The Return of a Controversial Sculpture by an Accused Abuser to Public Display in London
Contested Heritage and Public Art: The Case of Eric Gill’s “Prospero and Ariel” Statue at the BBC
In the heart of London, perched above the entrance to the BBC’s Broadcasting House, stands a sculpture both admired for its artistic merit and condemned for its association with a deeply troubling legacy. “Prospero and Ariel,” a 1932 work by celebrated British sculptor and typeface designer Eric Gill, has become a focal point in the ongoing debate surrounding art, morality, and public memory.
This article explores the controversy around the statue, its recent restoration, and what the debate signifies for public institutions grappling with complicated cultural legacies.
The Artwork and Its Legacy
Eric Gill’s “Prospero and Ariel” statue was commissioned in 1931 and installed in 1933 as part of the BBC’s architectural embellishments on Broadcasting House. The sculpture depicts two key characters from William Shakespeare’s last play, The Tempest (1610–11): Prospero, the powerful magician, and Ariel, his airy spirit-servant. The work is one of two by Gill in the BBC collection, the other being “The Sower,” located inside the building.
While originally celebrated for its artistic beauty and modernist style, the statue became the subject of intense public scrutiny after disturbing personal revelations about the artist came to light. In the 1990s, decades after Gill’s death in 1940, cultural historian Fiona MacCarthy discovered Gill’s personal diaries, which detailed his sexual abuse of his daughters and family dog.
Public Outcry and Acts of Vandalism
Gill’s diaries transformed public perception of his work, affecting how institutions and the public engage with his legacy. The BBC’s continued display of “Prospero and Ariel” has been met with condemnation from survivor advocacy organizations and human rights groups. In 2013, Fay Maxted, Chief Executive of The Survivors Trust, stated that maintaining such a statue in a prominent public space was “unacceptable” and offensive to survivors of abuse.
Protests intensified in 2022 and 2023, when activist David Chick climbed the facade of Broadcasting House and attacked the statue with a hammer in two separate incidents. Chick, who pleaded not guilty to charges related to damaging the statue, has been legally prohibited from approaching the BBC building. His actions, while illegal, reflect a larger social demand for cultural accountability.
The BBC’s Response and Restoration Efforts
Despite widespread calls for the statue’s permanent removal, the BBC decided to restore the work, a move that has sparked further debate. The restoration, done in consultation with Westminster City Council and Historic England (the public body responsible for preserving England’s heritage), cost the BBC over £529,000 ($686,667). These costs were not covered by insurance but were instead paid directly by the broadcaster.
To address public concerns, the BBC installed a clear protective shield around the statue and placed a QR code at the site. The QR code offers visitors historical context related to the statue and the controversy surrounding Gill, although it notably omits explicit mention of the sexual abuse documented in Gill’s diaries.
Contested Heritage and Legal Constraints
The debate around “Prospero and Ariel” is further complicated by the statue’s status as a culturally significant artifact. The sculpture is protected under a Grade II* listing — a designation by Historic England that marks buildings and elements of historic or architectural interest. Alterations or removal of Grade II* listed structures are heavily regulated, limiting options the BBC can pursue without formal approval.
Historic England has stated that its role is to advise on “contested heritage,” underscoring the importance of maintaining historical artifacts while also encouraging institutions to provide appropriate context.
Ethics, Art, and Accountability
The controversy over Gill’s statue is emblematic of a broader reevaluation of public monuments and the complex legacies of the figures they immortalize. Do we judge art separately from the artist? Can public art created by morally bankrupt individuals remain on display, especially when the public institution hosting the work — such as the BBC, itself tainted by scandals like the Jimmy Savile case — is already under scrutiny for its handling of abusive behavior?
The BBC insists that preserving the statue is not an endorsement of Gill’s actions. “The BBC in no way condones Gill’s abusive behaviour, but it draws a line between the actions of Gill, and the status of these artworks,” the broadcaster said in a public statement shared with Hyperallergic.
Yet critics argue that failing to fully inform the public about the artist’s background — by omitting details of his abuse in informational placards and materials — contributes to ongoing cultural harm.
Moving Forward: What Should Be Done?
Institutions across the globe are currently being challenged to reconsider the works they display and the voices they amplify. Some museums have opted for temporary removals, renaming, or adding clarifying context to controversial works. Others have turned to community panels or public votes to determine the fate of contested heritage.
In the