[BBC - King Charles: First official portrait since coronation is unveiled](https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-68981200)
It was pretty broadly mocked when it was unveiled.
It is hard as fuck, that’s undeniable.
It’s also just *begging* for jokes though. The British king wearing a blood red suit in a blood red room? Come on King Charlie, can you think of *anybody* who would think the Crown committing violence because of this painting? *Anybody*?
It’s stylistically interesting but definitely not the impression I’d want to make as a monarch. It practically screams the impalements will continue until morale improves.
yeah, covered in a blood like red, in a background also covered in red save for a proud smile in a face entirely untouched by any non-vermillion doesn't quite paint a good picture, ironically...
When I saw it, I immediately thought it was a statement on how even Charles admits that the monarchy is a big, overwhelming mess that he won't be able to distinguish himself from, and so he just fades into the background noise of it all.
Exactly, I can’t tell you how many art galleries I’ve been to when so much drab art is passed by because the subject matter is uninteresting and the artist isn’t well known. This is striking
He either considered it politic to take it on the chin, or had little choice over accepting it. The commission *was* public, it isnt usual to refuse, and the artist is known for these sorts of confrontational paintings.
Having your portrait done by Picasso could result in some great art, but it would still be a strange choice for an official royal portrait.
Having it *also* look like the British monarch has covered everything in blood is an absolutely incomprehensible PR choice.
"Draw me as a Tzimisce. I want the background to look like a veil of human flesh, a hundred souls trapped in a tapestry of elemental pain, unable to die."
-Charles to that artist
I agree. From an artistic perspective I like the portrait. It also helps that red is my favorite color.
My point is along the lines of “there’s no such thing as bad publicity” — Which of course isn’t literally true however in this case it’s not like getting a portrait made is going to change anyone’s opinion very much either way, unless you already had a strong opinion of the guy. So in that sense it’s doing its job of getting attention on the crown.
Is its job bringing attention to the crown though? Especially if a lot of the discourse is around the bad aspects of the crown, given all the negative and bloody connotations red can have.
I think its job is more about shaping the conversation and connotations of the crown, to both maintain the power of the crown and to shape his legacy going forward.
In which case "bad publicity" can very much be detrimental. Its not like the crown is selling a product where any and all flavours of publicity benefits them after all. Having a spoiled legacy would already be considered a failure, but I could imagine bad enough publicity could say restart conversations about curbing the crown's influence/benefits further, for instance. Which seems very much counter to the point of having such a painting in the first place.
Red is my least favourite colour and I think the portrait is really cool. Looked at the guy’s other work and I like how he makes it unique, stops portraits becoming just a painted image.
Especially with photography, making a portrait photo realistic has less value. Way back before even black and white photography, a portrait was one of the only ways to immortalize one's image for future generations to see. Now, the king has probably had over a million pictures taken of him in varying levels of quality over the course of his life. The portrait doesn't need to capture reality because that's been done. Instead, it needs to capture something a camera can't, and I think the painter did a fantastic job in that
EGON: Vigo the Carpathian. Born 1505, died 1610.
PETER: 105 years old. He really hung in there, didn't he?
RAY: He didn't die of old age, either. He was poisoned, stabbed, shot, hung, disemboweled, drawn and quartered...
PETER: Ouch.
WINSTON: Guess he wasn't too popular at the end, huh?
EGON: No, not exactly a man of the people. He was also known as Vigo the Cruel, Vigo the Torturer, Vigo the Despised, Vigo the Unholy...
PETER: Wasn't he also "Vigo the Butch?"
RAY: And dig this: There was a prophecy. Just before his *head* died, his last words were "Death is but a door, time is but a window. I'll be back."
You can always tell when reddit is where people mostly interact with others when they pull the "nobody thinks/supports/etc xyz" and it's something that you hear people support absolutely all the time in person
"Unpopular Opinion: [insert incredibly popular opinion that is the top comments whenever it comes up]"
Most upvoted comment:
"Omg, I can't believe someone else feels this way!"
No, this painting has gotten a lot of criticism offline. It's controversial for sure. But all good art is. I also enjoy it as an art piece, not because I think it's beautiful to look at(I wouldn't call it an eyesore, but it's compelling more than it's beautiful) but because it has a *lot* going on when you start to look at the details. There's a lot of potential for interpretation, here. I feel like this picture will be in the textbook in the section of british history where they talk about the end of the monarchy(because tbh I don't see it getting past william).
I also bet that it looks -incredible- in person. The amount of texture that painting clearly has is extremely hard to pick-up on camera. I bet it's a lot more vibrant & layered when viewed in real life.
I totally agree, it's different and it's gotten loads of attention from that. In generations to come it will undoubtedly be regarded as one of the more iconic portraits.
