Talk:Eric Gill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

Contents

[edit] Private life

User:144.136.123.112 recently added and then removed a paragraph about Gill's private life. Removed, because some of the details are already mentioned earlier in the text? I don't know. But perhaps it would be useful to have a separate section devoted to the issues surrounding Gill's private life. Its a thorny subject. In the mean time, the link to the Fiona MacCarthy article is useful. -- Solipsist 13:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The page needs a lot more information about this repulsive man's abuse of his own children

So far there is only one reference to "relationships" with his children which implies there was a mutual sexual relationship. His own diaries recount the sodomising of his daughters and their repeated rape.

If anyone with more complete access to information than me would care to update the page please go ahead, otherwise I'll try to find the time.

NBeddoe 13:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Are these alleged incidents in the public domain? I'm aware of the incest – about which he was quite frank in private – and would say the article has got it about right. His main claim to fame is, after all, as a typographer, engraver and sculptor (whatever one may think of his private activities). – Agendum 13:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the page to include an extract from his own diary and to emphasise the fact that he was repeatedly performing acts that would have resulted in an extremely long prison sentence then as they would now. Given the sexual nature of much of his work I feel it is appropriate to let people know just what he did in his private life. It is not sufficient to separate his art from the character of the man. Also, his express devotion to Christianity was not bourne out by his private conduct.

I don't need to say what he was, his own diaries express it eloquently. NBeddoe 22:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that I'm not sure about the inclusion of this material in this article – over to other contributors for their views. But perhaps it would be good to list the referenced works by MacCarthy and Speaight in the 'References' section. – Agendum 00:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
It is interesting (at least to me) to note that this article has two References sections. One, the latter, I added more than two years ago and it includes MacCarthy. Anyway, I'm curling up in front of a fire with my copy and see what she has to say on the subjects of incest, beastiality and . . . ... what else was there? Carptrash 00:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
You'll find plenty... Johnbod 01:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Reasons why I think it is appropriate to include this information.
1 Gill was a man of the 20th century and the moral judgement of his time on this matter would have been just as damning as it is now. I don't think I can be accused of apply 21st century morals to a historic figure.
2 He was an avowed and active Christian who was very public in his expression of his religion. His sexual activities were in direct contradiction of the teaching of the church.
3 Much of his work is sexual in nature and it is important to view them in the light of his abuse of his family.
4 The subject is not adequately covered elswhere; the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church is silent on the subject, referring only to his spirituality and art for example.NBeddoe 08:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It certainly has to be included; the MacCarthy biography has been out for years & never significantly challenged - unsuprisingly since so much evidence is from Gill's own papers. I don't know quite how you balance this into the rest of his achievement, but it should be done. Maybe look at some Roman Emperors

Johnbod 09:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that the way that we'll get through this is to "let it all hang out" [as we used to say] but at the same time being very careful about our choice of words. MacCarthy, for example says,"Nor is there anything so absolutly shocking about his long record of incestuous relationships with sisters and with daughters:" adding later, "...his pratctical experiments with bestiality , thought they may strike one as bizzare, are not in themselves horrifying or amazing."

So our task (opinion) is to present this material in a non shocking, non horrified, unamazing way. Good luck. Carptrash

Some of Gill's activities were monstrous. It's not morally possible to be neutral about them - to suggest otherwise is itself POV, so what the hell. Countersubject 16:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
You call some of his activities "monstrous" - yet it seems [to me] that these activities were all too human. It might not be morally possible for you to be neutral about them, but, nonetheless, it is the task of encyclopedists to do so. Carptrash 16:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't aplogise for calling child abuse monstrous. It is something that cannot be presented in a "non-shocking" way, because it is in itself shocking. To pretend otherwise is delusional. Countersubject 17:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It is never, in my view, necessary for any wikipedian to apologize for his or her opinions. What we all do need to be mindful of is not pushing our value judgments in the articles. That's what the discussion pages are for, among things. The early Egyptians saw nothing wrong with siblings having sex and the prevalence of sex with animals, and even offspring through out history means that an awfully lot of folks thought that it was acceptable. Let's be content to mention that these were things that Gill did and let the reader contribute the moral conclusions. Carptrash 00:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid this looks terribly weaselish. In one breath you say we shouldn't push a POV, and in the next that incest and bestiality really aren't all that bad, in the wider perspective of things. You also elide the issues of child abuse and incest, and make the preposterous suggestion that bestiality has resulted in offspring. I'd stop digging if I were you. Countersubject 13:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
NPOV is not negotiable here. Charles Matthews 13:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Apart from sounding off, who thinks that the current version:
  • A) gives too much space
  • B) gives too little space
  • C) gives too much detail
  • D) gives too little detail
  • E) ought to contain moral comment
  • F) is correct not to contain moral comment

Answers please (up to 3!). I would say a weak B, and F. Johnbod 14:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

