Rolf Harris

Does QM2 still have his artwork on display?

David.

I would not think so as the Gallery is run by Clarendon Fine Art

Clarendon Fine Art have removed him from their website

http://www.clarendonfineart.com/portfolio

I found this news article from last September which indicates Rolf Harris paintings have been removed from Cunard ships.

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/10690717.Cunard_remove_Rolf_Harris_paintings_from_ships_following_sex_charges/

Regards,

John.

No, none on the Queen Mary 2

Today I read this article which I found interesting http://www.theage.com.au/comment/why-do-we-want-to-tear-down-rolf-harris8217-artworks-20140720-zuye1.html

Personally, I'm not certain how I feel about benign paintings being removed because they were painted by someone who later became a convicted criminal.

As an example, should museums remove works by Caravaggio? (Not that Rolf Harris had anywhere near the talent that Caravaggio did, but you get my general point.)

I just don't know. But to my way of thinking, Rolf Harris was a commercial painter, in no way a painter of fine art, and a convicted criminal of heinous crimes. Doesn't mean I can't appreciate his paintings of ships.

Please, what do you think about the removal of Rolf Harris paintings from Cunard ships?

Why limit the discussion to him alone, we could debate the merits of exhibiting other painters whose work doesn't currently appear on Cunard ships.

I can think of a deceased Austrian painter whose works command high prices these days. One or two of his street scenes might grace the Queens Room.

Or better still, let us make absolutely certain that evil people have no public recognition at all.

I sincerely hope this thread dies.

I am nearly positive that Rolf Harris's paintings were removed from the QM2 during our cruise from Perth back to Southamton round about middle of April last year 2013. I can disitinctly remember seeing his art at the beginning of our cruise and wondered if he was on board to do lectures. We arrived Sothampton April 26th and everything about him had disappeard.

Hope this helps

marlene

Today I read this article which I found interesting http://www.theage.com.au/comment/why-do-we-want-to-tear-down-rolf-harris8217-artworks-20140720-zuye1.html

 

Personally, I'm not certain how I feel about benign paintings being removed because they were painted by someone who later became a convicted criminal.

 

As an example, should museums remove works by Caravaggio? (Not that Rolf Harris had anywhere near the talent that Caravaggio did, but you get my general point.)

 

I just don't know. But to my way of thinking, Rolf Harris was a commercial painter, in no way a painter of fine art, and a convicted criminal of heinous crimes. Doesn't mean I can't appreciate his paintings of ships.

 

Please, what do you think about the removal of Rolf Harris paintings from Cunard ships?

Cunard probably removed it because passengers would associate it directly with his terrible crimes against children. An image that NOBODY wants to have while on thier vacation. Many people take vacations as a break or to escape. You may have noticed that a lot of artwork in ship cabins are landscapes and floal images. There's a reason for this.

We have a friend of a friend who has several of the paintings, sourced domestically rather than on a ship. They were far from cheap.

When the trial was on he was a bit gloomy, expecting that they would be worth about as much as two lollipop sticks and a couple of old conkers. To his amazement, when he checked, the value had gone up significantly. I'll bet they're pretty close to worthless now though.

Wonder what the Queen has done with her portrait?

.

GentlemanCruiser has likely hit the nail on the head and in doing so perhaps split Salacia's question into halves: For-profit companies like Cunard likely don't want the controversy, and I don't blame them. On the other hand, what of museums displaying material based on what curators deem to be artistic merit? Of this, I'm less sure.

If pepperrn and I are thinking of the same Austrian painter (to quote critic Mel Brooks: "Now there was a painter! An entire apartment in an afternoon! Two coats!"), my grandfather sailed Cunard 70-some years ago to help the effort to end his career.

If pepperrn and I are thinking of the same Austrian painter (to quote critic Mel Brooks: "Now there was a painter! An entire apartment in an afternoon! Two coats!"), my grandfather sailed Cunard 70-some years ago to help the effort to end his career.

Cunard probably removed it because passengers would associate it directly with his terrible crimes against children. An image that NOBODY wants to have while on thier vacation. Many people take vacations as a break or to escape. You may have noticed that a lot of artwork in ship cabins are landscapes and floal images. There's a reason for this.

Hi gentlemancruiser. Thanks, I hadn't thought of that...I look as paintings not as decorations but rather something more involved. But I see that you are quite right in your comments, and I agree that considering the venue, it was best to remove Rolfs' paintings from Cunard ships. Regards, -Salacia

PARTIAL QUOTE

GentlemanCruiser has likely hit the nail on the head and in doing so perhaps split Salacia's question into halves: For-profit companies like Cunard likely don't want the controversy, and I don't blame them. On the other hand, what of museums displaying material based on what curators deem to be artistic merit? Of this, I'm less sure....

 

Hi Shawn. Yes, I too am less sure how many paintings would be hanging in museums, the painter of which was convicted of a crime; not to compare Rolf Harris paintings with fine art. -S.

We have a friend of a friend who has several of the paintings, sourced domestically rather than on a ship. They were far from cheap.

 

When the trial was on he was a bit gloomy, expecting that they would be worth about as much as two lollipop sticks and a couple of old conkers. To his amazement, when he checked, the value had gone up significantly. I'll bet they're pretty close to worthless now though.

 

Wonder what the Queen has done with her portrait?