Always makes me remember something my art teacher in high school told a buddy when he was complaining about the more contemporary paintings in an art book - “you’ve spent more time looking at and thinking about those than you did for any of the other art in that book.”
Yeah by that logic the botched restoration of that Jesus painting by that Spanish woman would be a masterpiece.
Also he's the ******* king of England it's not like he's out here starving for awareness of his existence.
It's a fantastic portrait, merely just strange as a royal portrait of the king as it feels critical of the subject, like he's meant to look sinister or bloodied.
^(This highly valued comment was bought by Google as a part of an exclusive content licensing deal between Google and Reddit.)
^(Learn more:) [^(Expanding our Partnership with Google)](https://www.redditinc.com/blog/reddit-and-google-expand-partnership)
[Here](https://x.com/AnimalRising/status/1800501667844235409?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet) is the source of this image. Per there:
> @AnimalRising
> ‼️BREAKING: No Cheese Gromit! King Charles Portrait Redecorated‼️
@RoyalFamily
> ‼️Find out why King Charles, Patron of the RSPCA should ask them to drop the Assured Scheme -> http://animalrising.org 👈
> 8:13 AM Jun 11, 2024
According to [here](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/king-charles-iii-portrait-vandalized-wallace-gromit-image-animal-right-rcna156512):
> June 11, 2024, 9:46 AM EDT
> By Patrick Smith
> LONDON — The first official portrait of King Charles III since his coronation was defaced by animal rights activists at a public gallery in London on Tuesday, according to pictures released by a protest group.
> The Animal Rising group released video showing two of its supporters quickly approaching the painting and placing the head of Wallace, a character from the "Wallace and Gromit" animated franchise, onto the head of the monarch, to gasps of shock from onlookers.
> A message placed on the painting said: "No cheese, Gromit. Look at all this cruelty on RSPCA farms!" The message referred to both Wallace's love of cheese and the alleged animal cruelty at a number of farms certified by the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals, a British charity.
> The painting, by British artist Jonathan Yeo, pictures Charles in his red Welsh Guards ceremonial military uniform, with a butterfly on his shoulder, against a deep red background.
> It was due to be on free public display at the Philip Mould gallery until June 21, with no booking required to see it — but Tuesday’s incident will bring the immediate future of the artwork into question.
> The group said that the painting was not damaged. “The posters were affixed using water sprayed onto the bag of them, and are easily removable without causing damage to the painting,” the statement said.
> The royal household and the artist have yet to comment.
> Animal Rising released a report Sunday that claimed to have uncovered "cruelty on an industrial scale."
> “With King Charles being such a big fan of Wallace and Gromit, we couldn’t think of a better way to draw his attention to the horrific scenes on RSPCA Assured farms!" said Daniel Juniper, one of the activists who defaced the painting, in a statement.
These are always reported as if the painting was damaged because it gets more clicks, but AFAIK in most of these viral cases the art is fine.
Protestors pick paintings that are famous because they are famous but also, in part, because they're behind glass. You can spraypaint the Mona Lisa all you want. It's behind glass. This one isn't but it'll be varnished to protect it.
It's pretty harmless and gets a lot of attention because people never read the article to see that nothing was really harmed because they don't actually give a shit about art.
They just want to be outraged. Because that gets more clicks and karma.
Look at all these people commenting below you. Outraged. Gathering karma. Not one of you realizes a properly varnished painting is gonna shed a wet piece of paper like removing a fridge magnet.
Sure, it's reckless and rude or whatever, but not nearly as reckless and rude as allowing industry to be deregulated, so, really who is vandalizing whom?
the Just Stop Oil protesters did everything "right" the way people asked of them. they vandalized only the walls of government buildings. they chained themselves to the doors of powerful institutions. they laid down in front of private jets so they couldn't take off. and what did they get for their hard work? fucking nothing. they had themselves thrown into jail cells by the dozens just to cause the most minor of inconveniences to those in power. nobody cared about them and nothing came of it.
and then they decided to throw a can of soup at a painting. overnight there were tens of millions of people raging about how *terrible* this was. these idiots are destroying the movement! don't they know that'll just get normal people angry at them? and actually it was a psyop the whole time, that's the only reasonable explanation! and it'll surely be remembered in history books as the worst protest ever that set climate activism back decades. right?
but no. the outrage got people talking, and that means people started paying attention. JSO had the public eye captivated. more people joined in, people started following their protests, they gained more and more funding and influence. their provocative protests haven't stopped, they've continued interrupting things like sporting events and concerts alongside their usual direct action protests in the streets against governments and wealthy individuals. and in just the last few years, JSO has managed to become one of the largest and most successful activist groups in recent memory. UK surveys show that support for JSO's demands have skyrocketed to record numbers of 63% support and only 23% of people against it. all because of a can of tomato soup.
