1LesMiserables
I noted on another thread that the Four Gospels LE was going for a song on ebay. I hadn't really paid to much attention to this in the past but had a look at the FS video online and was taken by the artwork that Gill has complimented the Gospels with.
I have a specific question about Gill and the Authorised James I edition which I can't seem to find an answer to.
It seems that Gill converted to Catholicism prior to his work on the four Gospels. Now the fact that the KJA version is not an authorised Catholic edition of the Bible, got me wondering why he took up such a project.
Initially I thought that he might have taken it up as the contested New Testament passages are largely outwith the Gospels and limited to the Epistles, but then I checked and there are clear references to Our Lady that are Protestant in nature rather than Catholic.
I know little of Gill but would consider the fact that he was a convert to Catholicism, would mean he accepted Catholic authority on scripture.
Someone may help me out here, perhaps there is something in the accompanying LE commentary, to shed light on this question?
I have a specific question about Gill and the Authorised James I edition which I can't seem to find an answer to.
It seems that Gill converted to Catholicism prior to his work on the four Gospels. Now the fact that the KJA version is not an authorised Catholic edition of the Bible, got me wondering why he took up such a project.
Initially I thought that he might have taken it up as the contested New Testament passages are largely outwith the Gospels and limited to the Epistles, but then I checked and there are clear references to Our Lady that are Protestant in nature rather than Catholic.
I know little of Gill but would consider the fact that he was a convert to Catholicism, would mean he accepted Catholic authority on scripture.
Someone may help me out here, perhaps there is something in the accompanying LE commentary, to shed light on this question?
2Jayked
Robert Gibbings says:
Eric, as a Catholic, suggested we should use the Douai translation. I said, that as a non-Catholic I would prefer the Authorized Version.
'Authorized by whom?' asked Eric.
'King James,' I said.
'What authority had he?' asked Eric. Eventually, however, having lodged his protest. he agreed that we should follow the King James version.
Gibbings pretty much was in charge, and found Gill to be easygoing in most things, including finances.
Eric, as a Catholic, suggested we should use the Douai translation. I said, that as a non-Catholic I would prefer the Authorized Version.
'Authorized by whom?' asked Eric.
'King James,' I said.
'What authority had he?' asked Eric. Eventually, however, having lodged his protest. he agreed that we should follow the King James version.
Gibbings pretty much was in charge, and found Gill to be easygoing in most things, including finances.
3terebinth
>1 LesMiserables:
There is, in the essay by Robert Gibbings.
"My earliest memory of the making of this volume concerns the text. Eric, as a Catholic, suggested that we should use the Douai translation. I said that as a non-Catholic I would prefer the Authorised Version.
'Authorised by whom?' asked Eric.
'King James,' I said.
'What authority had he?' asked Eric.
Eventually, however, having lodged his protest, he agreed that we should follow the King James version."
EDIT: Ah, slowness renders my post perfectly redundant, aside from the tiny matter of preserving Gibbings' italicisation.
There is, in the essay by Robert Gibbings.
"My earliest memory of the making of this volume concerns the text. Eric, as a Catholic, suggested that we should use the Douai translation. I said that as a non-Catholic I would prefer the Authorised Version.
'Authorised by whom?' asked Eric.
'King James,' I said.
'What authority had he?' asked Eric.
Eventually, however, having lodged his protest, he agreed that we should follow the King James version."
EDIT: Ah, slowness renders my post perfectly redundant, aside from the tiny matter of preserving Gibbings' italicisation.
4jlallred2000
What you should really ask is why we should care about the religious views of a pedophile.
6LesMiserables
>2 Jayked: >3 terebinth:
Thanks so much for your relevant responses and this insightful information. Is that essay on line or does it come from the commentary accompanying the LE?
Thanks so much for your relevant responses and this insightful information. Is that essay on line or does it come from the commentary accompanying the LE?
7terebinth
It's from the commentary. It doesn't seem to be available online, employing the search method of putting a few consecutive words in quotation marks and seeing if Google can find them - that's even worked for me in discovering the name and author of an extremely obscure 19th century novel bound without a title page.
8Jayked
>6 LesMiserables:
You might be able to find a copy here:
http://www.thebookcollector.co.uk/indexes/memories-eric-gill
You might be able to find a copy here:
http://www.thebookcollector.co.uk/indexes/memories-eric-gill
9LesMiserables
Thanks again.
That pdf requires subscription, but I'm satisfied anyway with both your answers. It has cleared up a few things for me, that firstly Gill made a conscious decision to illustrate what was to him a Protestant version of the Gospels and secondly that he did raise objections.
I'm thinking now though, why did he do it anyway...
That pdf requires subscription, but I'm satisfied anyway with both your answers. It has cleared up a few things for me, that firstly Gill made a conscious decision to illustrate what was to him a Protestant version of the Gospels and secondly that he did raise objections.
I'm thinking now though, why did he do it anyway...
10LesMiserables
Ah the joy of owning the DNB. I just had a thought to look him up and there is a large entry on Gill.
11Sorion
Wow, reading his Wikipedia entry has dissauaded me from ever purchasing his work. Talent does not always excuse you. I realize it's a very slippery slope.
12jlallred2000
There are plenty of horrible humans who we read and study - but Limited Editions such as FS publishes are not academic treastise - they are celebrations of an artist. And Eric Gill should not be celebrated.
