Australia's richest woman demands portrait removed

The woman needs to take some of her zillions of dollars and buy herself a sense of humour.

And let's not forget that her even bigger POS father would have wiped out the artist if he had his N@zi way:

While his style is not to my liking, he hasn't seemed to single her out and even if he had...her 'row' brings more attention to the painting which seems to be counterproductive.

My first reaction is that I would not want that super unflattering image of me hanging anywhere. Then I looked up the others that are hanging with it here and see that some of the others are also not very flattering. It's the artist's style, I get it, but I do think that he has some negative feelings about Gina Rinehart that are obvious by the painting done of her.

I’m not sure I’d want his portraits hanging in my home. But I like his style. My first glimpse, the portraits seemed whimsical like maybe Eric Carle art. Then you look closer and it’s semi macabre like some of the portraits are of zombies. Theres a quality to the work that has a dark edge. I’d wager his emotions about the person show thru as each portrait has different levels of whimsy vs macabre. And some just ooze hate, others do not.

And that’s what art is supposed to do to emit emotions to make us think. Very well done.

Cranky woman should have stfu and no one would have cared. Now the world knows what she looks like in her most hate filled moments. I’d never heard of her, now I know she’s cranky AF. Dumb move in her part.

Lest we forget all the Picasso people painted as cubes.. misshapen at that!

A couple of things.

1.  Art is truly in the eye of the beholder.

2.  I have no idea who this woman is and I don’t care.  IMO this is about her, or anyone else’s, rights when it comes to them individually. IMO.

3.  I have no idea who the artist is and I don’t care.  This is about when an artist goes too far.  You said above an artist is entitled to his “artistic interpretation without her approval”.  Is he?   Really?

4.  The article says “and kicked off a national debate about art and censorship.”.  For her to ask them to take down a painting of herself, that she did not commission or approve, a painting that could be seen as a flat out ugly picture of her is not censorship. .

5.  Also this notion that if she hadn’t said anything no one would have notice is kind of silly since the painting is on display in a gallery open to the public.  Someone would have noticed and said something.  They always do.

So it would appear in your world an artist has no limitations on his/her interpretation of a subject, and the subject has no rights when it comes to the final project especially if they didn’t commission the painting in the first place which appears to be the case with the painting in question.  The artist can do what he/she likes and screw the subject if that subject should happen to object to it and find it offensive.

If that is the case we are going to agree to disagree.  I believe she does have rights and if she found the picture of herself offense she had every right to ask for it to be taken down.  And they should taken it down.  Especially if he painted it without her permission.  And that’s not censorship.

Is this a portrait or a caricature like something you would get at a fair? If it’s a caricature, fine. It’s unflattering, and looks like something that he drew in a few minutes. I guess that I’m wondering if she sat for it, because if she did, she has every right to be pissed. Especially if she paid for it.

If she didn’t pay for it or sit for it, then no, I would just assume that it’s a caricature and laugh it off.

Here is a link to the Australian National Gallery where you can see all the portraits in the exhibition, as well as a bit about the artist and his work. It might give a bit more insight into how this particular portrait fits into the whole, and the aim of the artist in creating the work.

Vincent Namatjira - Australia in Colour

I disagree, the one of The Queen is the least flattering. And Elizabeth was a lovely woman. While Gina is not, so the portrait is not that much of a stretch. 

Which I think is the sticking point. She is sensitive about her looks, and wants to be portrayed in a flattering way. The poor woman is really giving away a lot of information about her weaknesses with all this. 

Yes, she is. And I don't mean ugly in the sense of her looks (though she is no stunner in that department) but rather in the sense of her character.