In Autumn 2022 SRO Audiences (who manage applications to watch UK studio-based TV shows) posted about a show titled (at that time) Art Trouble.

The blurb said:

Come and join Jimmy Carr and some special guests for an entertaining and explosive event like no other.

As part of Channel 4’s celebration of its 40^th birthday, Jimmy will be your guide on a mystery tour of offensive art and artworks by cancelled artists – and asking YOU what should be done with them. There’ll be controversy, laughter, tough choices, games and surprises.

It was part of a series of C4 shows that were produced under the banner Truth and Dare.

Filming was on October 12^th 2022 at Printworks London, Surrey Quays Road. The fireworks really started after it was broadcast on October 25^th.

It had now been officially named as: Jimmy Carr Destroys Art.

The premise of the 60-minute show was to examine cancel culture, at a time when statues were being pulled down and muppets were throwing soup over a Van Gogh.

Jimmy, the presenter, had a live studio audience who stood and watched as 2 advocates each spoke about pieces of art and said why they should or should NOT be destroyed. The audience then had to decide what would happen to each piece, deciding whether the morality of the creator affected how important it may be to keep the piece.

Ian Katz, C4’s Director of Programming, said the programme “celebrates the channel’s tradition of iconoclasm and irreverence”.

The aim was to be the opposite of the anonymity of social media – because the audience were being forced to engage in front of peers and on TV.

The audience was chosen to be a societal mix but we still have the issue of where exactly does each person’s moral compass point. And should art ever be destroyed – or just displayed with an explanation of why it may be problematic?

Having re-watched it I found it a really thought-provoking programme and some of the studio audience admitted that they were more moved / disturbed than they had expected to be.

Jimmy lightened the mood a couple of times with jokes but, otherwise, had his intellectual hat on and demonstrated a good grasp of both the artworks and the issues surrounding them.

In some ways the show was let down by the advocates in that they didn’t stick to the script. This was supposed to be about whether what sort of a person an artist turned out to be made their work “worth saving”. Unfortunately, the discussions drifted off into the territory of “it’s rubbish anyway” or was used to make a point about a white man stealing ideas from another culture and not acknowledging it. As if Pablo Picasso could have foreseen the concept of cultural appropriation.

I’ll try to not tell you the outcome of each debate, in case you want to watch it (UK only).

It’s available to watch on C4 – here

Debate 1

Yinka Bokinni introduced 2 pieces:

• “Outback with bush shack at sunset” – Rolf Harris. Bought for £7,250
• 9 “obscene” prints by Eric Gill. Bought for £3,000

The crimes both men were accused of were spelt out and then Dom Joly spoke for destroying the Harris and Dr Nina Power wanted to destroy the Gill.

Using coloured paddles, the audience voted for the one to destroy (with a 70-30 split) and then had to be moved back a safe distance for someone to take a flame thrower to it.

Debate 2

Yinka introduced 2 more pieces:

• Photographer Sally Mann’s naked daughter, aged 4 (b/w photo). 1 image from a collection of 65. Bought for £14,750
• Myra – a limited-edition Marcus Harvey print of Myra Hindley’s mugshot. Bought for £1,140.

Background on the protests against the pictures were explained and Janet Street-Porter asked for the Mann to be destroyed and Rose Davey the portrait of Myra.

The audience were given paintballs and had to deposit them in the bucket in front of the art work that they wanted to destroy. One of the pieces was destroyed by 2 men splattering it with paintballs until it shredded.

The original exhibition of the Hindley (in 1997) had been attended by both Janet and Jimmy and they touched on the strong reaction that it had provoked at the time, both themselves and the public.

Update 2025-09: Interesting article here – Sally put on a photo exhibition in Fort Worth, Texas. Police have seized the photos.

Debate 3

Yinka introduced 1 piece:

• Watercolour “belltower and cloister” 1921 – signed Adolf Hitler. Bought from an auction house for £11,500

Hitler’s artistic background and a brief overview of his crimes were explained. The auction house authenticated it – although many, many paintings on the market claim the same provenance and, after the show, some said this was NOT painted by Hitler.

Yinka said “some may doubt the story – but – it’s being TRADED as a Hitler”.

Dane Baptiste advocated for destruction and Jolyon Rubinstein argued for keeping it.

The only question here was keep or destroy. Would destroying it send a message on not perpetuating the trade in Nazi memorabilia. Or should we utilise it in an exhibition somewhere to “never forget”.

This time the audience that wanted to save the art moved to the right (the “far-right”) and those that wanted destruction to the left.

I’ll have to reveal this one as it was all over the press – the Hitler was destroyed by being fed down into a row of 7 chain saws.

Debate 4

Yinka introduced 2 pieces:

• Misaligned mind – a sculpture by Rachel Dolezal 2020. Bought for £2,450.
• The Dis-United States – A Black Business. First edition cartoon from John Leech 1856 depicting a caricature of a black slave.

Emma Dabiri argued to get rid of the Dolezal and Dr Nina Power wanted the cartoon destroyed.

The audience again had to move one way or another and were given time to view the pieces. The split was around 80-20.

Andrew Doyle

Chat with Andrew about cancel culture and art destruction. Was it right to remove a statue of Jimmy Savile? Should we be absolutist or are some people / artworks too important to “cancel”?

Debate 5

Yinka introduced 1 piece:

• Lampe femme / Woman lamp – earthenware vase by Picasso – bought for £25,200

Janet Street-Porter argued to keep it and Dane Baptiste for destruction.

The Picasso was placed under a heavy weight with strings attached and anyone that thought it should be destroyed had to cut a string.

What did the media think?

Without even seeing it – they hated it. Denouncing it as “scraping the bottom of the barrel”, “no laughing matter” and a “desperate plea for attention”.

Perhaps publicising the show with pictures of Jimmy posing with a hammer and a lit match was, with hindsight, not a great idea as it gave the impression that this may not be something to take seriously. This was borne out by some of the discussion on X where people suggested that even the title was giving the wrong impression.

It would seem, ironically, that they were failing to separate the Presenter from the show (the artist from the art). They were judging Jimmy on his comedy persona and coming to the conclusion that the programme would be “idiotic” and that choosing him was “inflammatory” and that they were “making light entertainment out of trauma”.

Actually, it wasn’t light entertainment at all. But all of this was stirred up, mostly before the show had even aired.

An opinion piece in iNews thought it was a healthy debate to be having (pretty much a lone voice, in the press) and it trended on X and in the press for days.

Audience reach

A couple of days after its release the only viewing figures that I could see mentioned were that 500,000 had watched it live. This OFCOM piece mentions that Truth and Dare (5 shows) had reached 13.3% of TV audiences and 1.2m streaming views, over the campaign period. But I cannot find any hard data, beyond this.

On social media some people def “got” it and wanted Jimmy to do more shows like this.

Personally – I liked it.