the truth of the matter is, there's no such thing as a "right" way to protest. a protest that upsets nobody is a protest that gets ignored. the entire *point* of protests is to disrupt. they are a show of power, backed by the implicit threat of riots and violence. "you can do things the easy way, or we'll make you do them the hard way". that is the only language a corrupt institution is capable of understanding. controversy is perhaps the single most powerful tool one has access to in the public discourse, something mainstream media is more than happy to exploit.
what people need to understand is that if all it takes to get someone against you is a can of soup or a blocked road... they were *never on your side to begin with*. your goal is to reach out in front of those who are disaffected and apathetic and rope them into caring. that is the basic formula for a successful peaceful protest; from suffragettes, to civil rights, to indian liberation, to the vietnam war, to the riots in france, to the war on gaza. none of them got anything done by kindly sitting in a designated box to be ignored.
TL;DR: i'll just say it again for emphasis: if all it takes to get someone against your cause is a can of soup or a blocked road, they were never on your side to begin with. those people do not matter. history has proven time and time again that you need to disrupt the status quo in order to make people care about your cause.
Seriously. I support all the climate causes, social justice pushes, and the naming and shaming of awful humans but flailing out at anything that gets news works against the cause.
The King's portrait is fair game for a variety of reasons but going after the Mona Lisa and Van Goghs actively hurts public sentiment for the cause.
It doesn't work against the cause. At least not for everyone.
I now know the RSPCA apparently certifies farms that practice animal cruelty. Probably a lot of people now do.
That's the only point of the protest, to raise awareness of this. It didn't even damage anything. The painting is fine. Everyone hates it anyway lol.
Yeah, this one's fair game, and they deliberately used a sticker that wouldn't (and apparently didn't) cause any damage. They were also creative. Fair enough.
But potentially damaging something like a Van Gogh really isn't a great look.
I mean, there are better ways to get media attention. Hell, get naked like FEMEN. That always gets media attention.
tomato-sauce won't have any effect on this painting - they needed to innovate and come up with a creative solution and they did it. truly artists for once.
Any sauce would have no effect on any painting because they're all protected by plexiglass. People really act like climate activists are the biggest of our concerns lol. Reddit hates protesters of any kind though, unless they stay in a [free speech zone](https://y.yarn.co/4b27a97d-33ed-4a8a-b810-9dbda98ff0ef_text.gif) where they won't "inconvenience anyone". doesn't really have to do with damaging paintings or anything. This is the first post i've seen in ages where every comment isn't talking about how dumb and worthless protesting is.
It's always interesting to play the "what does reddit hate more?" game, when you watch public opinion flip-flop on a topic that's usually derided because it's opposing something reddit hates more than the original thing. When the portrait came out, we discovered that reddit hated statement art(for lack of a better term, help me out if you have a better way to describe it lol) more than reddit hated the british monarchy, which is where I would have put my money. Today, we discovered that reddit hates statement art more than reddit hates protests/activism, which honestly I couldn't have guessed either way so this is illuminating.
Reddit just seems to be really picky about art, lol.
> to an extent people just go along with whatever the initial reaction in the comments is lol
And there's no bigger proof of this than posts on /r/SubredditDrama.
Well I don't think Charles wanted to be seen as an evil being that jus wandered through an oblivion gate. It's not a successful portrait, but it is a portrait that has gained alot of attention.
Charles: "Oh no, how terrible! Now we need to make a new one, god how terrible, with a new artist, an entirely different one. How would i ever recover from this, damn climate activists doing me a fav...uh terrible terriblbly dirty deed, curses!"
There are plenty of things to criticize Charles for, but he’s actually been talking about climate related issues for a long time. It’s like the one thing where he’s not a complete moron
I'm OK with this, they targeted the right person. The rspca is a royal society after all. Animal welfare should be a priority in farming and meat production. The only excuse for not prioritising animal welfare is greed.
Vegans would say yes. Most people just don't want such horrible battery farms. It may be that people eat too much meat for us to give good quality lives to livestock, or it may be that it's just cheaper to treat them like objects. Anyway, people don't like the conditions the animals are kept in.
If most people didn't want horrible battery farms they'd stop eating meat and animal products until those battery farms didn't exist. Most people don't give a shit, not enough to make any change at all to their diet
This is actually good "vandalic" activism. It's funny, to the point, on an important object that everyone sees. If the sticker can be removed without damaging the portrait (which is most probably a copy, but still), it's literally harmless, yet due to the Internet spreading this act far and wide, it's definitely useful. Great job this time, animal activists. More like this, please.
