Social Question

lucillelucillelucille's avatar

Should Paul Gauguin's paintings be destroyed or removed from museums?

Asked by lucillelucillelucille (34234points) 3 weeks ago

Gauguin was both a syphilitic paedophile and an artist more important than Van Gogh-From an article in the The Telegraph by Alastair Smart
What say you?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

27 Answers

janbb's avatar

And T.S. Eliot was an anti-Semite and one of the best poets ever. Many artists have dark shadows but their works are still great. Nost great art exists apart from its creator. You can acknowledge the sins and still appreciate the art if the art is not sinful. If a work is only racist or anti-Semitic it should not be lauded. I do see a difference between removing art from museums and the cannon and taking down statues of those whose only “accomplishment” was their sin.

janbb's avatar

Edit: “most” not “nost”!

zenvelo's avatar

I would ban Jerry Lee Lewis from the airwaves first.

jca2's avatar

I think in general, it’s going to be very hard, if not impossible, to find someone in the world who is a perfect person. So many people are cheaters, liars, mean bosses, public workers who are rude, wife beaters, criminals, drug users and abusers, the list goes on and on. To start removing art from museums based on someone’s lack of perfection is a slippery slope. I’m not saying it’s ok to be a pedophile, so please don’t put words in my mouth. I’m just saying it’s a slippery slope to start removing art from museums based on someone’s personal life.

zenvelo's avatar

Calling Gaugin a pedophile is an application of 21st Century standards to a 19th Century behavior,

Demosthenes's avatar

No.

Next question. :)

SavoirFaire's avatar

I don’t see how this question makes sense. Maybe it's supposed to parallel the statue debate? But the argument about statues honoring Confederate leaders is that we shouldn’t be celebrating such people, and thus their statues should be removed from places of prominence and relocated to historical museums. The point is to recontextualize them, with pulling them down and destroying them being a response to local governments refusing to take this step.

Putting Gaugin’s paintings in art museums, meanwhile, does not suggest that he should be honored. It suggests that his paintings are valuable and important in the contexts of art history and art appreciation. Furthermore, Gauguin’s paintings are already in museums—which means they are already prime for whatever recontextualization we might deem appropriate.

In other words, the two issues aren’t even remotely parallel. And anyone who thinks they are should better familiarize themselves with the issues at hand.

hmmmmmm's avatar

@SavoirFaire: “In other words, the two issues aren’t even remotely parallel. And anyone who thinks they are should better familiarize themselves with the issues at hand.”

This keeps coming up here by those who are opposed to people removing public celebrations of Confederate leaders, etc. They are selling some kind of slippery slope argument and just running with it. I can only imagine this is the brainchild of Hannity or some other clown. When many people all suddenly feel as though a completely irrational and unrelated argument is compelling and relevant, it usually means that they heard it somewhere.

lucillelucillelucille's avatar

@SavoirFaire -The article I referenced was from 2010…

SavoirFaire's avatar

@lucillelucillelucille The statue issue predates 2010, so that isn’t a meaningful response. It’s also disingenuous to pretend you didn’t ask the question in the context of 2020.

LostInParadise's avatar

Why should we deprive ourselves of Gaugin’s art? The art stands on its own.

The German scientist Fritz Haber got a Nobel Prize for developing a process that was used to create synthetic fertilizer. He also played a major role in the development of chemical warfare, used by the Germans in W W I. Should we stop using synthetic fertilizer because of this?

lucillelucillelucille's avatar

@SavoirFaire _ I recently watched a program on Gauguin.
It is interesting what you automatically jumped to though.
As for mentioning the 2010 date, my point is that people have discussed Gauguin and the removal/banishment (call it what you will) before the latest events involving statues.—and before 2010, of course. That was just the article I happened to read.
As for shows on art, I watch them often ;)

ucme's avatar

No, absolutely not!
The work retains merit regardless of the transgressions of the maker.
That sounds mega clunky but I know what I mean!

Jeruba's avatar

Everyone who isn’t Jesus should not be allowed to write, draw, paint, sculpt, compose, or choreograph anything.

That ought to cover it.

Darth_Algar's avatar

I dunno. Should we remove the music of Aerosmith from store shelves?

