I would agree, Cossomby. Up to a point.

>>If we removed all art works, music, books etc, on the basis of the artists' morality or criminality, there might not be much left!<<

It is unusual, for example, to hear Paul Gaugin's work linked with his amorality...

"After dumping his wife and five kids, Gauguin upped sticks to Martinique, Brittany, Arles (where he spent nine notorious weeks with van Gogh in 1888), and finally the South Pacific islands of Tahiti and Hiva Oa. He took three native brides – aged 13, 14 and 14, for those keeping score – infecting them and countless other local girls with syphilis."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/8011066/Is-it-wrong-to-admire-Paul-Gauguins-art.html

It doesn't seem to affect the appreciation of his artwork much, if at all.

A smart investor might even consider hoovering up as many of Harris' works as he can while their price languishes in the basement...

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Bristol-woman-Sara-Gardiner-fears-28-000-Rolf/story-21328879-detail/story.html

In fact, that is what appears to be happening already...

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/03/rolf-harris-art-worthless-ghouls_n_5554543.html

I have one small reservation comparing Harris with Gaugin, though. And that is the underlying quality of the work itself.

I do have a suspicion that the value of Rolf's painting was inextricably linked to his public persona of the cheery, slightly batty uncle, rather than any intrinsic artistic merit. And while Gaugin's uber-bohemian antics might actually have given his work added cachet in the salons of Paris, I fear Rolfie's work may ultimately have to stand on its own merit.

Pericles - that was one of the points I was making: that views of Harris' work may have been influenced by his celebrity. In time, the art work can be assessed on its own merits. If the end result is that it has little merit, well, that's still a reason to have it publically available as an educational example of how celebrity influences our views.

(I recognise accept that many people never thought much of it!)

There's a very big difference between the canvas art of a professional entertainer who uses his celebrity in his art, and the canvas art of a proper professional artist.

I think both the artistic value and dollar worth of the so called art of Harris is very much tied to his celebrity, in other words his acceptance by, and approval from, the community. So, when that acceptance and approval is high there is interest in the art. When that acceptance and approval takes a nosedive, there is lesser interest in the art. That's how the free marketplace works, and rightly so.

Harris would incorporate his artwork into his old TV shows. entertaining people while he painted and drew. He got to paint the Queen, not because he was a great artist, but because he was a very high profile, accepted celebrity, who could paint a bit on the side.

His art work will now decline in dollar value over the coming decades, and eventually be forgotten. Same for his second rate music. And rightly so. The man is a scumbag.

AdrianD,

I agree Harris is a scumbag, but <<His art work will now decline in dollar value over the coming decades, and eventually be forgotten. Same for his second rate music. And rightly so.>> I think the opposite might be the case. One thing this trial has done for Harris, is it has brought him to the attention of a wider audience. Adolf Hitler was a failed artists, but I think any of his artwork would be far more valuable today than it otherwise would be, given not his artistic ability but his notoriety. Winston Churchill was also a painter of dubious quality, but his works are worth more than the price based on quality. Paul1405 is also a failed artists and his works value is reflected in his notoriety as well, you got 5 bucks, can flog you a "nice" landscape in the early trashy style!
When I was 13 I graduated from painting the chook shed to painting people, I painted my younger brother, aged 4, I think it was green, mum was very upset it took about a week to get all the paint off him. A living work of art you could say. At least the chooks were happy they never complained about the paint job I did for them. LOL.

Hi Paul,
I think the difference with Harris is that most people (except Ludwig) have a deep revulsion towards the act of a grown man sexually touching underage girls; a revulsion that goes very deep into our souls, as most of us have fathered/mothered children. So it's a very "personal" thing. A good comparison is the work of pedophile guitarist Bob Brozman, who committed suicide just before he was due to be charged for a lifetime of pedophilia. Brozman was a hero to other guitarists, extremely respected and loved and a renowned educator. Now he is reviled amongst fellow musicians, and his music just makes them want to vomit. This is because of the deep, "personal" nature of pedophilia crimes.

I'm sure the so called art of Harris will be close to totally forgotten eventually, along with his bad music; let's face it he could barely sing at all.

Alright, let’s see what’s happening with the Rolfie thread, having left it alone for another few days.

Hmmm…

Looks like things might be improving a bit here. Maybe people have calmed down a bit ??