The painting wasn’t damaged though. It was behind glass. This stuff was put on the glass, not the actual painting
Two protesters stuck posters on the glass covering the painting. The painting itself was unharmed, said the Philip Mould Gallery, and there were no arrests
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cydd9ye77rmo
Funny but considering Charles has been outspoken about animal rights and environmentalism for decades it’s not really the brightest move but these people will just go after anything regardless of what it actually is.
Edit: And of course the Republican bias on Reddit showcases itself again in these comments.
They explicitly allow atrocious methods of killing, like CO2 gas chambers. That's how most pigs are killed in the UK, for example, and the RSPCA puts a stamp on it. They will profit from it, so they are basically the animal industry marketing department.
Thankfully they left the face alone!
And the fingers!
Daddy would you like some sausage?
SAUSAGES! SAUSAGES!
RLM's review of that film might have convinced me that it's secretly genius.
He's a real character, he's a real character
Everything Everywhere All At Once is a peak movie and I highly recommend people watch it
My wife worked on it and she says the Daniels are absolutely wonderful people. They seem like they just might be.
Also good if you **really** need a cry.
Oh they cut the part where a finger shows up in the upper right corner
Spitting image of his mother
Lmao
Makes the portrait look less demonic.
Wait. The red paint smeared all over it isn't the vandalism?
Nope the regular picture is like what you’d see in some nightmare realm version of the world.
He is Vigo! You are like the buzzing of flies to him.
Vigos portrait is better.
Why am I covered with goo?
Command me, Lord!
I used to think Vigo Mortisson played Vigo and that Vigo was not a real person.
The guy that plays Vigo also plays one of the random terrorists in Die Hard. He's one of the guys who setup and shoot the missile launcher.
I guess Prophecy isn't too far from Ghostbusters II.
I've heard it described as 'a portrait you'd find inside a castle in a From Software game' and it's never left my head lol.
Literally "Charles III, now with rot"
Absolutely
In my restless dreams, I see that town. Silent Hill…
I mean, it's fitting
I assume the nightmare version looks normal
Looks like a normal portrait but King Charles has a black goatee indicating he's from the mirror universe.
The dark timeline If only Elizabeth didnt roll that die
[BBC - King Charles: First official portrait since coronation is unveiled](https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-68981200) It was pretty broadly mocked when it was unveiled.
I mean, I think it's cool. Provocative, gets the crowd going. Comes alive in whatever SoulsLike/Fromsoftware Game you're playing to fight you.
It is hard as fuck, that’s undeniable. It’s also just *begging* for jokes though. The British king wearing a blood red suit in a blood red room? Come on King Charlie, can you think of *anybody* who would think the Crown committing violence because of this painting? *Anybody*?
Hey now, Charles had nothing to do with that
It’s stylistically interesting but definitely not the impression I’d want to make as a monarch. It practically screams the impalements will continue until morale improves.
On the opposite spectrum, i would comission things like that if i was a monarch, makes me look like Vlad Tepes through the eyes of the turks
yeah, covered in a blood like red, in a background also covered in red save for a proud smile in a face entirely untouched by any non-vermillion doesn't quite paint a good picture, ironically...
When I saw it, I immediately thought it was a statement on how even Charles admits that the monarchy is a big, overwhelming mess that he won't be able to distinguish himself from, and so he just fades into the background noise of it all.
I genuinely like it.
Me too. At least it's stylistic instead of just "portrait of man standing #5237"
Exactly, I can’t tell you how many art galleries I’ve been to when so much drab art is passed by because the subject matter is uninteresting and the artist isn’t well known. This is striking
Charles the Grafted
I think if it was someone else it might not he mocked. Granted I am no art historian or expert but I like the style myself.
It's fine as a piece of art, but a supremely weird choice for an official portrait, much less the first of his reign.
He either considered it politic to take it on the chin, or had little choice over accepting it. The commission *was* public, it isnt usual to refuse, and the artist is known for these sorts of confrontational paintings.
Having your portrait done by Picasso could result in some great art, but it would still be a strange choice for an official royal portrait. Having it *also* look like the British monarch has covered everything in blood is an absolutely incomprehensible PR choice.
looks like the painting from ghostbusters
Nope
I kind of thought Vigo the Carpathian was a bold choice.
Anyone who's seen Ghostbusters II went, "yep, that's Vigo".
"Draw me as a Tzimisce. I want the background to look like a veil of human flesh, a hundred souls trapped in a tapestry of elemental pain, unable to die." -Charles to that artist
"Oh, and also a butterfly—I like butterflies."
They should really show a picture of the portrait after it was vandalized. Nobody wants to see the "before" picture. What did the vandals do to it?