13Rodomontade
>12 jlallred2000: And Eric Gill should not be celebrated.
Perhaps not, but his art certainly can be. I've yet to see a decent argument for the overlap of aesthetic and moral judgments.
Perhaps not, but his art certainly can be. I've yet to see a decent argument for the overlap of aesthetic and moral judgments.
14LesMiserables
>11 Sorion:
I would have to disagree with you there. We are all sinners (trans. as ethical mores) in varying degrees, whether inwardly and or outwardly.
The art or craftsmanship that we find beautiful is intrinsically self supported once created.
If Michelangelo for instance had been discovered to have been a wicked usurer it would not in any way detract from the good that he has created elsewhere.
Everyone conforms and transgresses to their own degree. Given that his transgressions where beyond the pale makes thinking about it less palatable, nonetheless it doesn't, in my mind, undermine the art he created.
Anyway, it's an interesting side issue but not core to what I was asking. It did get me thinking though that Gill would have not been out of place in other societies in other times.
I would have to disagree with you there. We are all sinners (trans. as ethical mores) in varying degrees, whether inwardly and or outwardly.
The art or craftsmanship that we find beautiful is intrinsically self supported once created.
If Michelangelo for instance had been discovered to have been a wicked usurer it would not in any way detract from the good that he has created elsewhere.
Everyone conforms and transgresses to their own degree. Given that his transgressions where beyond the pale makes thinking about it less palatable, nonetheless it doesn't, in my mind, undermine the art he created.
Anyway, it's an interesting side issue but not core to what I was asking. It did get me thinking though that Gill would have not been out of place in other societies in other times.
15LesMiserables
>12 jlallred2000:
I'm not sure the LEs are celebrating the artist, rather the art.
That is why Folio normally are picky when choosing works to publish from an author's canon. They are more interested in the art of the writing (or importance of the book) over the overall impression of the author on people.
Easton Press and Mein Kampf serve as a good example.
I'm not sure the LEs are celebrating the artist, rather the art.
That is why Folio normally are picky when choosing works to publish from an author's canon. They are more interested in the art of the writing (or importance of the book) over the overall impression of the author on people.
Easton Press and Mein Kampf serve as a good example.
16sviswanathan
I found the following article to be a good meditation on Eric Gill and the relationship between artist and art, though, admittedly, it addresses his stone carving rather than his illustrations:
https://www.apollo-magazine.com/eric-gills-fall-from-grace/
https://www.apollo-magazine.com/eric-gills-fall-from-grace/
17LesMiserables
>16 sviswanathan:
Thanks for the article. Very interesting.
Whatever one thinks of the man, the craftsmanship is exquisite.
Thanks for the article. Very interesting.
Whatever one thinks of the man, the craftsmanship is exquisite.
18chrisrsprague
>12 jlallred2000: I've always thought the same in regards to Andre Gide and Oscar Wilde, to name just two men whose personal lives - in regards to pederasty - have not (yet) been questioned nearly enough. Perhaps it's less politically useful to do so among the intelligentsia, I don't know. From Wikipedia, on the former, which includes a story about the latter:
"In the company of Oscar Wilde, he had several sexual encounters with young boys abroad.
Wilde took a key out of his pocket and showed me into a tiny apartment of two rooms… The youths followed him, each of them wrapped in a burnous that hid his face. Then the guide left us and Wilde sent me into the further room with little Mohammed and shut himself up in the other with the other boy. Every time since then that I have sought after pleasure, it is the memory of that night I have pursued. … My joy was unbounded, and I cannot imagine it greater, even if love had been added.
How should there have been any question of love? How should I have allowed desire to dispose of my heart? No scruple clouded my pleasure and no remorse followed it. But what name then am I to give the rapture I felt as I clasped in my naked arms that perfect little body, so wild, so ardent, so sombrely lascivious? For a long time after Mohammed had left me, I remained in a state of passionate jubilation, and though I had already achieved pleasure five times with him, I renewed my ecstasy again and again, and when I got back to my room in the hotel, I prolonged its echoes until morning."
"In the company of Oscar Wilde, he had several sexual encounters with young boys abroad.
Wilde took a key out of his pocket and showed me into a tiny apartment of two rooms… The youths followed him, each of them wrapped in a burnous that hid his face. Then the guide left us and Wilde sent me into the further room with little Mohammed and shut himself up in the other with the other boy. Every time since then that I have sought after pleasure, it is the memory of that night I have pursued. … My joy was unbounded, and I cannot imagine it greater, even if love had been added.
How should there have been any question of love? How should I have allowed desire to dispose of my heart? No scruple clouded my pleasure and no remorse followed it. But what name then am I to give the rapture I felt as I clasped in my naked arms that perfect little body, so wild, so ardent, so sombrely lascivious? For a long time after Mohammed had left me, I remained in a state of passionate jubilation, and though I had already achieved pleasure five times with him, I renewed my ecstasy again and again, and when I got back to my room in the hotel, I prolonged its echoes until morning."
19MobyRichard
>12 jlallred2000:
You prefer the architect (Augustine) of the medieval totalitarian state? Proto-totalitarian I should say; they didn't have the technology and/or cajones
to control people's thoughts.
