We have wondered often, too often, why 'Tate Britain...'
.('known from 1897 to 1932 as the National Gallery of British Art and from 1932 to 2000 as the Tate Gallery...'
is allowed to keep its snout in the public purse.
.
.
Those who run the place seem often to be less equipped with appreciation of real art than your average London down-and-out.
Mind you, much the same can be said for....
...most of the artsy in-crowd.
Now here we go again!
.
.
Lady of Shalott sent to storage and BLM moves in under Tate Britain's 'inclusive' rehang..
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/23/lalady-of-shallot-out-and-blm-in-in-tate-britain-rehang
Why call the den of vipers 'Tate Britain" at all, for God's sake?
Get this for a tatty Tate taster -
- vile anti-British propaganda....
Beside Joseph Van Aken's genteel portrait of a family taking tea in 1720, the text explains: "Tea was a bitter drink, sweetened with sugar produced in British colonies in the Caribbean with the labour of enslaved African people."
....
Exactly why anything related to the racist BLM should be given house-room at public expense baffled me.
Having read the full story, I'm baffled still.
Or maybe not.
What's being done by the woke-weasels at the Tate is part and parcel of an assault on the British heritage.
Why does the Tory Government not step in to stop all public funding?
No comments:
Post a Comment