 

.

Hi Chunky. According to this article http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2014-07-01/rolf-harris-paintings-worth-90-less-following-guilty-verdict ,

"artwork by the entertainer could fetch just 10% of its previous value at auction"

Regarding his portrait of Queen Elizabeth, as quoted from that website...

"And it’s not only Harris’s lesser works that have vanished. His portrait of Queen Elizabeth II, for which her majesty sat twice, appears to have disappeared. After being commissioned by the BBC and hung in the Queen’s Gallery at Buckingham Palace, the picture was placed on public view at Liverpool's Walker Art Gallery until August 2012. Mr Harris was first questioned as part of Operation Yewtree three months later. Since then the BBC, Royal Collection and Walker Art Gallery have all claimed no knowledge of the painting’s whereabouts."

I am nearly positive that Rolf Harris's paintings were removed from the QM2 during our cruise from Perth back to Southamton round about middle of April last year 2013. I can disitinctly remember seeing his art at the beginning of our cruise and wondered if he was on board to do lectures. We arrived Sothampton April 26th and everything about him had disappeard.

Hope this helps

marlene

Hi Marlene, Ive just looked through my diaries as I thought I had noted them taking the pics down the day it was headline news. I was in the Gallery as they were doing it early one morning, my mother, who got off in Perth remembered them being up and I think they were taken down just before or just after perth, she seems to think she was with me when they were being removed, but Im not so sure.

Funny, Cunard had the same reaction over the Jimmy Saville incident. One minute it was all pr smoke and mirrors about him being on board and how fabulous he was and then it was total denial that he or anything associated with him ever existed.

Only hope he never went into the children's area on the ship!

That trip around South Africa though was defiantly a highlight of my cruising history, hope you enjoyed it as much as I did.

regards Roscoe

Funny, Cunard had the same reaction over the Jimmy Saville incident. One minute it was all pr smoke and mirrors about him being on board and how fabulous he was and then it was total denial that he or anything associated with him ever existed.

They must have been aware of the incident aboard P&O flagship Canberra in 1978 when Saville was confined to his cabin and thrown off the ship in Gibraltar after a complaint from a couple with a young daughter.

David.

They must have been aware of the incident aboard P&O flagship Canberra in 1978 when Saville was confined to his cabin and thrown off the ship in Gibraltar after a complaint from a couple with a young daughter.

 

David.

they were probably offended about his raggedly oily hair and his smelly old chewed cigar

Today I read this article which I found interesting http://www.theage.com.au/comment/why-do-we-want-to-tear-down-rolf-harris8217-artworks-20140720-zuye1.html

 

Personally, I'm not certain how I feel about benign paintings being removed because they were painted by someone who later became a convicted criminal.

 

As an example, should museums remove works by Caravaggio? (Not that Rolf Harris had anywhere near the talent that Caravaggio did, but you get my general point.)

 

I just don't know. But to my way of thinking, Rolf Harris was a commercial painter, in no way a painter of fine art, and a convicted criminal of heinous crimes. Doesn't mean I can't appreciate his paintings of ships.

 

Please, what do you think about the removal of Rolf Harris paintings from Cunard ships?

Salacia

Have Cunard removed all of Geoffrey Archer's books from their libraries?? :)

Barry

Salacia

 

Have Cunard removed all of Geoffrey Archer's books from their libraries?? :)

 

Barry

He wasn't a pedophile, that's the difference.

David

He wasn't a pedophile, that's the difference.

 

David

He was a criminal, what is the difference?

Salacia

 

Have Cunard removed all of Geoffrey Archer's books from their libraries?? :)

 

Barry

Are we talking about the same person - Lord Jeffrey Archer, former politician and author, who is a Guest Speaker on QV in August? :eek::D

He was a criminal, what is the difference?

Paintings on public view differ from books in a library. The pages of a book are between two covers that you actually have to pick up and open to read - that's an intentional action, whereas a painting on a wall can be seen even by those who have no purposeful intention of looking. Just my opinion, but censorship of books is - in general, undesirable.

He was a criminal, what is the difference?

So you would rate interfering with little girls in the same category as perjury, which he was convicted of?

David.

He wasn't a pedophile, that's the difference.

 

David

It is always difficult to compare criminal offences. What is worse - murder or perjury?? Perjury is a serious offence which undermines the very foundations of our Justice system. Without the "truth", the Justice system could not do anything about murderers - or pedophiles. Therefore, there is a case to say that Jeffrey Archer's perjury is a worse offence than Rolf Harris's pedophilia??

It is always difficult to compare criminal offences. What is worse - murder or perjury?? Perjury is a serious offence which undermines the very foundations of our Justice system. Without the "truth", the Justice system could not do anything about murderers - or pedophiles. Therefore, there is a case to say that Jeffrey Archer's perjury is a worse offence than Rolf Harris's pedophilia??

Well one is deliberately hurting a vulnerable individual and the other is lying to the court. The very foundations of our Justice system is flawed in many ways it is not perfect. For instance trying to convict people who abuse children is incredibly difficult as the wonderful justice system expect children to be mini adults and have the ability to relay events in an orderly fashion. The vast majority never get put before the courts. However it is good at convicting people like Jeffrey Archer; not excusing what he did either. If I had to choose it would be the peadophile every time..

Sent from my iPad using Forums