Many of the world's major religions continue to venerate mass murderers. There are Catholics who continue to justify the Crusades to this day
and pretend like the Inquisition never happened. Protestants continue to ignore Martin Luther's anti-semitism or that the immediate effect of
the Reformation was a disastrous series of religious wars that nearly ruined Europe.
Much of the secular world still venerates the memory of people like Caesar, Alexander, Genghis Khan, Lenin, Mao.
Cortez and Andrew Jackson are not as bad...but hardly saints. Their works, or works about them, continue to be published and sold and read.
I'm not sure exactly where Eric Gill fits, but I'm certain he's pretty far down the book-burning list.
You prefer the architect (Augustine) of the medieval totalitarian state? Proto-totalitarian I should say; they didn't have the technology and/or cajones
to control people's thoughts.
Many of the world's major religions continue to venerate mass murderers. There are Catholics who continue to justify the Crusades to this day
and pretend like the Inquisition never happened. Protestants continue to ignore Martin Luther's anti-semitism or that the immediate effect of
the Reformation was a disastrous series of religious wars that nearly ruined Europe.
Much of the secular world still venerates the memory of people like Caesar, Alexander, Genghis Khan, Lenin, Mao.
Cortez and Andrew Jackson are not as bad...but hardly saints. Their works, or works about them, continue to be published and sold and read.
I'm not sure exactly where Eric Gill fits, but I'm certain he's pretty far down the book-burning list.
20Jayked
Pedophile and pederasty don't quite capture the flavour of Gill's sexual mores, which included incest and bestiality. He also founded a sect which practised wearing a chastity belt. When he could reconcile in his mind such disparate views, opting to illustrate a Protestant text is likely to have been a struggle of a moment or two.
21chrisrsprague
That's troubling. I often find it difficult, in many cases, to reconcile truly beautiful art with the kinds of people who have made it. I wonder, 'how could someone so perverse have created this?', and yet, in the world of creative arts, it's an all too common theme.
22Cat_of_Ulthar
Yes, it is troubling. Wonderful, beautiful people can do the most appalling, terrible things. And horrible people are capable of doing beautiful things. See Dennis Potter's 'Brimstone and Treacle'.
Humans are complicated and difficult. And that's where all that wonderful literature that we love comes from.
If you are unhappy about the mores of the creators of works of literature or art, or the people presented in their works, then I am tempted to ask if you support the publication of the Bible by Folio, who produced an LE of it some time ago?
Go through the Old Testament and, quite frankly, it's a horrible book. It justifies all sorts of hideous behaviour against people if they don't belong to your own particular tribe or in-group. Torture, rape, paedophilia, genocide, you name it. Apparently it's okay if they're not the same as you.
If you want specific examples, see Pinker's 'The Better Angels of Our Nature', or Barker's 'God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction'. Or, indeed, any copy of The 'Good' Book that you have lying around.
I suspect most religous books are equally compromised but I don't know them well enough and am open to being corrected.
Humans are complicated and difficult. And that's where all that wonderful literature that we love comes from.
If you are unhappy about the mores of the creators of works of literature or art, or the people presented in their works, then I am tempted to ask if you support the publication of the Bible by Folio, who produced an LE of it some time ago?
Go through the Old Testament and, quite frankly, it's a horrible book. It justifies all sorts of hideous behaviour against people if they don't belong to your own particular tribe or in-group. Torture, rape, paedophilia, genocide, you name it. Apparently it's okay if they're not the same as you.
If you want specific examples, see Pinker's 'The Better Angels of Our Nature', or Barker's 'God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction'. Or, indeed, any copy of The 'Good' Book that you have lying around.
I suspect most religous books are equally compromised but I don't know them well enough and am open to being corrected.
23Pellias
True or not, history is full of it. Gill have been named, others have "played in the shadows", and what about Alice in wonderland, true or not. What about Nabokov, and how did he dare to touch the subject. Humans do stupid things all the time, and some do create art. Do artists have higher sex drive than others, are they more liberal, is it cultural, would they all be capable of cutting off a piece of their ear if they did not get the release. Are artists not just humans, and is it not humans that act like this, could we all do it if we were someone else more morally less superior?
I know i`m flying a bit here, but as to speak for myself, i mean the man created the art (or did art create the man? can these two things even be separate - is it even worth caring to understand, for some it will be, for others it will not, balance is everywhere. Opposites.
At least we know about Gill, at least from what we can read from the facts and the rumours, but what about all them others we do not, that "played in the shadows" that one time, or more. Did something you, you and you found morally discusting. People we glorify to this day. I think that`s harder to swallow, cause that`s ignorance. Statistically Gill is not the only one, or maybe he is. Doubt it.
We like what we like, and we see things in different light with different filters all of us. That`s what art is, is it not? Is art politics, is it religion, if it was that simple to categorize, i would probably not have a single piece of art in my house. I want to define my own art, if others did it for me, it would just make me passive, without provocations, without joy or mystery. The piece of art would just hang there. Dead.
Now i`m flying so high that i need to land this, by saying let art be art, and let art speak for itself, but that`s my rule. Others can decide for themselves
I know i`m flying a bit here, but as to speak for myself, i mean the man created the art (or did art create the man? can these two things even be separate - is it even worth caring to understand, for some it will be, for others it will not, balance is everywhere. Opposites.
