Australian billionaire Gina Rinehart has demanded a removal of an artwork of her at the National Gallery of Australia.

http://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/adelaide-breakfast/gina-rinehart-portrait/103855710

Vincent Namatjira the artist involved in creating the artwork in question has responded to the claims, with the National Gallery of Australia stating they will not be taking down the artwork.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/australian-billionaire-gina-rinehart-demands-national-gallery-remove-her-portrait/news-story/3f886628dd16f8b545acf2945e241b10

As a person who is opposed to a cancel culture, I don't supporting taking down the artwork in principle, but that's just my view at this stage.

What do you think?

From what's on display on the internet, I find this & some selective other portrays a sobering example of Left Wing/Woke nastiness ! Why doesn't this "Artist" for want of a more apt description paint a portrait of the perpetual miserable expression Lois O'Donahue ? It clearly shows on which side of the fence racism is bred & fostered !
I'm not a fan of insanely wealthy people but at least Gina Rhinehart employs thousands of people, how many does this "(F)Artist" provide with a living ?

What happened to Joshua Smith's portrait? The protocol should be clear for such matters. Personally I think the subject should have the final word.

Were I Mrs. Rinehart, I wouldn't be pleased either.

It is not a portrait, it is an ugly and insulting daub.

Vincent Namatjira is a crap painter and vandal. If he is any relation to Albert Namatjira, that man would be spinning in his grave.

Just as there are laws to deal with written slander and libel, there should be laws for hideous depictions of people.

And, the jerk has insulted a person who has done many things for woke, whingeing aborigines.

Good Morning Nathan,

Thank you for giving us the links to the portrait.

I actually like the portrait and I would be flattered to
have an Archibald Prize Winning artist consider me worthy
of his talent and time to do a portrait of me and then have
it as part of a collection of prominent figures in Australia
that include King Charles, Adam Goodes, Scott Morrison, the
late Queen Elizabeth, Cathy Freeman, to name just a few.

Art is of course subjective. However, when you are such
a wealthy, powerful, and significant figure - you will
inevitably draw attention.

The artist explained that he painted the world as he saw it.

"I paint people who are... significant - people who have had
an influence on this country and on me personally, whether
directly or indirectly whether for good or for bad."

We should engage with art, not quash it. The portrait should
stay in the gallery and encourage further interest.
But perhaps Gina Rhinehart is fully aware of what she's
doing? Her request has certainly brought more attention to
the gallery and its art works. Job well done.

A spokes person for the National Association for The
Visual Arts said that Gina Rhinehart had the right to
express her opinions about the artworks but that:

" Exerting pressure on the gallery for removal of the
painting because she dislikes it, sets a dangerous
precedent for censorship and the stifling of creative
expression."

The National Gallery ultimately rejected the removal
request. Although it does encourage discussion about its
artworks. And Vincent Namatjira's caricatures are well
known in art circles and will probably attract many
more visitors to the Gallery.

dangerous
precedent for censorship and the stifling of creative
expression."
Foxy,
Ffs, allowing such an insult is the real dangerous precedent here not the subject's dislike ! This portrait has nothing whatsoever to do with painting, it is a deliberate insult ! And, you of all do-gooders out there defends it. You have just shown us all what a nasty hypocrite you actually are. Shame on you doesn't really suffice !

ttbn,

<<It is not a portrait, it is an ugly and insulting daub.>>

Isn't art meant to be in the eye of the beholder?

It is just a painting too at the end of the day. I don't always like all art out there and I try and keep an open mind, but that's just my opinion.

Daub art example: http://www.saatchiart.com/print/Painting-Combination-13/92803/4638630/view

Finally, I certainly do not support a cancel culture here and the removal of artworks. It's a slippery slope pathway I really don't want to go down.

How many more times do people like me have to say 'no' to a cancel culture? We're pulling our hair out!

http://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c72ly753dy4o

Namatjira's childish rubbish is not a ‘portrait’: it is a caricature, where the features of the victim are exaggerated for comic effect. And, make no mistake, Mrs. Rinehart is a victim of this talentless and insolent ratbag hanging onto the coattails of his great-grandfather, who did have talent.

Little Vinny was probably emboldened in his stupidity by getting an Archibald Prize in 2020 for a hideous painting of an aboriginal footballer, himself, some footprints and a belly button.

Mrs. Rinehart is also a benefactor of the gallery displaying this rubbish. She should treat the gallery the same way she treated the netballers who were also disrespectful to her and her money.

Just imagine the indignant squeals that would go up if someone displayed an ugly painting of Vincent the blackfella. That would be different from insulting a white woman who has done more for this country, including aborigines, than this peanut has done, and will ever do.