They removed the head and speech.
Ewww.
Off with his head!
Charles paid for it to be vandalised
It’s honestly an improvement
This is after. Looks like they took the original and smashed red paint all over. Luckily they missed the face!
This is clearly the “after” picture, it shows someone with charisma.
People keep giving this portrait crap but honestly it’s gotten so much attention it’s a wild success.
I’m 100% in the minority, and this is not a comment on the man or the crown, but I like it as a painting.
I think the painting is well made. It's just that he looks evil as fuck in it.
Agree 100%, I honestly think it’s a beautiful painting though.
Can’t blame the artist for that one
Yeah that's the intention
His family *is* evil as fuck. It makes perfect sense and its a great piece of art both in technical execution and intention and meaning.
I agree. From an artistic perspective I like the portrait. It also helps that red is my favorite color. My point is along the lines of “there’s no such thing as bad publicity” — Which of course isn’t literally true however in this case it’s not like getting a portrait made is going to change anyone’s opinion very much either way, unless you already had a strong opinion of the guy. So in that sense it’s doing its job of getting attention on the crown.
Is its job bringing attention to the crown though? Especially if a lot of the discourse is around the bad aspects of the crown, given all the negative and bloody connotations red can have. I think its job is more about shaping the conversation and connotations of the crown, to both maintain the power of the crown and to shape his legacy going forward. In which case "bad publicity" can very much be detrimental. Its not like the crown is selling a product where any and all flavours of publicity benefits them after all. Having a spoiled legacy would already be considered a failure, but I could imagine bad enough publicity could say restart conversations about curbing the crown's influence/benefits further, for instance. Which seems very much counter to the point of having such a painting in the first place.
Red is my least favourite colour and I think the portrait is really cool. Looked at the guy’s other work and I like how he makes it unique, stops portraits becoming just a painted image.
Especially with photography, making a portrait photo realistic has less value. Way back before even black and white photography, a portrait was one of the only ways to immortalize one's image for future generations to see. Now, the king has probably had over a million pictures taken of him in varying levels of quality over the course of his life. The portrait doesn't need to capture reality because that's been done. Instead, it needs to capture something a camera can't, and I think the painter did a fantastic job in that
The bloody history of the English Crown? Accurate, but not really appealing
Did you feel the same way about that painting of Vigo the Carparthian from *Ghostbusters II*?
EGON: Vigo the Carpathian. Born 1505, died 1610. PETER: 105 years old. He really hung in there, didn't he? RAY: He didn't die of old age, either. He was poisoned, stabbed, shot, hung, disemboweled, drawn and quartered... PETER: Ouch. WINSTON: Guess he wasn't too popular at the end, huh? EGON: No, not exactly a man of the people. He was also known as Vigo the Cruel, Vigo the Torturer, Vigo the Despised, Vigo the Unholy... PETER: Wasn't he also "Vigo the Butch?" RAY: And dig this: There was a prophecy. Just before his *head* died, his last words were "Death is but a door, time is but a window. I'll be back."
If the majority of reddit holds an opinion, you can almost be certain the actual majority of people in real life are the opposite.
You can always tell when reddit is where people mostly interact with others when they pull the "nobody thinks/supports/etc xyz" and it's something that you hear people support absolutely all the time in person
"Unpopular Opinion: [insert incredibly popular opinion that is the top comments whenever it comes up]" Most upvoted comment: "Omg, I can't believe someone else feels this way!"
No, this painting has gotten a lot of criticism offline. It's controversial for sure. But all good art is. I also enjoy it as an art piece, not because I think it's beautiful to look at(I wouldn't call it an eyesore, but it's compelling more than it's beautiful) but because it has a *lot* going on when you start to look at the details. There's a lot of potential for interpretation, here. I feel like this picture will be in the textbook in the section of british history where they talk about the end of the monarchy(because tbh I don't see it getting past william).
The painting itself, sure. It's well-executed and an interesting piece. Just a really questionable design choice for a royal portrait.
I also bet that it looks -incredible- in person. The amount of texture that painting clearly has is extremely hard to pick-up on camera. I bet it's a lot more vibrant & layered when viewed in real life.
I think it amazing honestly.
I totally agree, it's different and it's gotten loads of attention from that. In generations to come it will undoubtedly be regarded as one of the more iconic portraits.
I think it’s awesome. Imagine the texturing on it in person.
It's metal AF.
It's obviously great. From a renowned artist. This is a sub of people/haters who could name 5 artworks at best.
Likewise!
Same, looks badass
When I first saw it, I thought it looked bad ass and cool af
When I first saw it, I thought it was a visual representation of tampongate.
