670

Australia’s richest woman seeks removal of her portrait from exhibition (www.cnn.com)

submitted 6 months ago by Wilshire@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

116 comments fedilink hide all child comments

(page 2) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] chemicalprophet@lemm.ee 8 points 6 months ago

Best of luck. Get back under your bridge! Shoo!

[-] flux@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I'm sure no artist will ever paint her in an unflatering way after hearing this. Did NGA leak this or did she make a public statement?

[-] ace_garp@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

The Picture of Gina Gray.

[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 7 points 6 months ago

Surely there's a billboard near her home that they can put that on?

[-] Thteven@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

Stay humble, bitch.

[-] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 4 points 6 months ago

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

That is some funny shit right there

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 4 points 6 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

That certainly seems to be the case with a painting by indigenous artist Vincent Namatjira, which includes a portrait of Australia’s richest person, mining magnate Gina Rinehart.

Other subjects in the piece include the late Queen Elizabeth II, American musician Jimi Hendrix, Australian Aboriginal rights activist Vincent Lingiari and the former Prime Minister of Australia Scott Morrison.

Australian media has reported that Rinehart approached the NGA’s director and chair to request the painting’s removal.

Australia’s National Association for the Visual Arts (NAVA) has spoken out to support Namatjira, CNN’s affiliate 9News has reported.

“While Rinehart has the right to express her opinions about the work, she does not have the authority to pressure the gallery into withdrawing the painting simply because she dislikes it,” NAVA’s executive director Penelope Benton said, according to 9News.

NAVA offered its “unwavering support” to National Gallery of Australia, 9News reported, stating that it was concerned that Rinehart’s demand to remove the portrait “sets a dangerous precedent for censorship and the stifling of creative expression.”

The original article contains 502 words, the summary contains 169 words. Saved 66%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] lovesickoyster@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

no sense of humour, so sad.

[-] secretlyaddictedtolinux@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Even if you want to be mad at her for being rich and being part of the oligopoly that is creating suffering and impending environmental doom, can you blame her for requesting the portrait be taken down? It's really unflattering and doesn't look that much like her. She didn't demand it, she asked. No one likes being humiliated, and that portrait probably made her feel terrible. There's nothing wrong with making a request, most people in her position would do the same.

She should create a foundation to called "The Institute for Reduced World Suffering" and make the charter bylaws include her picture on anything sent out, any website, any marketing material, and her photo must be on any material generated by the organization, and it can only be 1 type of picture that she chooses, then she should have an artist do a really flattering picture of her that makes her look nice. In the Institute's first year, she should offer 10 10,000 grants to those who study reduced world suffering and in announcing the grants opportunity she could include her picture in the advertisements. She could let anyone apply and she chooses the winners. She could turn a strange situation into something wonderful if she wants.

[-] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

Okay, I don't mean to be rude, but fucking what

[-] secretlyaddictedtolinux@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

if only i had written "stay humble, bitch" the people of lemmy would like me 😭

load more comments

this post was submitted on 17 May 2024

670 points (98.1% liked)

World News

39153 readers

1362 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.