Some links on this page are affiliate links: if you buy through them we may earn a commission, at no extra cost to you.
Two enormous Christmas-themed murals in Kingston upon Thames, southwest London, were reportedly removed in November 2025 after attracting ridicule for their distorted people, animals and snowman. However, available reporting does not show that the murals were torn down simply because residents noticed grotesque visual errors. The reported dispute instead centered on whether one scene carried a political message about migrants crossing the English Channel.
What happened in Kingston upon Thames?
The incident involved two large murals displayed on buildings in Kingston upon Thames, a borough in southwest London. They were presented as festive Christmas artwork rather than as a single freestanding decoration.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
Wall to Wall: Mural Art Around the World | $14.84 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
The Mural Artist's Handbook | $15.29 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
Diego Rivera. The Complete Murals (Fantastic Price) | $64.59 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
Basics of Mural Art: Step-by-Step practical guide for mural art | $12.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
Mural Masters: A New Generation | $29.83 | Buy on Amazon |
Futurism reported on November 21, 2025, that the murals appeared earlier that week and were reportedly torn down days later by the owners of the affected buildings. The accessible reporting does not include an official statement from Kingston upon Thames authorities, a formal removal notice or a public confirmation from the artist.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsWhy did the murals attract attention?
Images of the work reportedly showed malformed human figures, animals with strange features and a severely distorted snowman. The overall appearance reminded viewers of early generative-image failures, particularly the way image generators have historically struggled with anatomy, hands, faces and repeated figures.
#1 Best Overall
That visual resemblance is evidence of an impression, not proof of a production method. Surrealism, low-resolution printing, collage, deliberate distortion and ordinary human mistakes can also produce unusual anatomy. The available report does not identify an AI model, prompt, workflow or amount of human editing.
The most accurate description is therefore that the murals appeared to be AI-generated or AI-assisted. It is not established that they were definitively made by generative AI.
Why were they reportedly removed?
The headline version of the story suggests a simple chain of events: residents spotted disturbing AI errors, complained and the murals were taken down. The available reporting does not prove that sequence.
PC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchRank #2
According to Futurism’s account of reporting by London Centric, the removal was reportedly connected to an argument over the murals’ possible political meaning. One image apparently showed people moving through ankle-deep water. Some viewers interpreted that scene as migrants crossing the English Channel.
That interpretation was contested. Depending on the viewer, the scene could be read as criticism of migrants, a sympathetic depiction of people undertaking a dangerous journey, a historical or religious crowd scene, or an intentionally ambiguous image. The available evidence does not establish what the artist intended.
What did the building owners say?
Futurism reported that the owners said “nobody knows” what made the murals political. They reportedly described the work as a Christmas scene inspired by Pieter Bruegel the Elder, the 16th-century Flemish painter known for crowded scenes of everyday life.
Rank #3
That is an attributed explanation, not an independently established art-historical conclusion. The available reporting does not show that the murals copied a specific Bruegel work or confirm how closely the finished images followed that tradition.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Who made the artwork?
The murals were reportedly associated with artist Mat Collishaw, who is known for using artificial intelligence in some of his work. But the attribution came through an unnamed source cited in the reporting, and the accessible account did not include a public confirmation from Collishaw that he created the murals.
Several separate questions should not be collapsed into one:
- Reported attribution: An unnamed source reportedly linked the artwork to Collishaw.
- Public confirmation: The accessible report did not establish that he accepted responsibility.
- Production method: It did not verify that generative AI was used, or explain how.
- Removal decision: The murals were reportedly removed by the affected buildings’ owners, but the public record described in the report does not fully explain the owners’ authority, commissioning arrangement or contractual obligations.
What is confirmed, and what remains uncertain?
| Question | Best-supported answer |
|---|---|
| Where were the works? | Kingston upon Thames in southwest London. |
| How many works were involved? | Two large murals, not one conventional decoration. |
| What did they depict? | Christmas-themed scenes with distorted people, animals, a snowman and crowd-and-water imagery. |
| Were they made with AI? | They appeared AI-generated or AI-assisted, but the available reporting does not prove it. |
| Were they removed? | They were reportedly torn down by the affected buildings’ owners. |
| Why were they removed? | Reporting linked the removal to controversy over possible political meaning, especially a migration-related interpretation. |
| Did the artist confirm responsibility? | Not in the accessible report. |
Why the AI question matters
This episode is more complicated than an example of “bad AI art.” If an image is generated or heavily assisted by AI, responsibility can become unclear: the creator may select the prompt, the system may introduce unexpected distortions, and an editor or building owner may approve the final work without recognizing how viewers will interpret it.
AI also makes ambiguity more visible. A distorted crowd may be an intentional artistic reference, an accidental model artifact or an error introduced during printing. Without production records or a statement from the creator, viewers cannot reliably infer the workflow from visual defects alone.
The same problem applies to meaning. A crowd in water can acquire a contemporary political interpretation even if its maker intended a historical or festive scene. Calling the result “just decoration” does not settle how public-facing artwork will be understood, while public reaction alone does not prove intent.
Best Value
The story behind the sensational headline
The original framing compresses several different claims into one dramatic narrative. It treats two murals as a single “giant decoration,” states AI generation as fact and implies that residents’ discovery of grotesque figures directly caused the removal.
A more defensible account is narrower: two bizarre Christmas murals in Kingston upon Thames drew mockery because they looked AI-generated, and they were reportedly removed amid a separate dispute over whether one scene suggested a political message about migration.
The available public record, as described in the reporting, does not establish who commissioned the murals, which tools were used, whether the artist supplied the final images, whether the local council approved the display or whether the work was intended to be temporary. It also does not prove that the murals mocked migrants, humanized them or violated any law or public-art rule.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Bottom line
The murals were real, and they were reportedly removed. But the evidence does not support the simplest viral explanation. Their grotesque appearance sparked attention and ridicule; the reported reason for removal was a controversy over political interpretation, particularly the possibility that a water scene depicted migrants crossing the English Channel. The artist attribution, AI-production claim and precise reason for removal all require qualification.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
