There was actually a “Miss Hitler” beauty pageant in the Ukraine a year or two ago, IIRC.
Not to mention Hitler seems to be making somewhat of a comeback as a fashion statement in South East Asia.
The people wearing these are not neo-nazi’s. To them its just edgy street wear.
Yes, I think it was because of the broken quote in the post i replied to
Artistic merit was the yardstick you brought into it just by saying “it’s a piece of art and therefore shouldn’t be destroyed”, which implies it’s OK to destroy non-art objects, I’m just quibbling on the level of merit. You seemed to be setting it at “any art”, which I’m trying to argue against (by hyperbole with the David reference)
I’m not saying this art should be destroyed, but I’m saying its status as art, itself, is not a reason to keep it. Unwanted art can, and I would argue should, be destroyed.
The truth is the college cannot take it down there is a preservation order in it. You find that the protest is lead by leftwing students of which there are many in Oxford.
Rhodes was a man of Victorian Britain a man of his time, a time when the working man was down trodden and abused. The colonials believed that what they could get away with at home they could do so abroad, at that time Africa was a brutal place where slavery among the Africans was common practice for hundreds of years. I am not making excuses for Rhodes but judge him not by modern day standards but by the time in which he lived
Never saw Animal House, I take it?
NOT in the parts Rhodes operated in.
I very, very carefully did not.
. If you want me to stick my neck out and say that destroying a non-artistic “object” is allowable then I will, I hope it isn’t controversial that I place works of art in a different category to, as yet unspecified, “objects”
yes, any art, not any “good” or “bad” art. Nothing I wrote makes any judgement on the merit of the piece. I did that on purpose. You are the one setting yourself up as arbiter of what is good and bad.
And I suggest we should be very careful before we leap to do so, plus I draw your attention to the qualifier used…unwanted. This is clearly not the case for this statue.
I don’t have a problem with moving it, to be honest. I thought this was about destroying it. My mistake. Putting it in a museum would be okay. I get more frustrated by calls to sandblast Stone Mountain. You can’t put that in a museum. You could build a museum around it, I suppose, like Monk’s Mound.
I have a problem destroying art for political reasons. Period. Should we level Monk’s Mound because the Cahokians practiced human sacrifice? Obviously if it isn’t of significant importance and the owner is okay with it, I imagine I’d be okay with a lot of art being destroyed. For example, there’s a fundraising event here called Art Attack, where they auction off art and whatever doesn’t sell gets chainsawed to pieces. For charity. That’s cool.
But not for political reasons, and not when it isn’t yours. And especially not when it is “history”, which I would consider a hundred year old statue to be. It represents a mindset that for good reason doesn’t exist anymore. Let’s learn from history, not close our eyes and pretend it didn’t happen.
I don’t buy the “whitewashing history” argument. Nobody is proposing Rhodes be excised from the historical record, just that he stop being literally idolized. Taking down this statue doesn’t mean people stop learning of the horrors that went down in Rhodesia. If anything, leaving it up is a distortion of history, because it gives most casual viewers who haven’t studied this exceptionally brutal chapter in colonial history the impression that Rhodes is an admirable person - after all, they put a statue up to him, didn’t they?
The statue is a decoration. People redecorate all the time. If the college doesn’t find the image of Mr. Rhodes to be a pleasing decoration (and I can see why they wouldn’t), I don’t see why they should be forced to keep it into perpetuity. Is there something sacred about decorations with people on them or something?
Monk’s mound has an historical interest. I doubt that this statue has any. It’s not like bronze statues of 19th century people are a rarity. It doesn’t appear that it’s a famous masterpiece that art lovers from all over the world want to preserve due the sculptor’s incredible talent, either. I’m pretty sure it’s value as “art” is close to zero, and so is its historical value. What should count as “art” worth protecting can be debated endlessly. It happens all the time (at least over here, but I’m pretty sure also in all other countries) when the issue of destroying a somewhat old building of some significance is discussed, for instance. I don’t think such a statue really qualifies.
It hasn’t been build in order to, say, express profound ideas, display the exquisite skills of the sculptor, enhance the splendor of the university building, or anything like that. It has been build in order to honour a man. That’s the reason for its existence. If this man not just doesn’t deserve to be honoured but in fact deserve to be reviled, then I’ve no issue with removing it or even destroying it, at the contrary. As pointed out previously, many statues of Stalin have been destroyed, and it doesn’t bother me the slighest bit. Does it bother you? Why would it be different for this guy? What exactly are we losing if we melt the statue? What good reason do we have to keep it?
Nobody can remove the statue it has a preservation order on it
Seems like an easy solution would be to just put a sign underneath the statue explaining why the statue is there and the controversial aspects of Rhodes life. Done.
Do you have a cite for this claim? I did some searching and found no references to a preservation order.
Melting it down for scrap is also pretty easy.
Oriel College is a Grade 1 listed building. No melting it down for scrap is not easy, its protected.
You cannot change anything at all about a listed buildings appearance without getting special permission.
All this is much like what happens with Columbus every October–statues get vandalized. I appreciate and understand why this happens, but it saddens me to hear of some 150-year-old full-size portrait statue has been irreparably damaged. They don’t make things like that anymore.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the Columbus, OH and GA eventually have to change their names. It seems hypocritical not to do so, and at the same time insist that Southern states discontinue using flags reminiscent of the CSA.
Or like FDR, how about his distant cousin Theodore, who used to shoot big game and have it skinned or stuffed for trophies? Most people seem absolutely horrified by any kind of hunting, but usually seem more than able to completely gloss over the root causes of habitat loss, which has been the real threat to wildlife. I’m not saying poaching isn’t a problem, but habitat loss is more devastating.
It was a TV news interview with the local authority, I live in the U.K. aprox. 50 miles from Oxford so have seen coverage on news media. It is really a none story blown out of proportion by students
They are?
I’m pretty sure most people are fine with deer and gamebird hunting, at least in North America. Maybe less so in some other countries.