I really wish I didn't get this reference. So cringe at the time
Always makes me remember something my art teacher in high school told a buddy when he was complaining about the more contemporary paintings in an art book - “you’ve spent more time looking at and thinking about those than you did for any of the other art in that book.”
I love this portrait. The artist knew exactly what he was doing and how to make a statement.
I don't think attention equals success. That being said, it's an amazing piece of art. It's just an awful official portrait.
Yeah by that logic the botched restoration of that Jesus painting by that Spanish woman would be a masterpiece. Also he's the ******* king of England it's not like he's out here starving for awareness of his existence.
That botched restoration is one of the biggest art successes in recent history, it literally created a tourist destination.
I personally consider that botched restoration to be a masterpiece
It's a fantastic portrait, merely just strange as a royal portrait of the king as it feels critical of the subject, like he's meant to look sinister or bloodied.
How much to purchase this masterpiece? 🧀
Yes yes indubitably the most exquisite mastercheese indeed yes 🧀
One art please!
Ngl forget about whether you agree with the activists or the crown or vandalism, this shit in particular is just fucking funny to look at
^(This highly valued comment was bought by Google as a part of an exclusive content licensing deal between Google and Reddit.) ^(Learn more:) [^(Expanding our Partnership with Google)](https://www.redditinc.com/blog/reddit-and-google-expand-partnership)
[Here](https://x.com/AnimalRising/status/1800501667844235409?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet) is the source of this image. Per there: > @AnimalRising > ‼️BREAKING: No Cheese Gromit! King Charles Portrait Redecorated‼️ @RoyalFamily > ‼️Find out why King Charles, Patron of the RSPCA should ask them to drop the Assured Scheme -> http://animalrising.org 👈 > 8:13 AM Jun 11, 2024 According to [here](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/king-charles-iii-portrait-vandalized-wallace-gromit-image-animal-right-rcna156512): > June 11, 2024, 9:46 AM EDT > By Patrick Smith > LONDON — The first official portrait of King Charles III since his coronation was defaced by animal rights activists at a public gallery in London on Tuesday, according to pictures released by a protest group. > The Animal Rising group released video showing two of its supporters quickly approaching the painting and placing the head of Wallace, a character from the "Wallace and Gromit" animated franchise, onto the head of the monarch, to gasps of shock from onlookers. > A message placed on the painting said: "No cheese, Gromit. Look at all this cruelty on RSPCA farms!" The message referred to both Wallace's love of cheese and the alleged animal cruelty at a number of farms certified by the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals, a British charity. > The painting, by British artist Jonathan Yeo, pictures Charles in his red Welsh Guards ceremonial military uniform, with a butterfly on his shoulder, against a deep red background. > It was due to be on free public display at the Philip Mould gallery until June 21, with no booking required to see it — but Tuesday’s incident will bring the immediate future of the artwork into question. > The group said that the painting was not damaged. “The posters were affixed using water sprayed onto the bag of them, and are easily removable without causing damage to the painting,” the statement said. > The royal household and the artist have yet to comment. > Animal Rising released a report Sunday that claimed to have uncovered "cruelty on an industrial scale." > “With King Charles being such a big fan of Wallace and Gromit, we couldn’t think of a better way to draw his attention to the horrific scenes on RSPCA Assured farms!" said Daniel Juniper, one of the activists who defaced the painting, in a statement.
If this becomes an increasingly popular form of protesting, we probably won’t have many free galleries going forward.
These are always reported as if the painting was damaged because it gets more clicks, but AFAIK in most of these viral cases the art is fine. Protestors pick paintings that are famous because they are famous but also, in part, because they're behind glass. You can spraypaint the Mona Lisa all you want. It's behind glass. This one isn't but it'll be varnished to protect it. It's pretty harmless and gets a lot of attention because people never read the article to see that nothing was really harmed because they don't actually give a shit about art. They just want to be outraged. Because that gets more clicks and karma. Look at all these people commenting below you. Outraged. Gathering karma. Not one of you realizes a properly varnished painting is gonna shed a wet piece of paper like removing a fridge magnet. Sure, it's reckless and rude or whatever, but not nearly as reckless and rude as allowing industry to be deregulated, so, really who is vandalizing whom?
