The Greatest Person of the 20th Century?

[Nearly Sane]

Just to note that the BBC site for the programme both calls Turing the 'father of the computer' and states that he invented the computer. These may be incorrect simplifications, but I suspect that it was probably what motivated a lot of the votes.

[ProfessorDavey]

This is a public vote and the general perception is what is important in terms of the reasons people vote.

Indeed it will - and that general perception is likely to be driven by the campaign to pardon him and a 2014 blockbuster film, linked to the public recognition of Bletchley Park.

Even in academic circles, although there are now a plethora of Institutes, colleges, statues etc - pretty well every one is from the past 20 years, aligned with the campaign to pardon him and incidentally also the campaign to save Bletchley Park.

All I am saying is that his stratospheric rise to prominence in the past decade or so has little to do with the significance of his contributions to science.

[jeremyp]

Her impact was entirely bad.

No it wasn't. Like all prime ministers,  she did some bad things and some good things. 

[Nearly Sane]

Indeed it will - and that general perception is likely to be driven by the campaign to pardon him and a 2014 blockbuster film, linked to the public recognition of Bletchley Park.

Even in academic circles, although there are now a plethora of Institutes, colleges, statues etc - pretty well every one is from the past 20 years, aligned with the campaign to pardon him and incidentally also the campaign to save Bletchley Park.

All I am saying is that his stratospheric rise to prominence in the past decade or so has little to do with the significance of his contributions to science.

Except that isn't all you were saying was it? The first thing you suggested was that he won as some collective guilt of how his homosexuality was treated. When I pointed out the code breaking, you have now added that in as if it was in your original point. It wasn't. And now you are insisting that having changed your argument, you know why he won, which is simle assertion.

[Nearly Sane]

Her impact was entirely bad. As someone else pointed out, if we're ignoring morality and just going for historical impact, where are Hitler, Mao, and Stalin?

Comparing Thatcher to Hitler, Mao, and Stalin is specious nonsense.

[jeremyp]

I'm not sure that is why he won. It is probably a part of it but I would suggest that the people voting might have thought that computers, for which Turing is the representative in the list, had more impact on their day to day lives, and that the part he played during the war was more relevant to them. And that's without considering how good the advocate for each on the show wad.

In the field of computer science, John von Neumann is the outstanding person of the 20th century. I'd put Turing second.

[Nearly Sane]

In the field of computer science, John von Neumann is the outstanding person of the 20th century. I'd put Turing second.

I'm not arguing about that, I'm pointing out that the general perception that many people might have, and as was presented in the programme as being the 'father of computing' and 'inventing the computer' would mean people might vote for him rather than simply about how society treated his homosexuality. The lists are obviously Ukcentric so Turing got the aren't computers amazing vote.

[Steve H]

No it wasn't. Like all prime ministers,  she did some bad things and some good things.

Name the good things.

[jeremyp]

I would have gone for Mandela in the leaders category,

On balance, I think I agree with you. It's clear he did a magnificent job as South Africa's first democratically elected leader, and events since and elsewhere have shown just how good he was.

and Ali in the sports category was easy.

I really don't get that. Everybody assumes he was the greatest just because he said so.

For the activists, don't have a problem with MLK but might have gone for Ghandi.

Agreed

For scientists are, I'm with jeremyp and would have gone for Einstein.

Obviously!

The entertainers, of the choice avaiable, Chaplin, but thought Elvis should have been in there. I am a huge Bowie fan but not sure the global impact is as wide.

Of the choices there, I would go for Bowie.

The explorers category is just odd, but Shackleton seems bizarre. Of the choice there, Armstrong.

Shackleton because he was a proper explorer and when everything went wrong, he made an almost super human effort to rescue his crew. Armstrong was just the point man in a huge team effort. Had it not been for Gus Grissom's death in the Apollo 1 fire, it's likely few people would know who Neil Armstrong was.

The artists category, yet to be voted on seems a bit of a motley. Given a free vote, I would likely have chosen Dali. Of the four already chosen, Picasso.

I think Picasso is the outstanding artist of the 20th century.

[jeremyp]

Name the good things.

First one off the top of my head: destroying the ability of the NUM to hold the country to ransom.

[Aruntraveller]

Name the good things.

Going to be a little bit controversial here, but she did recognise the inportance of the EU to the UK economy and the need to be in it, contrary to the posturing she sometimes indulged in. I'd say that was a good thing.

[Steve H]

The artists category, yet to be voted on seems a bit of a motley. Given a free vote, I would likely have chosen Dali.

Dali painted that dreadful kitschy thing with a crucifix suspended over a shore with a fishing-boat, and was notorious in his last years for commercialising his art by signing hundreds of copies of his artwork. He was also notoriously a supporter of Franco.

[Nearly Sane]

I really don't get that. Everybody assumes he was the greatest just because he said so.