At least we know about Gill, at least from what we can read from the facts and the rumours, but what about all them others we do not, that "played in the shadows" that one time, or more. Did something you, you and you found morally discusting. People we glorify to this day. I think that`s harder to swallow, cause that`s ignorance. Statistically Gill is not the only one, or maybe he is. Doubt it.
We like what we like, and we see things in different light with different filters all of us. That`s what art is, is it not? Is art politics, is it religion, if it was that simple to categorize, i would probably not have a single piece of art in my house. I want to define my own art, if others did it for me, it would just make me passive, without provocations, without joy or mystery. The piece of art would just hang there. Dead.
Now i`m flying so high that i need to land this, by saying let art be art, and let art speak for itself, but that`s my rule. Others can decide for themselves
24LesMiserables
>20 Jayked:
opting to illustrate a Protestant text is likely to have been a struggle of a moment or two.
Perhaps you are close to the truth here. His beautiful craftsmanship aside, if he could square in his mind his perverted and fundamentally anti-Christian behaviour, then it would not be a hurdle at all to work on an unauthorised Bible.
That being said, we can never know the inner workings of men. The most base of individuals can in the end save themselves whilst those who are outwardly models of virtue, may at heart be rotten and damned.
Despite all of this, I'm very happy for Folio to publish Eric Gill. He was truly gifted.
opting to illustrate a Protestant text is likely to have been a struggle of a moment or two.
Perhaps you are close to the truth here. His beautiful craftsmanship aside, if he could square in his mind his perverted and fundamentally anti-Christian behaviour, then it would not be a hurdle at all to work on an unauthorised Bible.
That being said, we can never know the inner workings of men. The most base of individuals can in the end save themselves whilst those who are outwardly models of virtue, may at heart be rotten and damned.
Despite all of this, I'm very happy for Folio to publish Eric Gill. He was truly gifted.
25Jayked
>24 LesMiserables:
"Despite all of this, I'm very happy for Folio to publish Eric Gill. He was truly gifted"
Agreed; I have all 3 of his LEs. It helps, of course, that he's not around to profit from them.
During his lifetime he seems on the whole to have got along well with other artists who presumably knew nothing of his darker side. He draws a favourable mention in Tirzah Garwood's recently published autobiography, and of course from Gibbings.
"Despite all of this, I'm very happy for Folio to publish Eric Gill. He was truly gifted"
Agreed; I have all 3 of his LEs. It helps, of course, that he's not around to profit from them.
During his lifetime he seems on the whole to have got along well with other artists who presumably knew nothing of his darker side. He draws a favourable mention in Tirzah Garwood's recently published autobiography, and of course from Gibbings.
26HuxleyTheCat
This message has been deleted by its author.
28HuxleyTheCat
>27 folio_books: Ah my apologies, generally non-subscribers can read a few articles a day before they are locked out, but this article must be one of the few which is entirely restricted. I didn't notice the padlock when i shared the link, but there is one there now.
Link deleted to save anyone else wasting their time.
Link deleted to save anyone else wasting their time.
29LesMiserables
Okay, I'm now on the look for this LE. I just can't imagine my library shelves holding Gill's Troilus and Canterbury Tales without the Four Gospels to accompany them.
30LesMiserables
I'm looking for a comprehensive presentation size (ie coffee table size) art book on Eric Gill's art. Anyone any suggestions?
gratias vobis ago
gratias vobis ago
31wcarter
>30 LesMiserables:
Try:-
Eric Gill: A Lover's Quest for Art and God: A Biography by Fiona MacCarthy.
Published 1989.
Available as paperback and hardcover from Amazon or secondary market.
More upmarket edition available from Faber & Faber.
Try:-
Eric Gill: A Lover's Quest for Art and God: A Biography by Fiona MacCarthy.
Published 1989.
Available as paperback and hardcover from Amazon or secondary market.
More upmarket edition available from Faber & Faber.
32HuxleyTheCat
>30 LesMiserables: You may find this book of interest: https://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/SearchResults?bi=0&bx=off&cm_sp=Searc...
I managed to pick up a copy relatively cheaply (in Lewes, I think), and I was very happy to see that it had come from the library of Ruari McLean.
Edited - Although perhaps I should add that it is an account of book design for enthusiasts of same and it doesn't contain the graphic content that you seem to be seeking.
I managed to pick up a copy relatively cheaply (in Lewes, I think), and I was very happy to see that it had come from the library of Ruari McLean.
Edited - Although perhaps I should add that it is an account of book design for enthusiasts of same and it doesn't contain the graphic content that you seem to be seeking.
33alvaret
>23 Pellias: Did either of them actually abuse any children as far as we know? That's the key question for me from a moral point of view. Otherwise I'd say that Varg Vikernes is a closer parallel.
To me it comes down to three question:
1. Would I be supporting the abuser? (E.g. living author/artist)
2. Is the work abusive in itself? (Using the victims as models would be one way this could be true)
3. Does the connection between artist and work just feel really icky. (No longer a moral objection, just a realization that my knowledge of the artist prevents me from enjoying the work).
To me it comes down to three question:
1. Would I be supporting the abuser? (E.g. living author/artist)
2. Is the work abusive in itself? (Using the victims as models would be one way this could be true)
3. Does the connection between artist and work just feel really icky. (No longer a moral objection, just a realization that my knowledge of the artist prevents me from enjoying the work).