F is correct. Charles Matthews 23:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I would like to see the opinions of some of the original authors of this article.
We are writing an encyclopedic biography of one of the finest typographers, sculptors and designers of the twentieth century. I believe that the aim of some here is not to celebrate his art, but to dig for dirt. Sure, it's there - I was aware of the incest of which he was guilty, and am as appalled as anyone to hear that this amounted to abuse of young children. I was unaware of the bestiality. However, if you dig deep enough into the lives of many historical personages, my guess is that you will find more of the same. Are they, too, to be 'outed' in the same way? I'm not an apologist for Gill, but perhaps his mistake was to be open about his activities and to record it in writing.
So, mention it by all means, but without the quote from Gill's diary, and at the end of the article, before the quotation section. The answer is F. Agendum 23:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That would appear to be a C as well as an F thenJohnbod 01:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Well if you are looking for a good breakdown of what can be found in MacCarthy's book, quotes and content, [and I've checked a lot of it and it's what the link says is there] as well as a great example of how (opinion) the article on Gill should NOT read, check out:

http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/j006htGill_Morality2_Odou.htm Enjoy. Carptrash 01:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The current version seems fine except for the degree of expurgation. If you're going to excise so much of the dairy quote about his daughter as to make it unintelligible, you might as well leave it out. Also, the opening "According to" makes it sound as if somebody might debate this, while I know of nobody who contradicts MacCarthy's assertions. Thomas Phinney 07:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks John – that's a C as well as an F Agendum 08:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"A deeply religious man, Eric Gill published numerous essays on the relationship between art and religion." This type of statement is ubiquitous in all I have read about Gill and his professed devotion to religion is almost as prominent as discussion of his artwork. The despicable acts he committed need to be given the same prominence. Other contributors have said that it would be possible to find odious acts in other biographies if we dug deep enough but that is not the point. Gill had the conceit to put it all in his diaries and we therefore have documentary evidence from his own hand that the acts were committed. Many (including me) view him as a repulsive individual whose acts far outweigh any artistic merit he may have had, others see him simply as a talented artist. If the article is going to present a balanced view it has to provide the available evidence of both aspects to allow others to draw their conclusions. I'm firmly for a D. NBeddoe 20:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree, NBeddoe.
Let me be clear – I too, find the description of his acts unbelievably repulsive to read and I agree that they call into question how real his Catholic faith could have been in truth. However, the article is about Gill the typographer, sculptor and artist, and it is these things for which he is justly world-famous. It is not our job to disclose details about the intimate personal lives of subjects of our articles if they are not relevant to the main point of the piece, just as it is not our job to question his faith. If these things are mentioned, it should be almost as a footnote.
If I may say this with respect, for I know your beliefs are very strongly held, I think you are riding a hobby horse. Your comments are POV. – Agendum 00:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Why should the article on Eric Gill be restricted to "Gill the typographer, sculptor and artist"? That's not the title of the article. Your assertion appears to be based on the point of view that aspects of the artist's life that might be construed as morally reprehensible are not notable. That's doubly POV: you're implicitly accepting the moral judgement, and suggesting that the facts on which it's based should be self-censored. I sympathise with your perspective. I love the Stations at Westminster, and have two Gill reproductions on my walls at home. The man made notable contributions to early 20th art and social thought. Unfortunately, that's led devotees of Gill, his art and ideas and the communities of which he was a part to obscure the whole man. We should have no part in that moral cowardice. Countersubject 14:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
It would be easy to get side tracked into a discussion of all the horrors perpetrated in the name of religion by people who were themselves religious, folks tortured, massive massacres, hundreds burned at the stake, well, you know that stuff, so to doubt Gill's sincerity about religion because of the really relatively minor acts that he engaged in seems . . ... silly. Should we tear his Stations of the Cross off the walls of Westminister Cathedral because his morals were different than ours? Have you ever noticed that it is the people who claim to be the most repulsed by certain acts that are the very ones who focus the most attention on them? I've always assumed this is because . . ....... never mind. Carptrash
"really relatively minor acts". Give a man enough rope ... Countersubject 08:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Now we get down to the root of Carptrash's arguments. I take it he will be amending the Wikipedia entry on paedophilia to descibe it as a "minor act". If that's not a POV then I don't know what is. All I am arguing for is that we tell people what he did, use his own words to describe it and leave it to them to decide what moral judgement to make. NBeddoe 10:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I say minor act because hundreds of people did not die horrible deaths due to them. Minor because, as MacCarthy says, the three Gill daughters grew up, so far as we can see, to be contented and well adjusted married women. Isn't that what really matters in these cases? Not so much what happened but how did the people involved react or respond to it? Well, I gotta go now and re-write the article on pedophilia. Carptrash 14:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
the three Gill daughters grew up, so far as we can see, to be contented and well adjusted married women. Oh, that's alright then. Countersubject
Well, it is, isn't it? Isn't the larger problem with child abuse society's attitude to it, which adds to any actual harm done by stigmatising it? I'm not condoning or advocating it, but I am questioning whether in fact society magnifies the damage out of all proportion to whatever went on originally. I have heard (on Radio 4) one of Gill's daughters shrug off suggestions that she was damaged by the events described in McCarthy's book, and I suggest that part of the reason she came through it apparently unscathed is because she was not taught to treat it as some irredeemable horror. The issue is a lot more complex than the hang-em and flog-em brigade would have you believe, and in fact I say they are part of the problem. The fact is, by treating abusers as beyond the pale it is the abused who end up feeling guilty and damaged - two wrongs don't make a right. Food for thought, I hope. 203.87.74.230 (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Out of interest, what is the Wikipedia policy on the fact that articles (which may contain explicit references) may be read by minors or teenagers? I'm not making any judgement here – just asking the question. It is relevant, as my 16-year old was sitting next to me as I reviewed this correspondence earlier – I didn't feel comfortable doing so at that time, which is why I came back to it now. I'm not advocating censorship by this question, just asking. – Agendum 00:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it comes back to the discussion and poll above. On balance, I believe we should name the behaviour for what it was - incest, abuse, buggery and bestiality - and provide references to material that gives greater detail, without going into that detail in the article. In addition, the opposition of this behaviour and the religion he professed are sufficiently striking to be remarked, as is the historic reluctance of his devotees to acknowledge it. Countersubject 15:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Well okay, write away, but I am still interested if you feel/think that his religious works should be removed from their religious context and perhaps placed in a more secular setting. I mean, should churches and their property [i.e. cemeteries, rectories etc] contain works of someone who engaged in incest, abuse, buggery and bestiality? Carptrash 03:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC) PS I looked through a lot of wikipedia guidelines and could not discover an answer to Agendum's question.
  • Re "so many questions, so few answers" - So few answers from you Carptrash to my poll above anyway.... Johnbod 03:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Whooooops. Sorry 'bout that. Well F for sure and then the amount and content of what is added is up to those who wish to add it. I'm not up for writing much but I'm a More is More kind of guy and feel that articles can always use expansion. So to answer your question without picking any more of those alphabet things [letters?], I'd like to see some brave soul just jump in and say what they feel needs to be said and then the rest of us can leap in with our red pens or whatever and have at it. I say, Let the games begin! Carptrash 05:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Organisation of article

