Recently, I've been researching the life of Picasso: great artist, truly appalling human. In the early 1900s, before painting Demoiselles, he and his lover Fernande Olivier lived in a draughty studio in Paris, flat broke. They adopted a 13-year-old girl from a convent. Raymonde.

Three months later, Olivier discovered that Picasso had been doing pornographic sketches of the girl. She was, I repeat, a 13-year-old orphan. Picasso was supposed to be acting as her adopted father. Raymonde was sent back to the convent.

Here is the Royal Academy's statement on removing flower patches sewn by contemporary artist Jess De Wahls: "The RA is committed to equality, diversity and inclusion and does not knowingly support artists who act in conflict with these values."

Here is the Royal Academy's most recent blockbuster exhibition, Picasso and Paper.

Now, answer me this: how does this square with the statement - "The RA is committed to equality, diversity and inclusion and does not knowingly support artists who act in conflict with these values"? What Picasso did in 1907 would be a crime today.

This is why "cancel culture" drives people mad. There are no rules! There is no consistency! Either the RA thinks that artists' personal lives have to pass a purity test - in which case it's a no to Picasso - or they don't, in which case they should stock Jess de Wahls.

Me reading the RA statement:

Update. My other half informs me that Rolf Harris's daughter tried this hopeful line of defence after his conviction. The notable thing here is that this is implicitly treated as absurd not in itself, but because of the idea you might bracket Rolf Harris with Picasso.

For more on this, this essay is highly recommended: https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2017/11/20/art-monstrous-men/