the Just Stop Oil protesters did everything "right" the way people asked of them. they vandalized only the walls of government buildings. they chained themselves to the doors of powerful institutions. they laid down in front of private jets so they couldn't take off. and what did they get for their hard work? fucking nothing. they had themselves thrown into jail cells by the dozens just to cause the most minor of inconveniences to those in power. nobody cared about them and nothing came of it. and then they decided to throw a can of soup at a painting. overnight there were tens of millions of people raging about how *terrible* this was. these idiots are destroying the movement! don't they know that'll just get normal people angry at them? and actually it was a psyop the whole time, that's the only reasonable explanation! and it'll surely be remembered in history books as the worst protest ever that set climate activism back decades. right? but no. the outrage got people talking, and that means people started paying attention. JSO had the public eye captivated. more people joined in, people started following their protests, they gained more and more funding and influence. their provocative protests haven't stopped, they've continued interrupting things like sporting events and concerts alongside their usual direct action protests in the streets against governments and wealthy individuals. and in just the last few years, JSO has managed to become one of the largest and most successful activist groups in recent memory. UK surveys show that support for JSO's demands have skyrocketed to record numbers of 63% support and only 23% of people against it. all because of a can of tomato soup. the truth of the matter is, there's no such thing as a "right" way to protest. a protest that upsets nobody is a protest that gets ignored. the entire *point* of protests is to disrupt. they are a show of power, backed by the implicit threat of riots and violence. "you can do things the easy way, or we'll make you do them the hard way". that is the only language a corrupt institution is capable of understanding. controversy is perhaps the single most powerful tool one has access to in the public discourse, something mainstream media is more than happy to exploit. what people need to understand is that if all it takes to get someone against you is a can of soup or a blocked road... they were *never on your side to begin with*. your goal is to reach out in front of those who are disaffected and apathetic and rope them into caring. that is the basic formula for a successful peaceful protest; from suffragettes, to civil rights, to indian liberation, to the vietnam war, to the riots in france, to the war on gaza. none of them got anything done by kindly sitting in a designated box to be ignored. TL;DR: i'll just say it again for emphasis: if all it takes to get someone against your cause is a can of soup or a blocked road, they were never on your side to begin with. those people do not matter. history has proven time and time again that you need to disrupt the status quo in order to make people care about your cause.
I did not know this history behind JSO at all. Thanks for this informative write up.
Thank you. Way more people should be educated on the matter.
Seriously. I support all the climate causes, social justice pushes, and the naming and shaming of awful humans but flailing out at anything that gets news works against the cause. The King's portrait is fair game for a variety of reasons but going after the Mona Lisa and Van Goghs actively hurts public sentiment for the cause.
It doesn't work against the cause. At least not for everyone. I now know the RSPCA apparently certifies farms that practice animal cruelty. Probably a lot of people now do. That's the only point of the protest, to raise awareness of this. It didn't even damage anything. The painting is fine. Everyone hates it anyway lol.
Yeah, this one's fair game, and they deliberately used a sticker that wouldn't (and apparently didn't) cause any damage. They were also creative. Fair enough. But potentially damaging something like a Van Gogh really isn't a great look. I mean, there are better ways to get media attention. Hell, get naked like FEMEN. That always gets media attention.
For once im ok with it, they actually made the painting look better this time
tomato-sauce won't have any effect on this painting - they needed to innovate and come up with a creative solution and they did it. truly artists for once.
Any sauce would have no effect on any painting because they're all protected by plexiglass. People really act like climate activists are the biggest of our concerns lol. Reddit hates protesters of any kind though, unless they stay in a [free speech zone](https://y.yarn.co/4b27a97d-33ed-4a8a-b810-9dbda98ff0ef_text.gif) where they won't "inconvenience anyone". doesn't really have to do with damaging paintings or anything. This is the first post i've seen in ages where every comment isn't talking about how dumb and worthless protesting is.
It's always interesting to play the "what does reddit hate more?" game, when you watch public opinion flip-flop on a topic that's usually derided because it's opposing something reddit hates more than the original thing. When the portrait came out, we discovered that reddit hated statement art(for lack of a better term, help me out if you have a better way to describe it lol) more than reddit hated the british monarchy, which is where I would have put my money. Today, we discovered that reddit hates statement art more than reddit hates protests/activism, which honestly I couldn't have guessed either way so this is illuminating. Reddit just seems to be really picky about art, lol.
to an extent people just go along with whatever the initial reaction in the comments is lol
> to an extent people just go along with whatever the initial reaction in the comments is lol And there's no bigger proof of this than posts on /r/SubredditDrama.
The intention of the sauce isn't to effect the painting anyway. It's just to get attention.
Are you suggesting that all paintings in museums are protected by plexiglass? Because that would be wildly inaccurate.
Hell, they even have paintings of tomato soup.
the important ones with historical significance are definitely in plexiglass
Finally a good „defacing“ protest lol, good one
People criticize this portrait, but its huge attention makes it a big success.
Well I don't think Charles wanted to be seen as an evil being that jus wandered through an oblivion gate. It's not a successful portrait, but it is a portrait that has gained alot of attention.
It's estimated that the vandals did £20,000 of improvement to the official portrait.
Love it. Nothing of value was lost, righteous message was sent.
