Hitler’s watercolours are best ignored, but you have to reckon with the power of Eric Gill | Martha Gill

A planned show featuring works by the evil and corrupt has caused outrage, but it asks some useful questions

Can a work of art be separated from its creator? The question that has engaged some of our greatest philosophers is soon also to engage a Channel 4 studio audience, which is to be presented with works by such artists as Hitler, Eric Gill and Rolf Harris. (Decisions will be mediated by Jimmy Carr via a hammer.)

Before we get to the show, over which much outrage has been generated, I want to advance a theory. My answer to this question is that you can quite easily separate art from its creator – as long as the art is bad. Hitler’s postcard watercolours are perfectly safe to consume as there is nothing of him in them. They might have been created by any number of sentimental daubers who failed (twice) to get into art school. When art is good though, the artist has transferred some of their soul into it. They cannot help but reveal themselves. Gill’s stuff is very dangerous.

So it is with any number of great but corrupt artists. Paul Gauguin was a paedophile who took underage Tahitian girls as his sex slaves; his paintings invite the viewer to join him in gazing lustfully at these same teenagers, naked and in sexualised poses. Caravaggio, genius and murderer, produced art that makes violence beautiful. His bright spurts of blood and clear fascination with the expression on a dying face give you a taste of what it might be like to want to kill someone. He converts his audience into, at the very least, morbid rubberneckers. Salvador Dalí’s raging narcissism and cruelty to animals and people is imprinted deeply on his art. His famous short film Un Chien Andalou, written with Luis Buñuel, shows a closeup of a woman’s eye being slit open with a razor and invites us to enjoy the spectacle. It is an act of persuasion.

This is inevitable. What separates good art from bad is that good artists say what they really mean. When we talk about genius we are not describing technical skill or the labour of construction, block by block. We mean something more like inspiration: a dart of instinct straight from the soul on to the canvas. The darkest urges of a great artist will, of course, echo in their art. And the self-justifications of the criminal or pervert – that everyone secretly shares their tendencies – will be channelled through their works. Great art is great because it has the power to corrupt, should that be the artist’s wish. It is dangerous.

Bad art, on the other hand, is very safe. It thoroughly obscures the soul of the artist – nothing is revealed at all. A thick layer of plexiglass cliche lies between the soul of the artist and the viewer so that no darkness can seep through. In fact, this insulating property is so integral to the genre that it has often been put to a practical purpose: fascists tend to promote and surround themselves with bad art, now known as “totalitarian kitsch”, because it helps disguise them from themselves. There are tales of brutal dictators weeping at sentimental films after a hard day’s genocide.

This throws up a bit of a problem for modern moralists, not to mention gallery curators. Current sensibilities demand that our artistic heroes be good people too: seeming to endorse the “problematic” ones, even by discussing them, appears newly risky. This explains some of the outraged reaction to Channel 4’s show Jimmy Carr Destroys Art – which might have delighted audiences in the 80s and 90s.

But we have also been brought up on the idea that all great art should be revered. (That explains the other half of the outrage to the show.) Witness the outcry after a pair of climate change protesters threw soup on the protective glass surrounding a Van Gogh painting last week. The picture was unharmed but the justifiably mocking, negative reaction said more about the ridiculous, self-important stunt than anything else.

So how do we deal with great art by bad people? The solution that we have tended to reach for in recent years is that art is essentially “harmless”. We can consume the artwork of corrupt people and it will not touch us. That accompanies a similar modern urge to see all great art and literature as “improving”. Judges have taken to prescribing criminals reading lists, as if all books, from Lolita to The Picture of Dorian Gray, were written with the express purpose of turning us into law-abiding citizens.

But this does art a disservice. To treat art as harmless is to fail to take it seriously and reduce it to mere decoration. If we want to argue that some art can be good for us, we need to consider that some can also be bad for us. How do we deal with immoral art? It’s still a question worth grappling with.

• Martha Gill is a political journalist and former lobby correspondent

Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a letter of up to 250 words to be considered for publication, email it to us at observer.letters@observer.co.uk


Martha Gill

The GuardianTramp

Related Content

Article image
Sometimes a statue is indefensible – the BBC should get rid of Eric Gill | Catherine Bennett
Its response to the paedophile artist’s vandalised work is highly misguided

Catherine Bennett

16, Jan, 2022 @7:00 AM

Article image
Spare us the moral hysteria that threatens a new age of censorship | Rachel Cooke
The muddle over sexual behaviour is already proving dangerous for free expression in the arts

Rachel Cooke

17, Dec, 2017 @12:05 AM

Article image
Airbrushing claim as ‘Eric Gill museum’ shuns legacy of artist and sexual abuser
The master craftsman was once lauded in Ditchling, Sussex. Now, as the grotesque truth of his life is acknowledged, all that has changed

John Sturgis

18, Dec, 2022 @10:00 AM

Article image
May I have a word… about Hitler’s British traitors | Jonathan Bouquet
A new book sheds light not only on Second World War spies and saboteurs but on the delightful vocabulary of the time

Jonathan Bouquet

05, Aug, 2018 @5:00 AM

Article image
Where’s best for Channel 4 to go forth? | Vanessa Thorpe
The call for the broadcaster to relocate merely highlights the government’s lack of investment outside the capital

Vanessa Thorpe

01, Apr, 2017 @11:05 PM

Article image
Eric Gill: can we separate the artist from the abuser?
Eric Gill was one of the great British artists of the 20th century – and a sexual abuser of his own daughters. A new exhibition at Ditchling asks: how far should an artist’s life affect our judgment of their work?

Rachel Cooke

09, Apr, 2017 @9:00 AM

Article image
Can Civilisations make sense of art when we have different ways of seeing? | Kenan Malik
In dismissing Kenneth Clark’s simple story of western art, the BBC’s new series reveals its debt to the visionary thinker John Berger

Kenan Malik

04, Mar, 2018 @12:05 AM

Article image
When Beryl, 86, met Scarlett, four – love and affection across the ages | Yvonne Roberts
The C4 show about a retirement village in Nottingham shows both young and old flourishing

Yvonne Roberts

13, Oct, 2018 @4:00 PM

Article image
How great to have a gallery named after you. Alas, they do it for any old millionaire too | Catherine Bennett
A woman rightly honoured by an artist at the Tate finds herself in strange company

Catherine Bennett

07, Oct, 2018 @4:59 AM

Article image
Courtesy of the man from Oz and Viz, the outrageous Eric Gill’s finest art
Multi-millionaire publisher Felix Dennis was an obsessive collector of the great artist-craftsman, who also became infamous for his voracious sexual appetite. Now his archive is up for auction at Sotheby’s

Mark Brown, arts correspondent

29, Nov, 2014 @12:40 PM