34Pellias
>33 alvaret:
Eric Gill - can we separate the artist from the abuser?: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/apr/09/eric-gill-the-body-ditchlin...
*****
One of the good things of knowing, is that one at least knows, and then can decide. I`ll let my own moral compass guide me, in terms of what i find relevant:
* Do i care?
* Why do i care?
* Is it relevant?
Something like that ..
Life goes on without mine and others judgement
Lastly: I really doesn`t have that much of an opinion about the man that was Eric Gill, but i do have some of the `arts and crafts movement` therefore, i in a way i support the art, not the man. To the actions, i would either turn my back to him, or break his nose, to his art i would use my moral compass. Keeping it simple ..
*****
Why FS uses Gill, some of you others probably have a better opinion about than me, or better yet, ask them yourselves
Gill has been much discussed on this fora (LT). That is certainly nothing new
Eric Gill - can we separate the artist from the abuser?: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/apr/09/eric-gill-the-body-ditchlin...
*****
One of the good things of knowing, is that one at least knows, and then can decide. I`ll let my own moral compass guide me, in terms of what i find relevant:
* Do i care?
* Why do i care?
* Is it relevant?
Something like that ..
Life goes on without mine and others judgement
Lastly: I really doesn`t have that much of an opinion about the man that was Eric Gill, but i do have some of the `arts and crafts movement` therefore, i in a way i support the art, not the man. To the actions, i would either turn my back to him, or break his nose, to his art i would use my moral compass. Keeping it simple ..
*****
Why FS uses Gill, some of you others probably have a better opinion about than me, or better yet, ask them yourselves
Gill has been much discussed on this fora (LT). That is certainly nothing new
35alvaret
>34 Pellias: I was mostly concerned about the mix up between Gill and Lewis and Nabokov when the latter two, to the best of my knowledge, actually weren't abusing anyone.
Gill is long dead and I guess/hope that the copyright money has for a long time gone to his family/victims.
Gill is long dead and I guess/hope that the copyright money has for a long time gone to his family/victims.
36Jayked
>35 alvaret:
Gill's immediate family are all dead. The last survivor, Petra, seems to have dealt very well with living her life, even after her family situation was publicised during her lifetime. http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/obituary-petra-tegetmeier-104584...
Gill's immediate family are all dead. The last survivor, Petra, seems to have dealt very well with living her life, even after her family situation was publicised during her lifetime. http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/obituary-petra-tegetmeier-104584...
37alvaret
>36 Jayked: Good for her. I hadn't heard of Eric Gill before these discussions and am not particularly interested in him now. I see some strength in separating the art from the artist (especially when the artist is dead). Assuming of course that it goes both ways. If we are not judging the art by the artist's acts it seems strange to celebrate that same artist for their works.
38LesMiserables
The interesting thing that I have found in discussions such as these on LT is that very dubious moral positions are thrown into relief.
There is no defending child abuse. Let us get that clear immediately.
But when on the one hand you encounter comments condemning Gill's sexual deviancy on one thread, and the very same folk defend abortion on another, it makes you think whether or not they have really considered the inconsistency of their position: ie it's okay to kill children but not to touch them.
If at the very least, this post provoked some self reflection in some, then it will be worth the usual condemnation.
There is no defending child abuse. Let us get that clear immediately.
But when on the one hand you encounter comments condemning Gill's sexual deviancy on one thread, and the very same folk defend abortion on another, it makes you think whether or not they have really considered the inconsistency of their position: ie it's okay to kill children but not to touch them.
If at the very least, this post provoked some self reflection in some, then it will be worth the usual condemnation.
39Fierylunar
>38 LesMiserables: I ain't touching a discussion regarding abortion with a ten foot pole (a lot of your opinion stems from where and when you grew up as far as I'm concerned, and I have not seen anyone change his/her stance on abortus after a discussion that mainly gets very hostile very fast indeed), but the very same can be said for many pro-life people being also pro gun carrying or anti child protective programs (healthcare, support for low income families). Mankind is nothing if not hypocritical.
I have not seen anything regarding abortion here on LT, so I wonder where you're coming from and where you're trying to go with this statement. (Not trying to be hostile here, this is an honest question)
I have not seen anything regarding abortion here on LT, so I wonder where you're coming from and where you're trying to go with this statement. (Not trying to be hostile here, this is an honest question)
40LesMiserables
>39 Fierylunar:
My reasons are clear in >38 LesMiserables: - hypocrisy.
Nor do I want an abortion debate. I could have used theft or perjury, treason or assault to make the same point.
But it does, as you say, throw into relief the hypocrisy out there.
My reasons are clear in >38 LesMiserables: - hypocrisy.
Nor do I want an abortion debate. I could have used theft or perjury, treason or assault to make the same point.
But it does, as you say, throw into relief the hypocrisy out there.
42LesMiserables
>41 terebinth:
No trolling here. If you cannot see the obvious parallels then I'm surprised.
What difference is there between boycotting an artist who happens to have abused his kids and say another artist who has had abortions?
Both, I would argue, terrible mistakes. Nonetheless, the acts have nothing to do with their ability to create beauty through their craft.
I'll remind you that I did not bring up Gill's seedy past, others did.