Isn't art meant to be in the eye of the beholder?
NathanJ,
Indeed it is however this "Artist" didn't intend it as Art for obvious reasons so, even he doesn't see it as Art, he sees it as what he intended it to be- an insult !
Those who support him should no longer count on the financial support of private donors with sense !

You can read all about silliness and nastiness by taking a look at what happened with the court case challenging William Dobell's winning portrait of Joshua Smith. Attacking art and artists misses the point.

Portraiture is as much about the subject as the artist. Both should have right of veto, especially where the work is on public display.

https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/the-william-dobell-portrait-that-broke-a-friendship-and-divided-a-nation-20141016-10r84z.html

At the National Gallery they removed the portrait of Gina Rhinoceros, and replaced it with a portrait of Miss Piggy, three weeks ago....no ones noticed yet!

no ones noticed yet!
Paul1405,
Says the Swedish Chef !

Art might very well be in the eye of the beholder (another tired old cliche used to avoid discussion). So, in my eye, this piece of 'art' is trash. As is the latest painting of HM the King by an actual, professional and accomplished painter.

The difference is that King Charles 'likes' his trashy portrait, because he has to, and Mrs. Rinehart hates hers because she doesn't have to.

Namatjira has obviously committed a racist, hate-filled act against a rich white woman.

What a pathetic little creep he is.

"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly
wounding because I think, well, if they attack me
personally, it means they have not a single political
argument left."

Margaret Thatcher.

Whatever blows your sails gentlemen.
Whatever floats your boat.
Whatever rocks your socks.
Whatever sizzles your bacon.

And the band plays on.

BTW: This Art Collection in the National Gallery is
not meant to be a mirror image of its subjects. It's
a collection of caricatures, and should not be taken
seriously - unless of course one has an enormous ego
and no sense of humour. Which I suspect perhaps the case
with Ms Rhinehart. I hope not. I hope she's only stirring
up interest in the art for the Gallery's benefit.

She's an intelligent lady, and knows what she's doing.

A mirror-image portrait would be out of place in that
art collection of caricatures.

Here folks is the exhibition of some of acclaimed
artist Vincent Namajira's works.

http://nga.gov.au/exhibitions/vincent-namatjira-australia-in-colour/

It charts the artist's career, revealing the power of his
painting and the establishment of him as a satirical chronicler
of Australian identity. We're told that his paintings offer a
wry look at the politics of history, power, and leadership
from a contemporary Aboriginal perspective.

The artist was a winner of 2019 Ramsay Art Prize. He was
the first Indigenous to win the Archibald Prize in 2020.
And he was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia (OAM),
in 2020 for his contribution to Indigenous Visual Art.

His great grandfather was the famous artist - Albert Namatjira.

and should not be taken
seriously
Foxy,
sounds good to me so, when will we see Leftist Bureaucrats & other hangers-on with such demeaning expressions in such "paintings" ?

Indyvidual,

Unfortunately for you that will never happen.
With your small screen you will never be capable
of seeing the bigger picture.

" To be able to take the next generation, my daughters,
and my granddaughters, to better understand and respect
the people in the Outback and experience the wonders of
our country, would definitely be one of my favourite
duties."

Gind Rinehart.

Hear, hear!

It is said that the reason Picasso started painting his abstract art was because he was able to draw fingers and so started drawing in a way that would hide his deficiencies.

When I see a painting like the Reinhart one, I see an artist who hasn't the technical ability to draw a human face and hides it by drawing a caricature. 'A Plot of her Own' (by Loren Entz) it ain't.

Still, it shouldn't be removed. Censorship is never right. It can be left up as another marker (yet another marker) of the decline of elite thought.

PS - as to fingers, its rather interesting that AI also struggles to draw fingers. Indeed one of the first things you should do when trying to determine if a picture is AI generated is to look at the hands of the subject. They'll often be distorted.

Wasn't the Voice all about giving people a say in matters directly affecting them? It would be nice if that sentiment could be more broadly applied.

Caricature tends to apply to public figures and relates to public issues that involve them. That might be why Harry Seidler's defamation actions against Patrick Cook for his famous cartoon were thrown out.

https://www.archsoc.com/kcas/harry-seidler-bully.html

Aside from any legal implications, displaying a portrait of someone publicly against their wishes would seem rude and disrespectful; the act of a bully reveling in his humiliation of another.

Having looked at Namatjira's piece, I think it quite a work of art: Engaging, fun, colourful, and Gina is portrayed no differently from the other subjects. Given the other subjects I think she might even feel honoured to be placed in such company. Nonetheless, art is subjective and I think it a shame all was not sorted before the work went on display.

