3 ms·

"There's a super portrait group of the war leaders in the National Portrait Gallery in London. I'm amazed it hasn't been mutilated by now." Why would it be th

"There's a super portrait group of the war leaders in the National Portrait Gallery in London. I'm amazed it hasn't been mutilated by now." Why would it be threatened? I'm not clear on why the portrait of WWI generals is controversial.

uniqueuid 5y ago
Because it depicts a group of people who, without hesitation, willingly caused incredible suffering across an entire continent. And they did so at a time that perceived itself to be the result of the enlightenment and humanism.
- eplanit 5y ago
  Does someone with such an interpretation have cause to mutilate the painting, though? Why not make a different painting (or some other art) conveying that sentiment, instead?
  - uniqueuid 5y ago
    Rationally, sure, that's the better way - destroying art, records and evidence is something enemies of open societies do. Emotionally, I can identify with people who feel that those who have proudly sown human misery do not deserve to rest in golden frames. [edit] As OP mentioned, many have shown the other side of war; Grosz, Dix, Goya (https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2014/may/14/art-apocalypse-otto-dix-first-world-war-der-krieg-in-pictures https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2014/may/14...)
    - ksdale 5y ago
      I feel like that is equally an argument against like, horror movies existing. Just because art depicts something doesn't mean it endorses it (it may have endorsed it when it was made, but we don't have to blindly accept their values). I can emotionally identify with people who think that sowers of human misery are bad, but not with people who think art should be destroyed for what it depicts.
  - ipsin 5y ago
    Give me a picture of Kissinger and a sharp knife and I would be sorely tempted to make confetti of it. I can understand when someone refuses to address butchery with a polite and artful response.

uniqueuid 5y ago

Because it depicts a group of people who, without hesitation, willingly caused incredible suffering across an entire continent. And they did so at a time that perceived itself to be the result of the enlightenment and humanism.

eplanit 5y ago
Does someone with such an interpretation have cause to mutilate the painting, though? Why not make a different painting (or some other art) conveying that sentiment, instead?
- uniqueuid 5y ago
  Rationally, sure, that's the better way - destroying art, records and evidence is something enemies of open societies do. Emotionally, I can identify with people who feel that those who have proudly sown human misery do not deserve to rest in golden frames. [edit] As OP mentioned, many have shown the other side of war; Grosz, Dix, Goya (https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2014/may/14/art-apocalypse-otto-dix-first-world-war-der-krieg-in-pictures https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2014/may/14...)
  - ksdale 5y ago
    I feel like that is equally an argument against like, horror movies existing. Just because art depicts something doesn't mean it endorses it (it may have endorsed it when it was made, but we don't have to blindly accept their values). I can emotionally identify with people who think that sowers of human misery are bad, but not with people who think art should be destroyed for what it depicts.
- ipsin 5y ago
  Give me a picture of Kissinger and a sharp knife and I would be sorely tempted to make confetti of it. I can understand when someone refuses to address butchery with a polite and artful response.