All I'm arguing is that you cannot attack him as an artist because of the mistakes he had made in his personal life.
And by showing the example of someone who has aborted their baby, I have provided an example of another act which many have committed, arguably much worse than Child Abuse, which does not stop an artist from having their work admired.
Or shall we say, that only some acts are deemed worthy enough to not only condemn, but denigrate all the good a person has done too?
No trolling here. If you cannot see the obvious parallels then I'm surprised.
What difference is there between boycotting an artist who happens to have abused his kids and say another artist who has had abortions?
Both, I would argue, terrible mistakes. Nonetheless, the acts have nothing to do with their ability to create beauty through their craft.
I'll remind you that I did not bring up Gill's seedy past, others did.
All I'm arguing is that you cannot attack him as an artist because of the mistakes he had made in his personal life.
And by showing the example of someone who has aborted their baby, I have provided an example of another act which many have committed, arguably much worse than Child Abuse, which does not stop an artist from having their work admired.
Or shall we say, that only some acts are deemed worthy enough to not only condemn, but denigrate all the good a person has done too?
43terebinth
>42 LesMiserables:
If you had charged fellow posters with heresy, that would have been reasonable in the light of your faith. To charge them with hypocrisy in this instance is surely disingenuous. Yes, the argument can be made that abortion is worse than child abuse, but arguments in that direction plainly fail to sway those of us, for instance, to whom there is a vital existential and therefore ethical difference between a child prior to birth and a child whose experience of the world we live in has begun. The one has potential to live human life as we know it, the other is doing so.
On the matter of Eric Gill we've less disagreement. As far as I can see, his crimes, or anyone else's, are best not allowed to impede our regard for his or their art, unless the art is somehow tainted by the crimes in some infectious way. There will be instances of that, and the judgment, I think, will always be subjective: I've little doubt there are some who find something to shudder at in Gill's work itself, or think that they do, and they're justified in leaving it alone.
If you had charged fellow posters with heresy, that would have been reasonable in the light of your faith. To charge them with hypocrisy in this instance is surely disingenuous. Yes, the argument can be made that abortion is worse than child abuse, but arguments in that direction plainly fail to sway those of us, for instance, to whom there is a vital existential and therefore ethical difference between a child prior to birth and a child whose experience of the world we live in has begun. The one has potential to live human life as we know it, the other is doing so.
On the matter of Eric Gill we've less disagreement. As far as I can see, his crimes, or anyone else's, are best not allowed to impede our regard for his or their art, unless the art is somehow tainted by the crimes in some infectious way. There will be instances of that, and the judgment, I think, will always be subjective: I've little doubt there are some who find something to shudder at in Gill's work itself, or think that they do, and they're justified in leaving it alone.
44LesMiserables
>43 terebinth:
Well substitute for another act. Let's choose murder.
If Michaelangelo turned out to be a murderer, it wouldn't alter the beauty of his art.
I would also caution anyone about labelling. How many thieves, fraudsters, liars, rakes, beasts, bullies, vandals, yobs, perjurers etc do we have on here?
How many times does one have to lie before we permanently label them a liar?
I'm far more comfortable acknowledging certain failings in Gill's life than writing off his art and labelling him on the basis of certain events.
Well substitute for another act. Let's choose murder.
If Michaelangelo turned out to be a murderer, it wouldn't alter the beauty of his art.
I would also caution anyone about labelling. How many thieves, fraudsters, liars, rakes, beasts, bullies, vandals, yobs, perjurers etc do we have on here?
How many times does one have to lie before we permanently label them a liar?
I'm far more comfortable acknowledging certain failings in Gill's life than writing off his art and labelling him on the basis of certain events.
45affle
>44 LesMiserables:
You don't have to suppose about Michelangelo: Caravaggio was indeed a murderer, but to say it did not affect his art would be wide of the mark - look at his paintings after he had to flee Rome.
You don't have to suppose about Michelangelo: Caravaggio was indeed a murderer, but to say it did not affect his art would be wide of the mark - look at his paintings after he had to flee Rome.
46terebinth
>44 LesMiserables:
Ah, now we're on the same page, at least for a little ;) I'm repeatedly grateful for the experience of Eric Gill's art, and his benign influence on the lives and art of various others appears to have been substantial. None of that excuses his exploitations, but fortunately the weighing of hearts is none of our business, we're not equipped for it: and to my mind the world is only diminished whenever we disregard, never mind suppress, anyone's art on the grounds of how he or she lived.
"There is so much good in the worst of us, and so much bad in the best of us". The labelling you refer to readily becomes a denial of the other's full humanity - even when it stops well short of labelling them as "ordure",as Gill has been called here. Then, I expect many or most of us have fallen into even such errors as that in the heat of some or other moment.
Ah, now we're on the same page, at least for a little ;) I'm repeatedly grateful for the experience of Eric Gill's art, and his benign influence on the lives and art of various others appears to have been substantial. None of that excuses his exploitations, but fortunately the weighing of hearts is none of our business, we're not equipped for it: and to my mind the world is only diminished whenever we disregard, never mind suppress, anyone's art on the grounds of how he or she lived.
"There is so much good in the worst of us, and so much bad in the best of us". The labelling you refer to readily becomes a denial of the other's full humanity - even when it stops well short of labelling them as "ordure",as Gill has been called here. Then, I expect many or most of us have fallen into even such errors as that in the heat of some or other moment.