SavoirFaire's avatar

@lucillelucillelucille “It is interesting what you automatically jumped to though.”

Hmmm… maybe you’ve really never thought about the two issues together before and really are completely ignorant of how the two might be connected? Oh wait, nope. So another disingenuous response.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@zenvelo “Calling Gaugin a pedophile is an application of 21st Century standards to a 19th Century behavior,” what exactly do you mean by that? Are you suggesting that it didn’t hurt 13 and 14 year old girls, still almost children, in the 19th century to be taken advantage of? To be made to have sex and bear his children, which he promptly abandoned? To give countless girls syphilis? Source
Or are you saying it didn’t bother society then? It may have hurt the girls, really tore them up, but 19th century society said that was OK.

lucillelucillelucille's avatar

@SavoirFaire -Your reasons are not my reasons for asking anything.
I never said anything about never having thought about the statue incidents.
I asked the q as a separate thing but even so, I don’t feel I should be required to put my thoughts in the details of all my questions.
I am asking for opinions. I like to see what people think, whether I agree with it or not.
It’s that simple.
Is that alright with you or do you want to argue about what I am thinking?

SavoirFaire's avatar

@lucillelucillelucille I answered your question as it was asked, by which I mean I gave you my opinion. You say that’s what you were asking for, yet you responded to my answer in a disingenuous (and implicitly critical) way. Odd behavior for someone with your stated goals.

lucillelucillelucille's avatar

@SavoirFaire- Among other things… You gave me your opinion on what I was thinking, then your opinion on me.You really don’t know
Solipsistic and knee jerk.

SavoirFaire's avatar

@lucillelucillelucille I haven’t once given my opinion on you. I spoke about the context of the question (which depends on factors other than your personal intentions), and I pointed out that some of your answers were disingenuous given that context (which is an opinion about those responses, not you).

Also, that’s not what “solipsistic” means.

lucillelucillelucille's avatar

@SavoirFaire -Oh but you did. You even went so far as to look up an answer on a separate question. XD
I wasn’t asking for opinions on what motivated me to ask that q.
Maybe you could’ve researched Gauguin instead of me.
Having done so, your myopic view of the subject would not have been limited to the solipsistic tendencies of framing everything within the here and now.
Try to be objective,less confrontational.
Conversations need not be adversarial.
Have a nice day :)

zenvelo's avatar

@Dutchess_III I am saying that marriage at a young age was accepted both by the girl and by society. And that was true in many past eras and locales.

As to ”..give countless girls syphilis,” now you are condemning him for having an illness, when the disease was incurable. And it is not like he went around intentionally infecting people.

SavoirFaire's avatar

@lucillelucillelucille “Oh but you did. You even went so far as to look up an answer on a separate question.”

To show that you understood how the two issues might be connected in the public mind. That’s pretty clearly about the context of the question and the disingenuousness of the response preceding it. Exactly like I said.

“I wasn’t asking for opinions on what motivated me to ask that q”

Good thing I didn’t offer any.

“Maybe you could’ve researched Gauguin instead of me.”

My senior French project was on Gauguin. I have, in fact, researched him quite a lot.

“Having done so, your myopic view of the subject would not have been limited to the solipsistic tendencies of framing everything within the here and now.”

Again, that’s not what solipsistic means. I won’t speculate on why you continue to use the word incorrectly since you apparently cannot stand the possibility that someone might try to understand what’s going on in your mind (which is contradictory to solipsism, of course, since solipsism assumes that you can’t know another person’s mind).

“Try to be objective, less confrontational.”

Objective is precisely what I’ve been. Nor do I think I began the confrontation.

“Conversations need not be adversarial.”

Of course they don’t need to be. So why did you make this one adversarial (particularly if you didn’t want it to be)?

“Have a nice day :)”

You, too!

Dutchess_III's avatar

It wasn’t marriage. It was sex @zenvelo. He was married 2 times, once to a 13 year old, who bore his baby, and who he abandoned, and once to a 14 year old, who he also abandoned.
The rest was just about having sex with young girls who had no idea what was going on, just like 13 and 14 year olds today have no idea what’s going on.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther