- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Another case of the Streisand effect
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
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
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
I was making fun of your spelling errors and grammatical mistakes. I never even said Child’s Play 3 wasn’t banned lmao.
I dunno what it is the last wee while I can’t type on my phone keyboard. Pretty suew my brain is melting
Ah, the last wee. A bittersweet moment.
Not sure I follow wee is a legitimate word where I’m from
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks, I also had a really hard time parsing the comment.
Better? Worse?
Perfectly clear now, thanks. :)
I got thrown because “is” came before “saw”, which is also a scary movie, and I just couldn’t disambiguate.
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!
If there ever was an example of the Streisand effect, this is it!
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.
Punching up is the only way to punch
Regardless of her money, she’s an ugly individual. And I don’t mean physically
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.
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.
it’s her behavior and ideology that makes the painting accurate :3
It’s crazy to me how
most if notall 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.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.
Punching up (nonviolently, as you say) is always valid.
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.
Surely there’s a billboard near her home that they can put that on?
I would have never seen this picture if she hadn’t done this.
The Streisand effect.
Yikes, Barbra really let herself go.
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.
You have to be pretty good to beat Kristen Stewart.
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
Kristen Bell played Anna in Frozen, did not sing “Let it go”. That was by Elsa, played by Idina Menzel.
You talking about the wick-edly talented… Adele Dazeem?
CNn picked it up
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
The picture is still up, maybe there is justice in this world.
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.
This is the image.
wantja Arts/Vincent Namatjira/Copyright Agency/Getty Images
removed by mod
no sense of humour, so sad.
I will never not appreciate the Streisand effect.
Stay humble, bitch.
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.
Okay, I don’t mean to be rude, but fucking what
if only i had written “stay humble, bitch” the people of lemmy would like me 😭
I have seen stories on this topic posted several times. I upvote it every time and will continue to do so.
It sucks that this unflattering portrait is put in a museum and my unflattering portrait of the whore who turned me down isn’t in one.
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.
Tbh, it wasn’t as bad as the picture of that woman with the kinda lopsided eyes lol
Same. I don’t know that it’s the artist’s style. I think they’re just shit at painting. Not that I could do better…
If someone buys it, it’s style. If not, they suck at painting.
Isn’t art fun?
Not really, no.
lol
That gum you like is going to come back into style.
it is happening again