47LesMiserables
>46 terebinth:
"but fortunately the weighing of hearts is none of our business, we're not equipped for it"
Couldn't agree more. And well put too. The weighing can only be done as summation, at the end, and not for us to do. We are able with a clear conscience to judge individual acts but to condemn and pass final sentence is only for that one who knows the innermost recesses of the heart, where our harvest for good or ill is stored.
"but fortunately the weighing of hearts is none of our business, we're not equipped for it"
Couldn't agree more. And well put too. The weighing can only be done as summation, at the end, and not for us to do. We are able with a clear conscience to judge individual acts but to condemn and pass final sentence is only for that one who knows the innermost recesses of the heart, where our harvest for good or ill is stored.
48HuxleyTheCat
>47 LesMiserables: "pass final sentence is only for that one who knows the innermost recesses of the heart" On Taggart it's usually the judge who does that, not the pathologist.
50LesMiserables
Happy to say that I have secured the Four Gospels to complete the 3 limited editions of Gill: The Four Gospels, The Canterbury Tales and Troilus and Criseyde.
51plasticjock
>48 HuxleyTheCat: Haha! You had me at Taggart - strictly the Mark McManus era, of course;-) https://youtu.be/dynAAX0hYQo
An interesting thread...
An interesting thread...
52LesMiserables
>51 plasticjock:
I used to drink occasionally in the Queen's Park Cafe (a Glasgow pub) where the man himself used to haunt: despite his fame, he never let it change him.
I used to drink occasionally in the Queen's Park Cafe (a Glasgow pub) where the man himself used to haunt: despite his fame, he never let it change him.
53LesMiserables
I thought I'd exhume this thread from the vault, so not to bugger up the Tolkien thread, of more recent activity, which seemed somewhat to throw that altogether off piste.
So I return to this thread, long sleeping yet relevant till, in which the same topic of separating the art from the artists is discussed.
Nonetheless I do lean on Tolkien here as I am very interested in his position on that very point, and lean towards it still after all of the years since this thread here came to be discussing Eric Gill and the Four Gospels.
As recorded on another thread, I am reading through the Letters of JRR Tolkien (expanded edition) and came to Letter 213, which is widely available on the internet for cross-checking. Here it is with the parts apropos bolded ...
“I do not like giving 'facts' about myself other than 'dry' ones (which anyway are quite as relevant to my books as any other more Juicy details). Not simply for personal reasons; but also because I object to the contemporary trend in criticism, with its excessive interest in the details of the lives of authors and artists. They only distract attention from an author's works (if the works are in fact worthy of attention), and end, as one now often sees, in becoming the main interest.”
But only one's guardian Angel, or indeed God Himself, could unravel the real relationship between personal facts and an author's works. Not the author himself (though he knows more than any investigator), and certainly not so-called 'psychologists'.
But, of course, there is a scale of significance in 'facts' of this sort. There are insignificant facts (those particularly dear to analysts and writers about writers): such as drunkenness, wife-beating, and suchlike disorders. I do not happen to be guilty of these particular sins. But if I were, I should not suppose that artistic work proceeded from the weaknesses that produced them, but from other and still uncorrupted regions of my being.
Modern 'researchers' inform me that Beethoven cheated his publishers, and abominably ill-treated his nephew; but I do not believe that has anything to do with his music.
Then there are more significant facts, which have some relation to an author's works; though knowledge of them does not really explain the works, even if examined at length. For instance I dislike French, and prefer Spanish to Italian – but the relation of these facts to my taste in languages (which is obviously a large ingredient in The Lord of the Rings) would take a long time to unravel, and leave you liking (or disliking) the names and bits of language in my books, just as before.”
Tolkien, very much more forgiving than many on this subject, probably expresses his faith and his observation of man's (ἄνθρωπος) fallen nature, and even though he names but one artist, I should think that this is to Tolkien is axiomatic, to which I agree. More so, it can be corroborated by his recorded reply to being asked about absolute good and evil, to which he replied that he did not believe in absolute evil; even Lucifer fell.
Anyway, interesting letter, and adds to the conversation.
So I return to this thread, long sleeping yet relevant till, in which the same topic of separating the art from the artists is discussed.
Nonetheless I do lean on Tolkien here as I am very interested in his position on that very point, and lean towards it still after all of the years since this thread here came to be discussing Eric Gill and the Four Gospels.
As recorded on another thread, I am reading through the Letters of JRR Tolkien (expanded edition) and came to Letter 213, which is widely available on the internet for cross-checking. Here it is with the parts apropos bolded ...
“I do not like giving 'facts' about myself other than 'dry' ones (which anyway are quite as relevant to my books as any other more Juicy details). Not simply for personal reasons; but also because I object to the contemporary trend in criticism, with its excessive interest in the details of the lives of authors and artists. They only distract attention from an author's works (if the works are in fact worthy of attention), and end, as one now often sees, in becoming the main interest.”
But only one's guardian Angel, or indeed God Himself, could unravel the real relationship between personal facts and an author's works. Not the author himself (though he knows more than any investigator), and certainly not so-called 'psychologists'.
