Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner. Facebook Messenger An icon of the facebook messenger app logo. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Facebook Messenger An icon of the Twitter app logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. WhatsApp Messenger An icon of the Whatsapp messenger app logo. Email An icon of an mail envelope. Copy link A decentered black square over a white square.

TV review: Jimmy Carr destroyed debate about controversial art

Jimmy Carr Destroys Art
Jimmy Carr Destroys Art

There is definitely a debate to be had about “problematic” works of art, but Jimmy Carr Destroys Art added nothing to the conversation.

Instead, it felt more like an attempt by Channel 4 to garner some headlines over the fact it bought a watercolour by Adolf Hitler.

The concept of the show was flimsy at best – and got flimsier with every passing minute.

The studio audience was presented with two controversial pieces of art and then got the chance to decide which one should be destroyed.

Those in the firing line included the Nazi dictator’s painting – no surprise that it bit the bullet.”

Those in the firing line included the Nazi dictator’s painting – no surprise that it bit the bullet – as well as work from disgraced presenter Rolf Harris, sculptor and child abuser Eric Gill and even Pablo Picasso.

The fundamental problem with the programme was that after hearing some very reasonable arguments about whether people should be able to separate the art from the artist, the audience wasn’t permitted to pardon both.

Jimmy Carr

That meant any nuance in the art versus artist debate went out the window. One had to go for the sole purpose of living up to the title of the show.

I could help thinking that everyone involved just wanted to skip straight to the bit where a painting was destroyed by a hammer, chainsaw, flamethrower or paintball gun, regardless of the strength of the argument to save it (or both).

It’s a damning indictment of modern TV audiences that in order to have a debate  they need a  gimmick.”

It’s a pretty damning indictment of modern TV audiences that in order to have a debate about this subject they need a headline-grabbing gimmick.

This year is the 40th anniversary of Channel 4 and I can’t imagine this is the type of “debate” they’d have had back in the 1980s.

Is that the channel’s fault or are they just catering to viewers who don’t have the attention span to give these matters serious thought?


You might also like…