Good Grief!

14 Comments

1. Give it a couple of years and the “Tate Modern” will snap it up. Have you no soul?

   • Clearly not. Heart of stone, me…

2. Dear God in heaven, that is THE single most appalling portrait I have ever had the misfortune to clap my eyes on, she is a gross enough visage in real life but that picture is just ….well….D I S G U S T I N G.
   Thats not art it’s an abomination., I would not mind betting it is painted by a black artist.
   Probably some up and coming nobody so Ms Abbot can say she is patronising the arts. patronising about sums it up.
   I wouldn’t hang that up as a Halloween dare.

   • It nearly put me off my evening meal.

3. The version you link to is mercifully cropped at the bottom, unlike the one in the Standard – was anyone else’s first reaction “For God’s sake, put some clothes on!”?

   • Eeeuw!

     • It’s unfortunate, to say the least, that her apparently unclothed state, combined with the style of execution, means that the image bears more than a passing resemblance to the clay reconstructions of prehistoric man (sorry – persons) that are frequently seen in museums and TV documentaries.

       http://factsanddetails.com/media/2/20120201-model.jpg

4. Diane Abbott? Surely not, the mouth is shut.

   Give the painter some credit doing that while continually heaving.

5. Reminds me, I must watch Predator again.

6. What grates most with me that it is tax-payers’ money – your money and mine – that is paying for that, without even giving us a by-your-leave!

7. Regardless od subject matter,and who paid, the portraits are actual not that bad.

   A plus factor is, we can see them being hung!!! Where else would you get such good value besides a lamp post?

8. Hells Teeth! Its Shrek’s ugly sister! It isn’t Halloween you know, put it away…. pleeeeeese!

9. I, certainly, wouldn’t ‘go to the wall’ with that. (and, sometimes, I’m not too choosy!)

10. If you have young children, you could place it on the mantelpiece to keep the kids away from the fire.