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.
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?
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
You have to be pretty good to beat Kristen Stewart.
CNn picked it up
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.
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.
I’m in fuckin tears
Now that is art
Works perfectly! Her picture should be the standard for this meme from now on.
Vigooooooo 👻
Despot of carpatia?
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
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, I also had a really hard time parsing the comment.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Punching up (nonviolently, as you say) is always valid.
Punching up is the only way to punch
If there ever was an example of the Streisand effect, this is it!
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.
Man… You could just fucking own it and be far better off in every way. Just speaks to the crazy ego these people have.
I mean she could literally just own it and be done with it. She has 30B+. Just buy it and ruin it if you hate it so much, like Elon did with Xitter.
can’t buy it. it’s owned by the government.
My bad, I forgot you can’t buy things from the government.
Or, you know, just … The government.
I mean, you literally can’t so, yeah.
It’s part of the national gallery.
Exactly the painting my wife and I thought about - simultaneously…
Only commenting to give this post even more engagement, lol
SameEdit: Bump
Ahem.
The proper internet terminology is:
“Bump.”
I will never not appreciate the Streisand effect.
This is the image.
wantja Arts/Vincent Namatjira/Copyright Agency/Getty Images
Madam Harkonnen
Cristiano Ronaldo
People hated how poorly the bust was made to the point that it was removed in a couple of weeks and replaced with a bust by an anonymous sculptor.
The weird thing is, it’s not terrible, except the eyes are way too close together. How do you make that mistake?
It’s like 80% of the way to being good, which leaves it in the uncanny valley
The sculptor was a very good sculptor, but this bust was terrible.
BJ blaskowitz??
Maybe she could buy the painting? I’m sure the artist would be willing to part with it for a donation of a few billion to charitable causes.
But then there will be even more paintings. She has no problem with hiring thugs for it.
It belongs to the national gallery and therefor cannot be sold.
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.
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…
lol
That gum you like is going to come back into style.
it is happening again
If someone buys it, it’s style. If not, they suck at painting.
Isn’t art fun?
Not really, no.
Tbh, it wasn’t as bad as the picture of that woman with the kinda lopsided eyes lol