On the Ali point I don't think it is a question of people thinking he was the greatest sportsperson, rather I think it's his impact as an entertainer as well, and the fact that he was an activist. It's the overall impact that I think is being looked at here.

[ProfessorDavey]

Of the choices there, I would go for Bowie.

Weird selection and weird category - entertainers rather than artists (in a musical or theatrical/film sense). I don't think Bowie comes close to being a global icon in an artistic sense. I'm a fan, but ultimately he was an artistic magpie - good at taking other people's genre-changing musical ideas and creating a mainstream version. He was a follower of fashion, not a leader.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think Picasso is the outstanding artist of the 20th century.

I agree wholeheartedly - astonishingly talented and his creativity was so diverse.

[Nearly Sane]

Weird selection and weird category - entertainers rather than artists (in a musical or theatrical/film sense). I don't think Bowie comes close to being a global icon in an artistic sense. I'm a fan, but ultimately he was an artistic magpie - good at taking other people's genre-changing musical ideas and creating a mainstream version. He was a follower of fashion, not a leader.

I think almost all entertainers and artists follow fashion. Genuine novelty is astoundingly rare.

[Nearly Sane]

Dali painted that dreadful kitschy thing with a crucifix suspended over a shore with a fishing-boat, and was notorious in his last years for commercialising his art by signing hundreds of copies of his artwork. He was also notoriously a supporter of Franco.

I think in terms of impact the commercialisation is the point. I don't see anything wrong with art being commercialised, indeed it always had some elements of it. As to his politics, not entirely sure of the relevance.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think almost all entertainers and artists follow fashion. Genuine novelty is astoundingly rare.

Entertainers, sure. Artists, not so much - there are plenty that are genuinely groundbreaking and novel. And there is a missing piece - there is no place for the musical artist in their own right - musicians have been shoe-horned into the 'entertainers' section. There are plenty of musicians who wouldn't see themselves as entertainers, but as artists.

[Nearly Sane]

Entertainers, sure. Artists, not so much - there are plenty that are genuinely groundbreaking and novel. And there is a missing piece - there is no place for the musical artist in their own right - musicians have been shoe-horned into the 'entertainers' section. There are plenty of musicians who wouldn't see themselves as entertainers, but as artists.

And a few  'artists' who might see themselves primarily as entertainers? I wonder about Hitchcock here.

[ProfessorDavey]

And a few  'artists' who might see themselves primarily as entertainers? I wonder about Hitchcock here.

True, but there isn't really a place for a non-visual artist who didn't think of themselves primarily as an entertainer. Hence my comments (in agreement with Gordon) about Miles Davis being far more iconic and influential as a musician than Billy Holiday. But Holiday was certainly more of an entertainer.

[ProfessorDavey]

Shackleton because he was a proper explorer and when everything went wrong, he made an almost super human effort to rescue his crew.

I think Shackleton is a strong contender, but largely because of his leadership and heroism in adversity. What strikes me as strange is that Roald Amundsen isn't even seen as a contender. Surely his achievements as an explorer are markedly greater than Shackleton (first to the South Pole, first to both poles, first to traverse Northwest passage) - and unlike the latter he actually lost his life in an attempt to save others stranded in a polar expedition - and it wasn't even his expedition so he had no obligation to help.

But Amundsen wasn't British

[jeremyp]

Weird selection and weird category - entertainers rather than artists (in a musical or theatrical/film sense). I don't think Bowie comes close to being a global icon in an artistic sense.

Really?

I'm a fan, but ultimately he was an artistic magpie - good at taking other people's genre-changing musical ideas and creating a mainstream version. He was a follower of fashion, not a leader.

Double really?

[ProfessorDavey]

Really?

Yes really - I cannot think of anything that Bowie did that was genuinely groundbreaking. I love loads of his stuff, but groundbreaking, nope.

Double really?

Absolutely, he was fantastic at latching on to genres and new ideas and being a kind of key early adopter, turning groundbreaking stuff that might have been a bit underground into something much more mainstream.

[jeremyp]

But Amundsen wasn't British

More than that: Amundsen was the antagonist in the Scott of the Antarctic story. For British people like me who went to school in the 70's, his name only came up as the bad guy that beat Scott to the South Pole.

[jeremyp]

Yes really - I cannot think of anything that Bowie did that was genuinely groundbreaking.

Apart from all that music and the whole Ziggy Stardust and Aladin Sane stuff. Also, he and Mick Ronson produced what might be the best album of all time - Transformers.

Absolutely, he was fantastic at latching on to genres and new ideas and being a kind of key early adopter, turning groundbreaking stuff that might have been a bit underground into something much more mainstream.

I would agree that there are more influential individuals in 20th century music, but they generally did their work as part of a group e.g. John Lennon, Lou Reed and they weren't on the list.