Jump to content

Recommended Posts

There are lot's of great works of art (I'm not suggesting this is one), which have been produced by people of questionable character. There is nothing about the Pellat Mural that is itself racist.


It's an interesting question about whether a work of art should stand apart from the actions of the artist.

I agree, and of course it IS a very thorny problem; in this case I think it's made far simpler, as the artist's views are expressed IN the work. He's a politically-motivated artist whose beliefs are expressed IN his murals.

From a Reddit thread: The Artist ("Mear One")

If that wasn't enough, "Mear One" (the artist) described the local controversy thus: "Some of the older white Jewish folk in the local community had an issue with me portraying their beloved #Rothschild or #Warburg etc as the demons they are." - thus specifically linking his mural to the conspiracy theory that the Rothschilds are part of a shadowy "New World Order" or "Illuminati".


Mear One also claims that the characters are "Jews and white anglos" and complains that "for some reason they are saying I am anti-semitic".

Lynne Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It makes me think that if there's going to be very

> prominent public art, we the community who have to

> look at it all the time, should have some say in

> the choice.



But art, like music, is a very personal thing.


Some people will love a particular piece, others will hate it.


Plus how would you go about consulting everybody each time to make sure everybody was included?


Personally, I like most of the street art in this area, and some I like a lot, so I can live with this one (which I don't).

I personally don?t like it and didn?t like the other mural being disscussed here. I don?t think his murals are particularly my taste, I find them a bit crass. All the other street art in ED has made me smile, laugh or amazed me. I really miss the house which was covered with art that was demolished, but art is subjective.


As for bringing politics into whether art/music is acceptable is a whole can of worms and asks the question how far back in history one goes. Wagner, Ezra Pound, TS Elliot and yep....Morrissey. Maybe it would be a better use of people?s energy to be concerned about and fight against the worrying rise of the racist and anti Semitic far right across Europe.

heartblock Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> As for bringing politics into whether art/music is

> acceptable is a whole can of worms and asks the

> question how far back in history one goes. Wagner,

> Ezra Pound, TS Elliot and yep....Morrissey. Maybe

> it would be a better use of people?s energy to be

> concerned about and fight against the worrying

> rise of the racist and anti Semitic far right

> across Europe.



Agreed.

It seems very simplistic and wrong to accuse the painter of being 'the antisemitic artist' and 'the racist artist' rather than the fact that once in the past someone interpreted a small part of one of his works as being open to misinterpretation. Actually I like this mural and can't think of any way this particular image could be said to be racist so I don't understand the 'ignoring it on your own doorstep' bit. I agree the rise of the far right here is the real concern.

colville09 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It seems very simplistic and wrong to accuse the

> painter of being 'the antisemitic artist' and 'the

> racist artist' rather than the fact that once in

> the past someone interpreted a small part of one

> of his works as being open to misinterpretation.

> Actually I like this mural and can't think of any

> way this particular image could be said to be

> racist so I don't understand the 'ignoring it on

> your own doorstep' bit. I agree the rise of the

> far right here is the real concern.


The whole of Mear One's "Freedom for Humanity" mural was staggeringly antisemitic - it wasn't a "small part of it" and it wasn't "open to misinterpretation", it was virulently and horribly antisemitic (and I speak as a pro-Palestinian, Israel back to pre-67 borders person) - even Jeremy Corbyn said after initially objecting to its removal: "I sincerely regret that I did not look more closely at the image I was commenting on, the contents of which are deeply disturbing and anti-Semitic." I don't see anything antisemitic in the ED mural, but to deny the antisemitism in the "Freedom for Humanity" mural - now that's "simplistic and wrong".

> heartblock Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------


>

> > As for bringing politics into whether art/music

> is

> > acceptable is a whole can of worms and asks the

> > question how far back in history one goes.

> Wagner,

> > Ezra Pound, TS Elliot and yep....Morrissey.

> Maybe

> > it would be a better use of people?s energy to

> be

> > concerned about and fight against the worrying

> > rise of the racist and anti Semitic far right

> > across Europe.


Indeed - and part of that would be opposing virulently antisemitic murals being allowed, no (The "Freedom of Humanity" one, not the ED one)? Art and literature are not separate from society and politics, they are intimately intertwined with it; giving an antisemitic work of art a free pass on the grounds that it's art is nonsensical. In terms of antisemitism in the art of the past (Wagner, Eliot - even George Orwell), well, we can interpret that in terms of the culture of the time and so forth and make our decisions. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be opposed every time it rears its foul head in our own time.

heartblock Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


>

> As for bringing politics into whether art/music is

> acceptable is a whole can of worms and asks the

> question how far back in history one goes. Wagner,

> Ezra Pound, TS Elliot and yep....Morrissey. Maybe

> it would be a better use of people?s energy to be

> concerned about and fight against the worrying

> rise of the racist and anti Semitic far right

> across Europe.


Holding someone to account for expressing blatantly antisemitic propaganda/conspiracy theories in public is not ?bringing politics into whether art/music is acceptable?, it IS part of the the fight against the rise in antisemitism. It is such a cop out to cite the ?well, that?s just how they thought back then, it?s art innit?? argument, which does not apply in any way to Mear One, who is doing this now. Why should he be rewarded with the opportunity to profit in any way with further exposure of his art work?


From the Guardian yesterday : ?Britons make 170,000 antisemitic Google searches a year?, many specifically referencing the Rothschild ?New World Order? conspiracy theory. I don?t understand how you can think the worrying rise in antisemitism and the far right is not connected to art such as Mear One?s ?Freedom of Humanity? mural, when his antisemitism was legitimised by being emblazoned across a wall in a public place?


https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/jan/11/uk-thousands-antisemitic-google-searches-per-year-research

Chthonic,



Yes, it bothers me a bit too. They were selling prints of 'That Mural' in Dulwich Village in a pop-up shop a while ago and I must admit the penny didn't drop then.

Unfortunately, Jeremy Corbyn didn't realize why it was painted out in the East End; a big political mistake for him, I think!


Cheers

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...