*Please no one mention tampons. Please no one mention tampons. Please no one mention tampons*
GOD DAMNIT ZIM!
*Please no one mention tampons. Please no one mention tampons. Please no one mention tampons*I actually like it, too. It's different and it definitely makes you think a bit. Offensive to most probably, but that's what art should do. It needs to make you a bit uncomfortable in order to challenge your sensibilities.
Anyway, can't believe no one has mentioned this yet, but my first thought on seeing this is that King Chuck asked the artist to paint for him the realization of his truest, most desired dream. You know, from that infamous letter (or phone call)?
*Please no one mention tampons. Please no one mention tampons. Please no one mention tampons*
GOD DAMNIT ZIM!
Ah. Technically correct, that most annoying form of being correct!Well, I didn't....
The only thing it actually made me think of was how relevant it is to have a British royal portrait drenched in blood.
History at school for me was mostly Henry the 3.84 grams or the English civil war.Not long ago I was working my way through "The British History Podcast" (filling in the vast amount of domestic history stuff from the Romans onward that I didn't learn anything about at school - we pretty much only did "Hitler and Stalin" in history class, and maybe a little bit about the Cold War and decolonisation).
And, Lord, the royals were so much more interesting and impressive in the distant past. Back when they earned their crown by regularly hacking each other to bits with swords in muddy fields.
I can understand the fascination with royalty if it's solely about that Game of Thrones past. I'm wondering at what exact point in the story did it transition to tedious sub-soap-opera kitsch?
History at school for me was mostly Henry the 3.84 grams or the English civil war.
Around the time guns were invented, and the average uneducated citizen could take out the average well-trained guards of the king that traditionally made assassination attempts difficult.Not long ago I was working my way through "The British History Podcast" (filling in the vast amount of domestic history stuff from the Romans onward that I didn't learn anything about at school - we pretty much only did "Hitler and Stalin" in history class, and maybe a little bit about the Cold War and decolonisation).
And, Lord, the royals were so much more interesting and impressive in the distant past. Back when they earned their crown by regularly hacking each other to bits with swords in muddy fields.
I can understand the fascination with royalty if it's solely about that Game of Thrones past. I'm wondering at what exact point in the story did it transition to tedious sub-soap-opera kitsch?
I'm not sure that I did history O'level (it was a long time ago) also I was in Wales so there was a certain amount of "and then those English bastards did..."We didn't seem to do any domestic British history at all for O level (as it then was), the syllabus started with the origins of the First World War and went from there.
Hence all the stuff in this podcast about the Romans, the Christianisation of Britain, the Anglo-Saxons vs the Celts was entirely new to me. Though I only got as far as the 8th century or so (so have a very long way to go to get to Henry VIII or the Civil War). Just made it to the era of warring Celtic and Anglo-Saxon, Christian and Pagan, kingdoms (all, it seems, ruled over by competing families of hard-men and psychopaths, very much like warring mafia families controlling different boroughs) and found I kept losing the thread and having to listen to the same episodes repeatedly - lost track with all the Osberts and Oswins and Osgoods.
It's a disturbingly creepy painting. I kinda like it but it's not one I'd commission for myself if I didn't want to look like I was wading through a sea of blood to my throne of skulls. Maybe that's what he was going for.
I'm not sure that I did history O'level (it was a long time ago) also I was in Wales so there was a certain amount of "and then those English bastards did..."
Well, that's one view. I prefer art that inspires my imagination and uplifts my heart. Sometimes, like a painting reflecting the holocaust, wakes me from my middle class slumber - and that can be a good thing.Offensive to most probably, but that's what art should do. It needs to make you a bit uncomfortable in order to challenge your sensibilities.
I always side with the heathens if given a choice, and I favor northerners over the south(everywhere). Sweden going christian was very disappointing :^DOn that note I was bemused as to how partisan I started feeling about all that early history. Found myself siding with the Southern kingdoms and resenting those aggressive Northerners of Northumbria, trying to dominate the island (backstabbing the Welsh king along the way). A sentiment based entirely on geography (as the actual people don't have much continuity with the current population of either region, and almost none of my own ancestors would have been in this country at all at that time).
I mean, it's bad enough that they voted for Brexit and foisted Boris Johnson on us, how dare they try and take over Wessex!
Meh, England went to hell when they gave up on names starting with Æ. You could have had Æthelwulf XVI and Beornwulf VI and instead ended up with guys named Roger.On that note I was bemused as to how partisan I started feeling about all that early history. Found myself siding with the Southern kingdoms and resenting those aggressive Northerners of Northumbria, trying to dominate the island (backstabbing the Welsh king along the way). A sentiment based entirely on geography (as the actual people don't have much continuity with the current population of either region, and almost none of my own ancestors would have been in this country at all at that time).
I mean, it's bad enough that they voted for Brexit and foisted Boris Johnson on us, how dare they try and take over Wessex!
Well, that's one view. I prefer art that inspires my imagination and uplifts my heart. Sometimes, like a painting reflecting the holocaust, wakes me from my middle class slumber - and that can be a good thing.
I think my use of offensive is not what you think. I don't mean hurt--I mean wrest you from your normal mode. No good art is going to allow you to ignore it. Your description of the holocaust there is exactly what I am talking about. Consider that to some, they would actually be offended (in your sense) by that--which I say is still a good thing.
"Offense" generally has a broad meaning, though we tend to focus on the negative. But, indeed, if it offends, offends--then it is also being good.
Literally all the great works in history offended the established mode of the time. Where would we be had Galileo not mortally offended the assholes at the center of the Church, for example? That bastard Giotto had the fucking gall to give us perspective!
This portrait definitely ticks the marks for achieving Burke's sublime--therefore, I declare it most excellent.
Don't you be giving him ideas now!Shouldn't a 'Crimson King' have won a war or ordered a mass slaughter of peasants?