@Wilshire to World NewsEnglish • 7 months agoKing Charles portrait turned into Wallace and Gromit character by animal activistsinews.co.ukexternal-linkmessage-square35arrow-up1305arrow-down113cross-posted to: [email protected]
arrow-up1292arrow-down1external-linkKing Charles portrait turned into Wallace and Gromit character by animal activistsinews.co.uk@Wilshire to World NewsEnglish • 7 months agomessage-square35cross-posted to: [email protected]
minus-square@NotAnotherLemmyUserlinkEnglish148•7 months agoThe painting is protected by glass, so no damage was done to the painting. I read through way too many articles that failed to mention this important detail. http://bbc.com/news/articles/cydd9ye77rmo
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish52•7 months agoIt wouldn’t be a big loss. That painting is ugly as hell.
minus-squareDominusOfMegadeuslinkfedilinkEnglish76•7 months agoI think it’s a terrific representation of the horrifically bloody history of the British Monarchy
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish6•7 months agoYeah, I know the artist said some other bullshit to justify this choice, but to me it just looks like the blood their wealth was built on.
minus-square@PilferjinxlinkEnglish6•edit-27 months agoI like it because it’s hella odd as shit. King, embrace the fuck-my-shit-up results of this glorious piece.
minus-squareAviandelight linkEnglish5•7 months agoI can’t stop thinking about how someone got paid to make this painting.
minus-square@RizzRustboltlinkEnglish13•7 months agoHe’s pretty famous for making portraits. Here’s his portrait of Idris Elba.
minus-squareFuglyDucklinkEnglish9•7 months agoSee, that isn’t ugly. Which makes me think it was on purpose. Which makes me hate it a little less.
minus-square@RizzRustboltlinkEnglish9•7 months agoHe has a lot of upper class clients who he paints just as … starkly as the king’s portrait. It is very much on purpose.
minus-squareAviandelight linkEnglish-3•7 months agoNow that is a gorgeous balance of color and brush strokes. So why did the artist choose that awful color theme for Charles?
minus-square@chuckleslordlinkEnglish5•7 months agoRight? Spit right in the royal families face and they pay you for the privilege. Priceless and hilarious
minus-square@MoneolinkEnglish9•7 months agoSame shit that happens with every climate protest. “Climate protestors deface painting” etc.
The painting is protected by glass, so no damage was done to the painting.
I read through way too many articles that failed to mention this important detail.
http://bbc.com/news/articles/cydd9ye77rmo
It wouldn’t be a big loss. That painting is ugly as hell.
I think it’s a terrific representation of the horrifically bloody history of the British Monarchy
Yeah, I don’t think it was meant to be pretty lol
Yeah, I know the artist said some other bullshit to justify this choice, but to me it just looks like the blood their wealth was built on.
I like it
I like it because it’s hella odd as shit. King, embrace the fuck-my-shit-up results of this glorious piece.
I can’t stop thinking about how someone got paid to make this painting.
He’s pretty famous for making portraits. Here’s his portrait of Idris Elba.
See, that isn’t ugly.
Which makes me think it was on purpose. Which makes me hate it a little less.
He has a lot of upper class clients who he paints just as … starkly as the king’s portrait.
It is very much on purpose.
Now that is a gorgeous balance of color and brush strokes. So why did the artist choose that awful color theme for Charles?
Right? Spit right in the royal families face and they pay you for the privilege. Priceless and hilarious
Philistine
Same shit that happens with every climate protest. “Climate protestors deface painting” etc.
It’s much less engaging this way.