks to the cult of celebrity, their personal life belongs to the public just as much as their art. Whether that's a good thing is debatable. There are people who won't enter public life now because they're afraid of past scandals being discovered, while others are drummed out because of scandals (except for teflon Trump and Johnson of course). But Gandhi hit his wife and possibly sexually abused his grandnieces, John F Kennedy was a notorious womanizer, the list goes on. Nowadays I wonder if they'd ever have got the chance to do any good. So does the end justifies the means??? Does a large good for the majority outweigh a personal bad to a minority? It's a massive problem for society to come to grips with. The trolley problem will never be solved Ich bin nicht ein Roboter I am a lion Raar Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FirstWorldProblems 2,058 Posted June 1 I'm sure a psychologist could tell us why we humans like to categorise people as good or bad. Although I observe we can handle nuance when it comes to people we know well. It's logically clear that people can be a mix. That not only can bad people do good things, but that people can be both good and bad. But it doesn't seem to sit comfortably with us. The trolley problem is a load of bollox 1 British | Lived in Australia 2001-02 on 457 | Married Aussie wife & moved back to UK | Plan to return to Sydney 2026 when all kids have finished school 5 Feb 2023 - 309/100 submitted | 14 Mar 2023 309 & 100 granted Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
InnerVoice 1,021 Posted June 1 9 hours ago, theonetruechris said: So does the end justifies the means??? Does a large good for the majority outweigh a personal bad to a minority? It's a massive problem for society to come to grips with. The trolley problem will never be solved Their good and bad actions (at least in the examples given by Marisa above) are independent of each other, so the trolley problem is irrelevant in this case. Not that the trolley problem is actually a problem at all when you think about it - I share FWPs view in this case. Australian Citizen since 2007 | Returned to the UK 2008-2011 | Lived in Sydney, Brisbane and Cairns. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
simmo 21,836 Posted June 2 I used to love Rolf's "two little boys". It's a very moving piece. I used to sing it to my 2 little boys . Such a shame that's taken away. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Parley 7,791 Posted June 2 9 hours ago, simmo said: I used to love Rolf's "two little boys". It's a very moving piece. I used to sing it to my 2 little boys . Such a shame that's taken away. That is a lovely song. Don't forget Jake the Peg. 2 Buy a man eat fish. The Day, Teach Man, to lifetime. - Joe Biden. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
