I get why it's controversial, but the painting is insanely iconic. I've seen it in person and it evokes a very unique feeling of surreal dread.
It is a shame that brainless idiots like the man in question choose to express their offense in the dumbest way possible.
The alleged assailant was a 37-year-old man from Voronezh, who, as reported by TV Center and other Russian media, wanted to destroy the painting because it distorted historical facts. "Ivan the Terrible did not kill his son," he was quoted as saying by Snob.
History is very important to me, so I'm going to destroy this historic painting.
Fucking degenerate
Well, he is right in historical sense, but damn, why destroy a precious painting.
Next time I see a historical inaccuracy on TV I guess I'll punch a hole through the screen with my bare hand.
this painting always reminded me of michael rosen
https://themoscowtimes.com/static/uploads/publications/2018/5/26/ecb1254c771145e5853bdbc667e7f46d.jpg
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/michaelrosen/images/9/90/Ade062aafcfb46462fa785c7e2bbf068.png/revision/latest?cb=20150303222532
«Приехал посмотреть на нее (картину — прим. «Ленты.ру»), в восемь вечера зашел в буфет, хотел уже уходить, выпил сто грамм водки. Водку не пью, вот и накрыло чего-то»
"Came to see this painting, at 8 o'clock went to a buffet, was thinking about leaving, drank 100 gramm of vodka. I don't usually drink vodka so it kinda got to me".
What a colossal idiot, wow.
This is why every fucking historical painting should have at least bulletproof museum glass or some other heavy protection. These painters were chronicling history before the camera was invented. Why anyone would display such a valuable piece of art without serious protection is beyond me.
Because it affects your ability to see the art, and most of the time this kinda stuff doesn't happen. Most works that get damaged get damaged by the galleries themselves.
Also, such coverings are extremely expensive.
What an intelligent individual.
I'm curious who alive would care so much about the presentation Ivan in 2018
I really hope all the damage done to it can be repaired. I'm a huge fan of the composition of that painting, the horrified look on Ivan's face, the way he holds his son, clasping the wound as if trying to stem the flow of blood, it just sends chills down my spine whenever I look at it. I don't care how historically accurate it is, it's a hauntingly beautiful masterpiece.
Hope this fucker spends a long time in jail and they see to it to make it harder to do something like this in the future.
Who do so fucking many people have behavioral problems these days. The fuck is going on with the world!?
A guy drinking a bunch of vodka and smashing a painting doesn't seem too off-color to the usual media stream TBH.
People acting like fools and destroying stuff isn't new, at least now it's individual paintings and not entire museums burning to the ground.
I mean, art vandalism has always been in vogue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandalism_of_art
Yea the damage this time wasn't even as extreme as the attack done to it in the article you linked in 1913 as they said he didn't damage the faces, hands or any particularly important parts of the piece.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Ivan_the_Terrible_%26_son_-_destroyed.jpg
But he did kill his son?
Gotta parrot this post; he did kill his son didn't he?
Nowadays it's highly debatable, as there was no proof Ivan did it before 18-19th century, when some history majors decided this as a fact. All of the documents from before only indicate that his son died, not telling the cause. Ivan Ivanovich (the son) himself suffered from high blood pressure, and could die from sudden aneurism, as they often argued with his father about political matters, and debates usually were very heated.
And recent evaluation of Ivan IV's bones found that he suffered from multiple bone diseases for at least a few years before his death, so a year before (when he allegedly killed his son) he could barely walk, yet alone use his staff to kill someone, even in a fit of anger (which in itself is only "proven" by one source, legitimacy of which is debatable)
And it's telling that the real name of painting is "Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan".
There are usually many misconceptions about Ivan IV even in Russia, yet alone western countries, even beginning with his name ("Грозный" doesnt't mean "Terrible", it's more akin to "Formidable"), and about how bloodthirsty he was (for the time, he was one of the more peaceful rulers in Europe)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