Thanks to Johnbod for the superb illustrations. It's just a shame that the top one, perhaps because of the monitor used, appears to be slightly blurred because of the reduction in size.

I propose to move 'Private life' to the position below 'Reputation', the usual place in most biographies for such a section, and especially in view of the subject matter included. This seems to me to be much more appropriate.

I will also dig out more details about Gill's life and work, which may be suitable for inclusion in the main part of the article. – Agendum 17:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks! They were just what was on Commons. b/w graphics (in the small files here) tend to look bad on screens - the top one looks ok-ish on my screen, but if people think it a problem, please change or improve. Can anyone expand the caption on the portrait, & say what technique the Initial at the top is done in - woodcut or wood-engraving I imagine ? Johnbod 17:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So how comfortable are

you folks with the copyright info about the images in the article? I mean, since morality seems to be the most important facet going here, don't you find some info given on the images to be a bit thin? Is it a coincidence, for example, that the portrait of Gill used in the article is also the cover of David Peace's book Eric Gill: The Inscriptions? Hmmmmmmmmmmm? Carptrash 23:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Didn't look I must say - but I think the image is by Gill or an associate. I'm sure it's not just a book cover. Johnbod 00:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, well it is a self-portrait, done by Gill in 1927, but why does that make it okay to use here? I hate to see an article about an artist, especially one as prolific and varied as Gill, with no pictures of his work, but unless better documentation shows up explaining why it's all right to use these, they should (opinion) be removed. Carptrash 00:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that it's in the public domain, but I will check. If so, its copyright status needs to made clear on the relvent page. Agendum 00:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
On one of these illustrations, or in the so-called documentation, it is claimed that the creator of the work released it to us. Hello! The earliest versions of any of these pictures that I have is 1927 and that does NOT make it copyright free or in the PD or fair use [well someone might try arguing that] or anything. Carptrash 02:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Whoops! I don't know much about copyright relating to Wikipedia, I'm afraid. According to the laws where I live, almost everything on art in Commons is piracy, so I never upload anything myself. I hope the typeface at least is ok. I notice the original drawing has a fair use tag. Can i leave it to you guys to sort out? Johnbod 02:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] peadophile art

This article could be of use in this article [1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypnosadist (talk • contribs) 00:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:LEAD

WP:LEAD says all notable parts of the article are repeated in the lead. His pedophila as well as his incest and beastiallity are clearly notable as especially as this guys supporters claim him as some sort of moral authority on how evil the modern secular materialistic world is. (Hypnosadist) 08:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEAD also says "Avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions." I think listing each act of perversion is a little over-descriptive. --Davémon 17:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Which one should be kept then? I think the pedophilia as it is clearly notable about him as the BBC chose him to represent pedophile artists in the story above.(Hypnosadist) 17:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I like the encyclopedic paraphilia intro and more NPOV as well, good job.(Hypnosadist) 17:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:A9ccea7237b9961efd7fb...9f1d8d9bcd1c1ef1.jpg

Image:A9ccea7237b9961efd7fb...9f1d8d9bcd1c1ef1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)