the story of Thomas kinkade
I think in many ways his story explains a lot about the art world and how small minded it is.
If "real art" has to be emotionally challenging, then there was effectively no real art produced in the renaissance. Funny how that works. I don't know a single person that thinks "modern art" is worth a damn. I have seen a single piece of non-objective art that I rather liked, it was a composition of grey and red horizontal bars, I would hesitate to call it art though.
Now, I can't say I care for Kinkaid's work. It looks practically AI generated for how crappy it is. But that's a function of how by-the-book it is, not anything specific about the style or person.
EDIT - Now that I think of it, basically all of architecture is "not emotionally challenging", and thus should not be considered artistic. Boy, I bet that'll piss off the architects. "This sky scraper is yet another example of the kitschy phenomenon of boxy glass covered buildings, how does this challenge me emotionally?" Of course, this begs a question, if you are so experienced that nothing really 'challenges' you emotionally, than can anything be said to be art any more? If something ceased to be artistic because it reproduces that which has been common, then it stands that "emotional challenge" is something that can decrease with exposure, so you can be so over-exposed that you know yourself totally and nothing challenges you anymore. Does that mean that you no longer find beauty in the world?
To put it another way, the idea that emotional challenge equals artistic merit is bull shit.
Does that mean that you no longer find beauty in the world?
Your comment on architecture lays out a truth: most architects aren't really all that concerned with producing a monument to their vision for generations to admire. Take the guys and gals who design stuff like convience stores ... they're going to be more worried about stuff like aisle width and floor finishes than what the building looks like in a photograph.If "real art" has to be emotionally challenging, then there was effectively no real art produced in the renaissance. Funny how that works. I don't know a single person that thinks "modern art" is worth a damn. I have seen a single piece of non-objective art that I rather liked, it was a composition of grey and red horizontal bars, I would hesitate to call it art though.
Now, I can't say I care for Kinkaid's work. It looks practically AI generated for how crappy it is. But that's a function of how by-the-book it is, not anything specific about the style or person.
EDIT - Now that I think of it, basically all of architecture is "not emotionally challenging", and thus should not be considered artistic. Boy, I bet that'll piss off the architects. "This sky scraper is yet another example of the kitschy phenomenon of boxy glass covered buildings, how does this challenge me emotionally?" Of course, this begs a question, if you are so experienced that nothing really 'challenges' you emotionally, than can anything be said to be art any more? If something ceased to be artistic because it reproduces that which has been common, then it stands that "emotional challenge" is something that can decrease with exposure, so you can be so over-exposed that you know yourself totally and nothing challenges you anymore. Does that mean that you no longer find beauty in the world?
To put it another way, the idea that emotional challenge equals artistic merit is bull shit.
Your comment on architecture lays out a truth: most architects aren't really all that concerned with producing a monument to their vision for generations to admire. Take the guys and gals who design stuff like convience stores ... they're going to be more worried about stuff like aisle width and floor finishes than what the building looks like in a photograph.
With architects "make the client happy while meeting both the codes and the budget" comes before "make it their version of pretty".That's engineers. Engineers make sure things fit. Architects, as of the last 30 odd years, make it their version of pretty.
Then builders make it work.
BBC said:A team including an ex-FBI agent said Arnold van den Bergh, a Jewish figure in Amsterdam, probably "gave up" the Franks to save his own family.
The team, made up of historians and other experts, spent six years using modern investigative techniques to crack the "cold case". That included using computer algorithms to search for connections between many different people, something that would have taken humans thousands of hours.
Van den Bergh had been a member of Amsterdam's Jewish Council, a body forced to implement Nazi policy in Jewish areas. It was disbanded in 1943, and its members were dispatched to concentration camps.
But the team found that van den Bergh was not sent to a camp, and was instead living in Amsterdam as normal at the time. There was also a suggestion that a member of the Jewish Council had been feeding the Nazis information.
"When van den Bergh lost all his series of protections exempting him from having to go to the camps, he had to provide something valuable to the Nazis that he's had contact with to let him and his wife at that time stay safe," former FBI agent Vince Pankoke told CBS 60 Minutes.
Atlas Obscura said:Courtrooms of this era might have been even more exciting, though, if law enforcement officials had taken the advice of one Helene Adelaide Shelby of Oakland, California. Shelby’s innovative idea: what if someone besides an ordinary detective oversaw criminal justice-related interrogations? What if, for instance, the questioner was a giant skeleton with glowing red eyes and a camera hidden in its skull?
U.S. Patent #1749090, a.k.a. “Apparatus for obtaining criminal confessions and photographically recording them,” was filed by Shelby on August 16, 1927. Her goal was to cut down on retracted confessions: “It is a well known fact in criminal practices that confessions obtained initially from those suspected of crimes through ordinary channels, are almost invariably later retracted,” she explains in her patent application.