"Vincent Namatjira: Australia in colour,"
is a Tarnanthi touring exhibition presented by the Art
Gallery of South Australia in partnership with the
National Gallery of Australia. Supported by Tarnanthi
Principal Partner BHP and the Government of South
Australia.

Hi Foxy,

Back in 2016 my wife had her portrait painted (it was a gift to her from a very dear friend) it was done by one of Australia's leading "Pop Artists" Te doesn't like it, she has it hanging in the sun room facing the back door. I insisted it had to be hung up as I happen to like it, its certainly not grotesque, but its style is somewhat accentuating of her features. Unfortunately this site doesn't have anyway to post pics as I'd like your comment.

Hi Paul,

I'm sure that we all have had " portraits" done that we've
cringed at. Be it passport photos, or just photos
in general. We see ourselves one way, the camera
sees us in another way. And, of course artists - have their
interpretations. As Vincent Namatjira's work shows us.

Vincent Namatjira's style is that of a satirist.
His aim is more
than just painting flattering mirror image portraits.
He looks at the politics of history, power, and
leadership, from a modern Aboriginal perspective.

He's not out to gain approval. He presents things as he sees
them from a very subjective point of view.

I wish I could see your wife's portrait. I imagine her to be
a lady of strong character which would be reflected in the
art work. I guess with art - it's not about what you look at
that matters, it's what you see.

Portraits are personal representations. They are very different from photographs taken for IDs and passports.

I'm sure that natural historians saw great scientific value in the skeletal remains they collected and studied, but was it right for them to to take those remains without permission?

Hi Fester,

There are thousands, if not millions of Indigenous
items and artifacts locked up in institutions all
over the world.

The repatriation of cultural items and remains held in
museums continue to this day. In the Natural History
Museum and the British Museum alone it's been
discovered that 1,500 artifacts have been stolen for
them - over the past decade.
Museums refuse to give them up saying
the artifacts are safer in their possession.

There needs to be a good rationale for exhibiting human
remains. It's one thing to have human remains accessible to
researchers who have a strong scientific case for accessing
them, but it's quite another which is disrespectful to, and
harmful in many cultures to use the displays for material
gains.

I do believe the artists Henry VIII commissioned to paint the portrait of Anne of Cleves, by travelling to Germany before Henry and she were to be married. Henry had his head cut off, not because he didn't painted Anne as a beautiful woman, he did that, no because he didn't paint her ugly as Henry discovered when Anne finally arrived in England from Germany. Around that time The name escapes me, it might have been Thomas Cromwell,he demanded his portrait artists paint him literally warts and all, something not done to a noble or high ranking person at that time. A portrait was used to impress ones friends etc.

p/s Anne Of Cleves had the last laugh, she out lived the gout riddled Henry by about 16 years.

Hi Paul,

Queen Elizabeth I lived a long life. As did Queen
Elizabeth II. Both powerful women. Their portraits
need to be taken in context.

http://npg.org.uk.collections/search/portrait/mw02075/queen-elizabeth-I

http://portrait.gov.au/exhibitions/glorious-2012

OOOps, here's Elizabeth I's link again:

http://npg.org/uk/collections/search/portrait/mw02075/Queen-Elizabeth-I

ttbn,

<<Art might very well be in the eye of the beholder (another tired old cliche used to avoid discussion).>>

Fine to a certain degree, but I'm not the only one who has used this term before, it's been used by a lot of people.

Some like this artwork of Gina Rinehart, others don't and may I add, this is not the only artwork someone hasn't liked of themselves. I'm sure there are plenty - but they haven't involved big name players like Gina Rinehart and so they've got no attention as a result.

Also this is an artwork of PM Anthony Albanese. Check for yourself to see what you think of it. Some will like it, some won't. To me its a bit garish, but that's just me and we can't control artists in Australia and censor them, we're not a dictatorship.

http://bluethumb.com.au/brett-williams-art/Artwork/portrait-of-anthony-albanese-no-2-2018

I would like to say though lots of people will now be visiting the art exhibition at the national gallery to see the Gina Rinehart artwork. So, I don't think the objection has provided Gina any benefit in real terms. If anything it has backfired. It's also provided a lot of free publicity to the artist.

That's a very interesting tale Foxy. The "not the one in the picture" dupe is still alive and well, but did the portrait artist personally accompany the portrait back to King Henry?

And fortunately it wasn't Holbein who lost his head but Cromwell for arranging the marriage. Nor was Anne ugly, just not besotted with a bald and obese 48 year old man. Many contemporaries thought the portrait a good likeness.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/AnneOfCleves

.

Dear diver dan,

.

