Zimpapers Logo

Knowledge Mushohwe
Rolf Harris, a well-known entertainer, painter and sculptor, was recently convicted and jailed by a British court for indecently assaulting four girls over his long career spanning decades. Following his conviction, more female acquaintances of the disgraced public figure have come forward with more allegations.

While the world is crumbling around Harris, widely seen as a larger-than-life-character before the convictions, many art collectors are now wondering what to do with artworks produced by the convicted sex offender that form part of their collections.

Most of his works fetched in excess of US$60 000 on the open market.
Already, galleries that once sold his works and were associated with Harris have begun to distance themselves from him by pulling off his works from their catalogue.

An ethical conundrum has arisen following the conviction of Harris.
Should patrons keep works developed by Harris given the appalling acts of the artist?

The website eBay for example, continues to sell merchandise by Ian Watkins, the lead singer of a rock band called Lostprophets, even though the artist is currently serving 29 years for serious sexual offences against children.

Some may argue that the art and the artist are not one, and that should the artist’s reputation be tainted, their work would not be affected.
In support of this point, there are old cases of French impressionist painters that were allegedly linked with the Nazis but that did not affect their work.

Harris is, however, different.
He was not that much of an accomplished artist but only made millions by attaching his name that was made famous by show business.
It used to be a source of pride pointing to the canvas on the wall and mentioning that it was the work of Rolf Harris.

Associating with works of a well-known figure surely added more value to the artworks.
But now that his devious deeds, committed over decades, have come to the surface, there is no sense of pleasure in giving him credit for the works he has produced.

Parents with their own kids the same age as those abused by Harris would be appalled by his actions.
What if he added subluminal messages in his art that celebrated his depravity?

Once the public relations index is pointing down, the price of his art as well as demand for his products head in the same direction.
Other disgraced public figures who disappeared from the spotlight in similar circumstances come to mind.

Lance Armstrong, the seven-time winner of the Tour de France, denied for years that he used performance- enhancing drugs and even sued several of his associates that alleged so.

Armstrong was diagnosed with cancer and during his “peak” years as a cyclist established a charitable organisation that received millions in donations because it was directly linked to the inspirational story of a sportsperson struggling through a battle against cancer and triumphantly winning the world’s premier cycling event.

But when the truth finally caught up with Armstrong, it wasn’t just stakeholders in the sporting industry that cried foul, people associated with his charitable organisation also felt betrayed because they invested emotionally and financially after being enticed by a flawed back-story.

The careers of American athlete Marion Jones and Canadian Ben Johnson completely wilted when it was discovered that they used performance-enhancing drugs to gain an unfair advantage over other competitors in their respective fields.

Sponsors, friends and whatever other form of “groupies” of the athletes did not and could not stay close or be associated with the disgraced personalities.

Harris, on the other hand, was so believable as an “artist” that in 2005, he asked the Queen to pose for him for hours, through two sessions and produced a portrait whose where-   abouts are now unknown.

Harris would also use his fame to take advantage of vulnerable girls weakened by his larger than life personality.
For Harris, show business was the perfect platform to launch his sex attacks and slip through overpriced armature artworks.

Harris did not only betray the trust given to him by his victims, he also without shame shoved average artworks down the throats of a gullible British public.

His artworks are now almost worthless because art cannot be separated from its creator.
The artist has a moral ethical and legal obligation to validate artworks, just as much as a sportsperson has to be responsible for his action and retain the respect of the community around him.

An artist’s lifestyle and general moral standing is important as a foil that supports his artworks.
Recording artiste Oliver Mtukudzi’s public persona, for example, is spotless and this is reflected in the way he is received by the public.

Though art products speak for themselves in “more than a thousand words” the person behind the work cannot live a reckless life and still be held in high esteem by stakeholders in the art community.

Art and the creator are seen as different only if the artist is not in the headlines.
Once his life is under the spotlight, positively or negatively, it is inevitable that the art is affected by the actions of the creator.