Imo paid articles should get marked. :c

It didn't paywall me FWIW but it seems to be the modern state of online journalism that some people get paywalled and others don't for arbitrary reasons. Probably so the ones who don't get paywalled can share an article that then paywalls others.

You can omit the paywall using a web archive like Archive.is or Wayback Machine.
Or using uBlock Origin.
Or using Unpaywall.

This article is about a priest at the same church. He had nothing to do with the botched restoration.

He was in charge of the church and allowed the local artist to restore it.

Wow, was it really that long ago?

I wonder if it was a drag queen? Peaks inside Not a drag queen

What about trans athletes?

Bad taste continues to be a warning sign for bad judgment

Sometimes. And by the time I've tried them all I've lost interest in reading the article.

That's what the downvote and report buttons are for

Site doesn't load

sure but it turned into a huge tourist attraction. and the raised lots of money charging people to see it for charity. No one wanted to see the original, what is art ?

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/monkey-business-pensioner-behind-botched-christ-fresco-raises-ps43-000-for-charity-as-her-artwork-becomes-major-tourist-attraction-8760652.html

Spanish pensioner Cecilia Gimenez’s well-intentioned, but botched attempts to restore a 19th-century fresco of Jesus at her local church has proven surprisingly lucrative.

The “Ecce Homo” (Behold the Man) was re-christened “Ecce Mono” (Behold the Monkey) after the pensioner artist’s efforts rendered the image virtually unrecognisable, and drew ridicule from across the world.

But it has become a major tourist attraction raising much-needed funds for the local community.

Since news of the botched fresco made headlines a year ago the church has drawn more than 40,000 visitors and raised £43,000 (€50,000) for a local charity.

Mrs Gimenez, 81, and the local council are to share profits from merchandise featuring the image – and the pensioner is also due to have other artworks exhibited

What is art? If you're like me, you might describe art as the study of choice. I like that descriptor because the choice to make as much money as possible with a minimum of talent and judgment, no matter how successful, will never have earned my respect. Each of us does that every day. I do not begrudge it, but creating tourism revenue adds nothing to the conversation of any artistic fields.

I'm willing to bet it was someone slightly ambiguous using a different bathroom than Nancy expected them to.

Wait, not them either?

Technically still a man in a dress.. Just not one of the cool ones.

I bet it was one of those deviant homosexual couples abusing their adopted child.

Oh, no, it's just a single man of christ? Hm

Group of people arrested on multiple charges including fraud and sexual assault.

No further information on any of these crimes and charges..

Oh but one of them is the priest from the church of the meme painting.

Stupid article. Also not cool to again insult the artist (who never pretended to be more than an amateur and was not finished painting)

What they could have added is that village and artist have found peace with the fame and the profits from tourism supported elders in the local home.

I think your title is likely to cause misinformation.

Same church, different person entirely. Also the person who restored the painting wasn’t a priest.

A lawyer for the priest said the charges were unrelated to the Ecce Homo incident.

I had to read this a few times and can you elaborate with other examples?

In the current example taste had nothing to do with it. The lady asked if she could restore the fading painting and he was ok with it.

The initial mural was said to be artistically unremarkable. He might have valued the devotion of a follower to volunteer help maintain the church above its artistic value.

Add archive.ph to the front of the URL, takes 2 seconds.

You might be overthinking. All I said is that people with poor taste also show poor judgement. So it's not surprising when someone who promotes blatantly bad art also gets caught doing fraud and sexual assault.

As for further examples of bad taste and poor judgment, we need look no further than what remains of the White House.

He was in charge of the church and allowed the local artist to restore it.

Hence why I wrote that he was related to the case.

I don’t think i am.

I am not speaking on the character of these people though, i don't know them. I am only speaking on the logic of the known facts.

Which is that no one promoted blatantly bad art at any point of time.

The priest gave permission before the restoration was started, there is no way to know in advance how a finished work will look.

Then they also didn't promote it, it went viral by visitors before it was finished. And the town allegedly hated it and the women was not allowed to continue working on it. (Which she is still sad about)

Going viral caused mass tourism which was an additional burden on the town.

The decision to ask money to see it was a reaction to the spontaneous tourism and to try balance the overload it caused on a small town.

That decision ended up doing more good then anticipated and only now the town views the painting as a positive.

Then on being:
“one of six men to have been arrested by the Civil Guard as part of a fraud investigation.”

“Alleged sexual assault” is part of the investigation, but there is no mention of a victim or who of the 6 was involved with what crime.

At this point It might be as simple as he knew something from a confession and didn’t tell the police.

Your sentence about bad taste/poor judgement is therefore not relevant. We dont know their taste nor judgement.

Trump is a good example though but i can’t help but think there are people with good taste that have poor judgement and bad taste that have good judgement all over the world. Taste being very subjective also.

And that is indeed using misinformation tactics.

What.
How?

A native English speaker would likely read that title to mean that the priest was the one holding the paintbrush.

I disagree. Hence why I wrote "related" and not "painted".

Well, this was fun. Thanks, bye!

You can disagree with an interpretation, but you can't disagree that someone else interpreted a sentence the way they did. The comments and upvotes in the comments tell you very clearly how others are interpreting it.

