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!