• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      14
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Its really wierd to me that Streisand effect became the accepted name for this.

      For example the 1st child’s play is saw In the UK was 3. Purely because it was banned

      Attempt at clarification edit

      I had no interest in yhe child’s plat movie franchises until the 3rd movie because it was banned

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        The first child’s play movie wasn’t saw, the UK definitely wasn’t 3 when you had seen it, and saw was never banned in the UK although Grotesque and several Chainsaw Massacre films were. /s

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I haven’t seen a single saw. Just not interested.

          Childs play 3 was absolutely banned in the UK I’d rather not link the reasons why its pretty grotesque though

          That said I just learned the ban was lifted in 2002

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        311 year ago

        It’s a catchy name and it was among the first examples of the effect in the internet era that amplified the effect many fold. There is no reason for me to know about Streisand’s house and there is no reason for me to know about this painting. I have only know about them because the internet exists.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          I have only know about them because the internet exists.

          It’s even better than that, even with the internet existing I’d have never interacted with these bits whatsoever if it weren’t for the person in question throwing a hissy fit and trying to get something deleted off the internet. If they just laughed it off and let it slide it would have gotten about 1% of the attention currently being brought to it. We only know about this painting because she was so offended by it that she decreed no one must know about it. We only know about Barbara Streisand’s house because she decreed no one must know about it.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        191 year ago

        Can you repeat or clarify that second sentence? I’m pretty sure there was a typo or mistyped word somewhere, and usually I wouldn’t mention it, but in this case I actually can’t interpret the meaning.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            41 year ago

            Perfectly clear now, thanks. :)

            I got thrown because “is” came before “saw”, which is also a scary movie, and I just couldn’t disambiguate.

        • The Octonaut
          link
          fedilink
          English
          351 year ago

          The first movie in the Child’s Play movie franchise they saw was the third iteration, Child’s Play 3; they were motivated to see it because it was banned, an ironic backfire of the censorship decision.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            111 year ago

            Thanks! Knowing the meaning now, it was the “I” to “is” typo that threw me off, since “saw” is also the type of movie to get banned.

  • AutoTL;DRB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    41 year 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!

        • @[email protected]
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          English
          191 year ago

          No, you’re thinking of Kristen Bell who is the “let it go” lady. Streisand is the one who famously lost out on Worst Actress to Kristen Stewart for her role in The Guilt Trip, in which she played the unbelievably original role of “obnoxious Jewish mother.”

          She also released at least one musical album back in the 1900s and appeared in a few movies.

          One such movie included Streisand portraying the daughter of a disappointed rabbi who also questions her father’s ability to hear her.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            111 year ago

            Kristen Bell played Anna in Frozen, did not sing “Let it go”. That was by Elsa, played by Idina Menzel.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            91 year ago

            She also released at least one musical album back in the 1900s and appeared in a few movies.

            Damn, Streisand is looking good for a 182-year-old

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      51 year ago

      It doesn’t really matter. She’ll wield her power, get her way and then go on living her toxic existence feeling like she won even though, quantitatively, more people think she’s a cunt.

      But we can all tell ourselves this somehow makes a difference

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      33
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      And even those who saw it would have seen it in the context of a lot of other portraits in the same style, where it doesn’t stand out as anything personally directed at Rinehart.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    15
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I think it’s funny how on .ml I can’t call this woman a bitch, but I can say I want to cut off her head and eat her liver.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      10
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s because no one’s actually going to cut off her head, so it’s okay to fantasize about it. If it becomes common to call her a bitch it could impact her reputation and cause people to take her less seriously, which would make it harder for her to get good terms in business negotiations, affecting her bottom line. .ml is a tool of the oligarchy.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        ml is a tool of the oligarchy.

        All social media is, or becomes it very quickly. Controlling the narrative is a vital strategic asset.

  • Cyrus Draegur
    link
    fedilink
    791 year ago

    if she weren’t rich, i’d feel bad for her. her status and authority, unfortunately, make her an acceptable target for nonviolent criticism, such as really ugly portraits.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      331 year ago

      It’s not uglier than the other portraits in the set. Its really weird that she would object when she is sharing a wall with royalty.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        91 year ago

        Yeah, I was going to say I’m not Australian, so I’m not super familiar with her, but from what I do know of her, this portrait seems fitting.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      60
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      her status and authority, unfortunately, make her an acceptable target

      Agreed, but It’s really more that she’s a complete arsehole. As a nimby mining magnate, she is a sponsor of organised climate denialism and vocal about it herself, a race she clearly has a horse in. She’s also an active libertarian who wants to further dismantle the welfare system, and reduce taxation, and wants Australian workers to be cool like Africans and work for $2 a day. And a vocal Trump supporter.

      It’s not the painting that makes her ugly, it’s her behaviour and ideology.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        Yeah no famous artist has ever felt the need to pain me ugly. Hell the most artistic depiction of me is a charcoal drawing by a guy who didn’t know we’d gone out for hookah a few times a few years prior. But regardless artists are only depicting her poorly because of how poorly she behaves.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        18
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s crazy to me how most if not all billionares cheerish exploiting poor wages and keeping poor people poorer while hoarding unimaginable wealth that’s enough for lifetime for generations of their family. That’s because billionares are mentally sick.

      • Cyrus Draegur
        link
        fedilink
        English
        191 year ago

        it’s her behavior and ideology that makes the painting accurate :3

  • 21Cabbage
    link
    fedilink
    English
    231 year ago

    My initial reaction was that it was probably unflattering on purpose but after seeing the others I think that might just be the artist’s style and she just has an unfortunate face for it.

  • circuscritic
    link
    fedilink
    English
    53
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    She is basically the Koch brothers, but bigger, dumber, and more evil.

    The only reason why the Koch family is probably worse, is because their influence flows through the American state.

    All this is to say, it’s a good bet that after this story dies down, the gallery will quietly acquiesce and take down the painting. This will either be followed by a carrot, or a removal of whatever stick she used.