There are many different types and styles of portraits : realistic, character, satirical, comical, etc., and many different styles and techniques : drawings, paintings etc. on various supports with various substances and material.

Classical or realistic portraits are the official type such as those realised for members of royalty, nobility and society’s narcissistic elite. They are flattering images of the subjects represented.

That is, perhaps, what the Australian mining magnate and heiress, Gina Rinehart, would have preferred.

However, a good portrait should reveal the personality of the subject and capture the viewers' attention. That is rarely the case of classical or realistic portraits that seek to render a flattering image of the subject represented.

What we see in Vincent Namatjira’s portrait of Gina Rinehart is not as she sees herself, nor is it necessarily as she really is.

It is how the artist, Vincent Namatjira, sees her.

That is what she does not like and does not want people to see.

.

.

Oops ! Sorry, that was meant for NathanJ who started this thread.

.

Thanks for sharing why Gina didn't like her portrait. It must be quite useful to have such insight. I think a wish enough. A reason should not be required.

Me thinks you're right there Fester, but if Henry thought you were ugly then it might have been a good idea to agree you're ugly! Henry tended to believe there were only two opinions, his opinion being the right opinion, and your opinion, the wrong opinion, and dear old Henry didn't like wrong opinions, they kept the executioner busy.

Gina Rinehart has certainly done a good job of
attracting people to the Art Gallery and the artist.
I still suspect that perhaps that was her intention all
along.

"Gina Rinehart has certainly done a good job of
attracting people to the Art Gallery"

Its called the Streisand effect... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

Actually, it's called "Art Appreciation!"

If you look up you see the point going over your head.

Nah, the point is in a hole in the ground.

Who can forget the Rev Fred Nong telling all and sundry; "There is an obscene painting at that arty-farty gallery in Kings Cross". A gallery hardly anyone, other than the arty-farty's types ever went near. The next day the gallery needed "crowd control", with the huge number of people want to see this bit of Fred Nong obscenity! Fred was outside with his little band of happy clappers, shouting; "Don't go in, you'll go blind!"

" The next day the gallery needed "crowd control"

Yep, the Streisand Effect. Explain it to Foxy.

Explain it to Foxy.
mHaze,
We've been unsuccessful in that over the years but as she herself suggested in another post, 'never give up' !

Indyvidual,

I did not say "Never give up."

What I said was "Give it all you've got."

For some that may not be much.

mhaze and Foxy,

I think this matter is a combination of the Streisand effect and appreciation of art - not one or the other.

I don't see people going to an art gallery who aren't that interested in art. So, it's only going to appeal to those into art already to a certain degree, but the free publicity given by Gina Rinehart will certainly see more people attend the exhibition - including some who would not have gone as they knew nothing about the artwork or the exhibition in question.

Hi Nathan,

I think that Gina Rinehart's objections to her
portrait certainly drew attention to the art work
and the artist. Which is a good result all round.

No, I'm not opposed to censorship.

You're arguing that if I see Albo on the cover of the newspaper and I take out my pen, give him horns, fangs, forked-tongue, a Hitler mustache and a big dick and balls on his forehead that I should be arrested or something.
- Quite honestly, I think my Albo improvements would be fair artistic expression, with at least some level of artistic value...
What if I actually drew Albo as a circus clown freehand, would that be considered free and fair artistic expression, or offensive and banned?

Hi AC,

In art - it's what you see.

Of course each of us may see things differently.

What if I drew Albo dancing his butt off in drag makeup and a pink tutu at the Sydney Mardi Gras, is that artistic expression or offensive and banned?

Years back, lets face it - Gina was really ugly.
(And if you're listening Gina, I'm not saying it to be mean)
She doesn't seem to look as bad nowadays.

But let's take Clive Palmer, he was once an extremely fat man.
Does he have the right to demand drawings or caricatures that display him as an extremely fat man be taken down from a public display?

What if I want to draw Netanyahu with a Hitler moustache?
Is that not free artistic expression?

Hi AC,

Hitler wore a toothbrush moustache, first popularised in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It was then introduced into Europe. Charlie Chaplin was another famous wearer of a toothbrush moustache. I do believe its making a comeback these days with a couple of hard line Zionist politicians.

Hi Paul,

'toothbrush moustache'
- I didn't know it was called that, and I didn't know it was once a somewhat popular thing.

Thanks for teaching me something new.

Hi AC,

You can draw whoever you like, however you like.
But getting an art gallery to display your work,
or even the panel of the Sydney Mardi Gras, may be
a different story.

Good Luck though.

Is that not free artistic expression?
Armchair Critic,
No, that is anarchistic antagonism !