But, of course, there is a scale of significance in 'facts' of this sort. There are insignificant facts (those particularly dear to analysts and writers about writers): such as drunkenness, wife-beating, and suchlike disorders. I do not happen to be guilty of these particular sins. But if I were, I should not suppose that artistic work proceeded from the weaknesses that produced them, but from other and still uncorrupted regions of my being.
Modern 'researchers' inform me that Beethoven cheated his publishers, and abominably ill-treated his nephew; but I do not believe that has anything to do with his music.
Then there are more significant facts, which have some relation to an author's works; though knowledge of them does not really explain the works, even if examined at length. For instance I dislike French, and prefer Spanish to Italian – but the relation of these facts to my taste in languages (which is obviously a large ingredient in The Lord of the Rings) would take a long time to unravel, and leave you liking (or disliking) the names and bits of language in my books, just as before.”
Tolkien, very much more forgiving than many on this subject, probably expresses his faith and his observation of man's (ἄνθρωπος) fallen nature, and even though he names but one artist, I should think that this is to Tolkien is axiomatic, to which I agree. More so, it can be corroborated by his recorded reply to being asked about absolute good and evil, to which he replied that he did not believe in absolute evil; even Lucifer fell.
Anyway, interesting letter, and adds to the conversation.
54affle
>53 LesMiserables:
The debate has a new chapter in this weekend's UK press, in the matter of Roald Dahl's anti-semitism. It has been occasioned by a new play on Dahl, by a Jewish author, Mark Rosenblatt, who is reported in the article I read as saying he reads Dahl to his young children, and is happy to hold two truths at once - in effect about Dahl and his work.
I suppose I do the same, having lately acquired the FS facsimile of the Gill gospels, the secondhand price now having fallen significantly. It's very good.
The debate has a new chapter in this weekend's UK press, in the matter of Roald Dahl's anti-semitism. It has been occasioned by a new play on Dahl, by a Jewish author, Mark Rosenblatt, who is reported in the article I read as saying he reads Dahl to his young children, and is happy to hold two truths at once - in effect about Dahl and his work.
I suppose I do the same, having lately acquired the FS facsimile of the Gill gospels, the secondhand price now having fallen significantly. It's very good.
55DMulvee
>54 affle: I think that you can separate the individual from their creations, however I’m not sure my actions line up with my thoughts. For some reason I have no qualms about seeking out books that Gill illustrated, but when it comes to a book devoted solely to his work (1983 Christopher Skelton) then I hold back and am unsure if it is wise to seek this
56assemblyman
>54 affle: I’ve also noticed that the second hand prices have fallen for them. I already have the Gill Four Gospels and recently acquired the Gill Canterbury Tales. Gorgeous books.
57User2024
Unless the values being concretized in the author’s work are bad values reflective of whatever the negative personality traits/behaviors you’re concerned with, there is no reason a work shouldn’t stand on its own. You wouldn’t blow up a beautiful house just because it was built by an (fill in the blank with whatever distasteful archetype you prefer).
This argument doesn’t hold up though if the values concretized in the work are reflective of those bad values they exhibit in their personal life… in that case you are sanctioning those values. But that’s never the case when this question comes up.
This argument doesn’t hold up though if the values concretized in the work are reflective of those bad values they exhibit in their personal life… in that case you are sanctioning those values. But that’s never the case when this question comes up.
58ultrarightist
>57 User2024: "This argument doesn’t hold up though if the values concretized in the work are reflective of those bad values they exhibit in their personal life… in that case you are sanctioning those values. But that’s never the case when this question comes up."
Does that also apply to authors and their texts? Should I not read authors whom I loathe for that reason, even if to know thine enemy?
Does that also apply to authors and their texts? Should I not read authors whom I loathe for that reason, even if to know thine enemy?
59SF-72
An important factor to me is if I give money to someone I despise for something they've done. If they're dead, that's not an issue, if they aren't, there's the second hand option. If their art, literature etc. reflects whatever ugly attitudes they might have, that kills my joy in it quickly, but if the two aren't connected, I can still enjoy what they created.
61ultrarightist
>60 User2024: Can you be more specific?
62LesMiserables
>59 SF-72: Does that stance rest just with works of art, individuals only, or does it cross all industries, or is it more to do with wants rather than needs?
I ask this because it is a constant in society is it not? Everything from corrupt mega corporations to social organisations, who you may still buy from or engage with but one knows they have screwed individuals or groups of people.
I ask this because it is a constant in society is it not? Everything from corrupt mega corporations to social organisations, who you may still buy from or engage with but one knows they have screwed individuals or groups of people.
63SF-72
>62 LesMiserables:
Personally, it also affects companies for me, though in some cases I have to be realistic and still buy from some of them (as little as possible), for example books by authors who self-publish and go through amazon. There it's the choice between cutting off an author I want to support while handing money to a company I'd rather not, but where it's also not an absolute 'No way!' There are cases, fortunately not concerning literature, where I can simply say no. But you're quite right, this is difficult in this day and age.
Personally, it also affects companies for me, though in some cases I have to be realistic and still buy from some of them (as little as possible), for example books by authors who self-publish and go through amazon. There it's the choice between cutting off an author I want to support while handing money to a company I'd rather not, but where it's also not an absolute 'No way!' There are cases, fortunately not concerning literature, where I can simply say no. But you're quite right, this is difficult in this day and age.