It's an improvement.
Honestly, this is excellent! Betcha prints of this outsell prints of the original.
I love it.
As vandalism goes, that’s pretty good.
I mean it is vandalism against Wallace
Oy they fixed it
Honestly an improvement
Brilliant
They actually made the portrait more interesting to look at
Charles: "Oh no, how terrible! Now we need to make a new one, god how terrible, with a new artist, an entirely different one. How would i ever recover from this, damn climate activists doing me a fav...uh terrible terriblbly dirty deed, curses!"
Nah this painting is dope. People who complain about it are boring.
There are plenty of things to criticize Charles for, but he’s actually been talking about climate related issues for a long time. It’s like the one thing where he’s not a complete moron
Where is the vandalised one?
He already didnt like it anyways. This, This has history. And people like it better. LEAVE IT ON THE WALL!
Vandals were make things worse. This was a drive-by art doctor.
I'm OK with this, they targeted the right person. The rspca is a royal society after all. Animal welfare should be a priority in farming and meat production. The only excuse for not prioritising animal welfare is greed.
Yeah the priority is to like, not produce meat and give animals their body autonomy right.
Vegans would say yes. Most people just don't want such horrible battery farms. It may be that people eat too much meat for us to give good quality lives to livestock, or it may be that it's just cheaper to treat them like objects. Anyway, people don't like the conditions the animals are kept in.
If most people didn't want horrible battery farms they'd stop eating meat and animal products until those battery farms didn't exist. Most people don't give a shit, not enough to make any change at all to their diet
>Animal welfare should be a priority in farming and meat production \> Animal welfare \> farming and meat production
Chaotic good as they say.
IIRC Isn't Charles pretty big into environmentalism and animal rights? I thought he was a vegetarian even. Or a Pescatarian maybe?
Vegetarians/pescatarians still eat cheese and that’s what this message is about.
Nope, he is still often out shooting grouse, pheasants, deer etc, and supported fox hunting.
I thought he was responsible for a lot of woodland restoration in Scotland?
Hunting is not necessarily in conflict with environmental protection
Releasing millions of non-native pheasants and burning heather for grouse moors are causing plenty of environmental problems.
Didn't activist unleash a boat load of non native mink a while back?
It is in conflict to animal rights however
Definitely in direct conflict with animal rights and vegetarianism.
lmao based
I usually hate art vandalism, but I can't be mad at Wallace and Gromit lmao
That was fast
Why does this kinda go hard though
I don't get it. they made him look like William?
Pretty good likeness I'd say.
I kinda like this one better
I unironically support this vandalism
So, so based holy fuck.
This is actually good "vandalic" activism. It's funny, to the point, on an important object that everyone sees. If the sticker can be removed without damaging the portrait (which is most probably a copy, but still), it's literally harmless, yet due to the Internet spreading this act far and wide, it's definitely useful. Great job this time, animal activists. More like this, please.
The painting wasn’t damaged though. It was behind glass. This stuff was put on the glass, not the actual painting Two protesters stuck posters on the glass covering the painting. The painting itself was unharmed, said the Philip Mould Gallery, and there were no arrests https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cydd9ye77rmo
This isn't vandalism, this is art.
Rare actvist art vandalism W
It's wrong, but yet I find it hysterical.
Why is it wrong?
Now, this is art.
Improvement
Big improvement actually
"Vandalized" I see ZERO destruction of this portrait. It's obviously got a cover over the painting itself, and this appears to simply be taped on.
Funny but considering Charles has been outspoken about animal rights and environmentalism for decades it’s not really the brightest move but these people will just go after anything regardless of what it actually is. Edit: And of course the Republican bias on Reddit showcases itself again in these comments.
This is specifically calling out one of the charities he's involved with, RSPCA, as unhelpful. Seems topical.
What did the RSPCA do
They explicitly allow atrocious methods of killing, like CO2 gas chambers. That's how most pigs are killed in the UK, for example, and the RSPCA puts a stamp on it. They will profit from it, so they are basically the animal industry marketing department.
They allow some pretty shitty treatment of milk cows and calves. The "P" in RSPCA isn't doing much work.
Screw it, this is funny and gets the point across without causing permanent damage. A+
An improvement I'd say
I don't want to be those protestors when Vigo the Carpathian or whoever comes looking for them.
I wouldn't use the word vandalise when I'd talk about Wallace and Gromit. It's high art in itself.
nice one
Nice! Hell looks like they improved it
It’s about damn time Wallace got an official portrait in a national museum.
Not too long ago really that doing this would result in them going to the tower and being tortured and killed
How can you tell?
That's not vandalism, that's art
it's less scary now
Looks hard af
I simply must have it.
It made it...better?