This is a weird one - the Q anonsense right has its own list of statues it wants to see come down. And, to be honest, I'm not sure I disagree with them (on this one single topic). Long thought Gill was a really dodgy character. Though, on the other hand, it doesn't seem consistent with the right-wing complaints about slave-owner statues being targeted. Why are some statues legitimate targets and not others? Slavery and sexual-abuse were closely related.
Edit - I guess there's a distinction between objecting to a statue because of who it's a statue _of_ and who it's created by. People would presumably defend Gill's statues on the basis they have intrinsic artistic merit, which is clearly not the case for most of those Confederacy statues and the like. Still, I find it confusing, given just how creepy Gill was.
Gill also designed the font used, among other things, on the "classic" London Underground map.
Edit - I guess there's a distinction between objecting to a statue because of who it's a statue _of_ and who it's created by. People would presumably defend Gill's statues on the basis they have intrinsic artistic merit, which is clearly not the case for most of those Confederacy statues and the like. Still, I find it confusing, given just how creepy Gill was.
Gill also designed the font used, among other things, on the "classic" London Underground map.
Facebook
Twitter