As a +1 explicit data point, I'll tell you right now that I also read it as the priest being the painter at first.

You could have put that relation in the title to avoid ambiguity

Yeah I disagree with that entirely. Maybe people who don't pay attention to words and just jump to conclusions would. But those people shouldn't be coddled.

Your comment appears to rely on the premise that this interpretation is wrong. But consider where the meaning of words come from. They're for communicating with other human beings. If the target audience interprets it a certain way, then that is the correct meaning. In one-to-many communications, it is the expectation that the one follows the conventions of the many. To be coddled is to have it go the other way around.

The problem with your with your theory here is it's entirely based on the person trying to communicate the idea. You leave absolutely no responsibility to the listener/reader. They have to have an open mind and pay attention and be ready to learn. They also have to actually read the words as they are written. In other words they can't be so half cocked that they just assume they know what something means before they actually read it. Once they've done that they've betrayed their responsibility as the reader/listener.

In short you read it wrong. That's on you. You didn't try to interpret it critically, or not even critically really just basically, you just assumed you knew what it meant. Now you're having a hissy fit because you are wrong and don't want to admit it. You want things handed to you with no effort on your part. Codling.

Didn't this happen in 2013

Where do the meaning of words come from?

What you need more hand holding Socrates?

That seems to be the main point we disagree on. This conversation won't go anywhere until there's a consensus on this. To me, the goal of language (and the words that compose that language) is to optimize transfer of information. In colloquial conversations and news headlines, we optimize for the rate of information transfer. In more formal settings like academia or legalese, we optimize for minimal ambiguity at the expense of the rate.

If the target audience interprets it a certain way, then that is the correct meaning.

You can't live in a world where you're not the "target audience", can you?

For what it's worth, English is my second language but I'm clearly fluent, and I understood the title's intent and didn't assume the priest related to it was the one who did it.

That said, the title is not the clearest, it could be confusing; if I'm confused about something like this, I'd usually clarify it and react to the clarification.

It appears you really don't like the idea of being an outlier who didn't get it, and that maybe makes you feel dumb, do you want all of us to coddle you with agreements and praise of your intellect and persuasive argument.

I don't usually analyze people like this, I just wanted to be as annoying as you.

The many do not agree with you.

This is a lot of syllables to say “words should mean things.” You’ve somehow turned “communication should be clear” into a peer-reviewed discovery.

That’s not what the article said. You may be quoting from an article that you didn’t post.

You can’t live in a world where you’re not the “target audience”, can you?

Why not? I'm pretty sure I'm not the target audience for Fox News articles.

But I think what you're trying to get at is that not everyone in the target audience will have the same interpretation? Some, like yourself, will read it the way that the author intended. So consequently, you can't write a headline that will be correctly interpreted by everyone. The best you can do is to write in a way that it's correctly interpreted by as many as possible.

It appears you really don’t like the idea of being an outlier who didn’t get it

I'm not a fan of being the outlier that put so much effort into learning how neurotypical communication works only to be told that my understanding of neurotypical communication is wrong with no actual correction. I like to be able to understand other people, neurotypicals included, but if this isn't how they would interpret this headline, I'd like to know how they actually do rather than just being told something like "if they interpret it differently, then they're dumb and not worth your time".

As a raging autist, I'd like to invite you to shut up!

This is a person sharing something they find interesting on an online discussion forum, they're not a professional author at a reputable outlet, it's okay for the meaning of the post title to also be part of the discussion.

You have no evidence at all that they are NT, much less that your neurodivergence is why you're being so obtuse.

I like to be able to understand other people, neurotypicals included, but if this isn't how they would interpret this headline, I'd like to know how they actually do

Then you should simply post a comment asking for clarification, like I said earlier. Instead you started berating and insulting them and started a long annoying pointless argument with multiple people insisting they used language wrong, their sentence is incomprehensible to native English speakers, and now a new goalpost is that their language wasn't accessible enough for you.

It's plenty accessible, it's a forum, you can clarify all confusions without ever needing to accuse them of intentionally using malicious misleading tactics from the initial interaction.

if they interpret it differently, then they're dumb and not worth your time

Nobody made that argument. You're dumb for insisting that despite being a minority who interpreted something differently than intended, it's the speaker's fault and malicious intent.

It's a communication forum, just have a conversation brother.

it's okay for the meaning of the post title to also be part of the discussion.

Isn't that what this entire thread is?

accuse them of intentionally using malicious misleading tactics

I never implied intent. Or rather, never intended to. If there's a particular comment I made that did, do let me know. My communication skills are perpetual work in progress.

And that is indeed using misinformation tactics.

This is where you went from "I'm not sure if you meant it the way I initiated l interpreted it" to "I was right all along, you're intentionally spreading misinformation".

That wasn't my comment

Ha, and so it isn't. You squeezed right in to defend it though...

That I did. I wasn't aware that the comment implied any intent. And that's on me, which is the entire point in trying to communicate. Even if I didn't intend to imply malice, I still did, and it's my responsibility as the speaker to communicate better so that the reader actually interprets the text as I meant it to be interpreted.