http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/maddie/article580398.ece
This is terrible! What an awful idea, and not very good work either.
2007-12-17 23:14:04 · 25 answers · asked by !Lady Stormy! 5 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Mrs GC, yes you are right, I noticed that mark and wondered what it was, it does look like blood. That makes it worse!
2007-12-17 23:23:56 · update #1
Snizz ~ But I went to sleep too, of course. I was up early, as I have to be in the mornings.
2007-12-17 23:49:06 · update #2
As an artist I would never think of doing such a work. If one was doing a work one would make sure to ask the parents if one was to do so. This guy took a photo from the newspaper are somewhere and just went painting without thinking of anything at all. He is a disgrace to all Artists and as one I feel shamed for some reason.
2007-12-17 23:49:12 · answer #1 · answered by BUST TO UTOPIA 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
I must be missing something here but I can't see what all the fuss is about.
The guy is an artist. He paints for a living, he's painted a current event. Is that any different to a TV news reporter, or a journalist giving his version of a story and getting paid for it. Or photographers taking photos of the complex or the parents going to church etc. Or the kids in Ullapool who are getting paid for setting up and running the McCann website.
The up side of this is that Madeleine is still getting the publicity and is not being forgotten about.
The down side is that the painting is cr@p, but then most modern art is.
2007-12-18 12:45:12 · answer #2 · answered by threepenny53 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
This unfortunately is what artist do. Shock and amaze.
I don't really see why it is offencive when press photographers take ghoulish pictures and get away with it. The painting encapsulates a dreadful event as dramatically as the original picture.
2007-12-17 23:23:24 · answer #3 · answered by Spiny Norman 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
That wasn't a good idea at all. They could of at least made a somewhat good painting but why would they need it anyway. They have the picture.
2007-12-18 09:24:10 · answer #4 · answered by fαℓℓ ιи ¢нσ¢σℓαтє(: 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
They're horrible paintings and the artist is just trying to gain recognition by drawing attention to himself (sorry, no pun intended)
2007-12-18 08:14:53 · answer #5 · answered by Ysanne 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Don't think there's something wrong with me but you'll understand my answer in a minute....
I haven't got an answer to your question or an opinion on this matter.
So why am I answering this question? Because I just wanted to show how much I am not interested in these paintings and how much I think nothing about this at all. I don't understand why anybody gets upset about the paintings (we live in a free society - people can paint whatever they want and see in their environment). I also think nothing of its 'artistic value' because I don't think there is one.
2007-12-17 23:25:56 · answer #6 · answered by Luvfactory 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Making money out of an others grief,the sick,talentless B*****D.I can not wait for tragedy to strike at his door,then may be I will do a few paintings.
2007-12-17 23:27:44 · answer #7 · answered by shane c 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's nearly as bad as that 'artist's impression' of the faceless man last month.
This one puts me in mind of those crying boy paintings that everybody had in the 80's.
2007-12-17 23:22:47 · answer #8 · answered by Capt.Sensible 4 · 5⤊ 1⤋
That is awful,the artist must have a white stick and a Labrador to help him ...visually impaired I think!
2007-12-17 23:23:45 · answer #9 · answered by chomby 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Why does she have blood dripping out of her mouth? Is that the artists reference to child abuse?
2007-12-18 01:35:38 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