Well at least one can talk together about stuff and then see if the other suffered and dislikes certain parts or maybe finds it great and exactly why. Then you know quite fast how many experience he/she has in the field.
Imho he did not be became better at "painting" but he made better designs for paintings. He trained one important aspect of the whole piece of art, the design. The aspect of applying paint was not trained, so that probably has not improved.
A skilled painter isn't just someone who is good at applying paint the way he wants, similarly as how a skilled writer isn't just someone who writes the words he intends to write. The skill includes all aspects required to make great pieces.
In the end there is just paint/words. The question how to find and apply the right/wanted paint/words involves many aspects. By training one aspect it doesn't improve the other, but it may or may not improve the overall outcome.
The question is does the person performing the job him/herself finds it usefull what he/she does. Is doesn't matter if it is useful in your eyes. Because it has to do with appreciation, selfconfidence identification, finding satisfaction. If your are just being giving the feeling to be stupid useless replacable person by letting you jump trough useless hoops to please undefinable goals for more powerfull and this happens in a statistical signifant amount
then it tells something about current state of society and gives you some questions: why ist that ? , how do we handle the other humans around us?, what is causing that mindset and in what future, how would you/we like to live together?
Nice but the most interesting is left out imho. It stops at the human retinas. But the way color then triggers perception would, I assume, also have a very high influence.
For example we relate warm and cooler colors to turning forms relate the distribution of brightness and saturation to form, distance etc. Then the precieved forms and colors are related to feelings. So a better suitable colormap for medical images would require more to prevent misinterpretations.
'Pretty' is maybe also subjective but probably not arbitrary...
If I understood correctly they were optimizing for color difference which is a typical goal. I’m ready to be blown out of the water with an objective 10-“emotional slider axis” representation of color theory kind of like you describe.
Well the fact that the companies own the stuff that was researched with tax payer money, which then tax payer money must buy again also doesn't help to scale. As there is no real market but just an oligopol of producers. If the formulas would be public domain, the producers can compete who is fastest and there would be much more and they still earn good money...
A museum is not just an amusement park. If you want to see less art be more selective in what to see or go to the advertised shows and be amused.
A museum preserves cultural heritage.
The roman books about the greeks hidden in monasteries, sculptures buried in the earth that inspired the renaissance where not seen by the public for hundreds of years.
Until some start reading them again,a fire, a hope for a different way of thinking was born, accumulating to democracy land of the free etc. and probably your way of life as it is now.
So do not underestimate the value of currently unseen cultural heritage.
Selling it of now to a rich dump head showing it around until it rots in a basement as it is not envogue anymore is a filter but will put it on high risk.
Not as much has changed in Europe. These cultural values of beautifying your surroundings never went away. It's America that is incredibly utilitarian in contrast. It is amazing the ugliness we are used to.
> Not as much has changed in Europe. These cultural values of beautifying your surroundings never went away.
With regard to the GP’s remark, I noticed this with fast food places in the United States. McDonalds there seem to have a much lower level of cleanliness than in parts of Europe. I assumed that running a McDonalds franchise is completely systematized: corporate gives you a series of three-ring binders that tells you exactly how clean everything must be, but if that is so, then enforcement still differs from country to country.
Furthermore, US McDonalds were often staffed by unattractive people (the disturbingly obese or the merely unphotogenic), while in Eastern Europe – whether due to lax laws or the specifics of the labor market – McDonalds often hires fairly nubile young women.
The market positioning is different; remember that the first McDonalds to open in the USSR had queues round the block. Those staff probably weren't born when the USSR existed. But the value of American coolness still remains. As does the value of "keeping up appearances" in public.
> McDonalds there seem to have a much lower level of cleanliness than in parts of Europe
Some McDonalds I have been to in Europe were a whole dirtier than the ones I have frequented at home in New Zealand, but I put that down to frequenting the extremely high traffic tourist mcds rather than the normal traffic suburban restaurants.
They've been sued a lot about it, right? It seems they've argued in courts that the Hooters Girl persona is a 'bona fide occupational qualification.' I just don't see how McDonalds can pull that off.
EDIT: and anyways, its probably important to situate McDonald's in context: the vast majority of sales, even pre-pandemic, in the US, is drive through. It doesn't matter what your staff looks like, since customers and employees only see each other only after the order is completed.
Being utilitarian is being beautiful. When I look at the Brooklyn Bridge, I feel the same sense of aesthetics I would get from Roman aqueducts.
The problem of some American architecture is not that they are too utilitarian - it's that they stopped being utilitarian in search of some nebulous artistic merit.
The Brooklyn Bridge is utilitarian, but also constructed with an eye to aesthetics and beauty. Contrast it with your typical highway overpass.
The same thing applies to the aqueducts, by the way. Sure, they were engineering projects, but they were constructed with an eye towards elegance and beauty.
Want to see a purely utilitarian aqueduct? Look up the Acqua Felice, built to restore Rome's water supply in the 16th century after a thousand years of interruption. Sure, it did the job, but it's much uglier than the old Roman aqueduct right next to it.
Now, modern buildings aren't just ugly because they focus entirely on function (like the Acqua Felice) -- they're intentionally and deliberately ugly and inhuman. Modern architecture is awful.
It’s worth noting that when you look at 2000 year old buildings, you’re generally looking at stuff that both lasted 2000 years, so was probably of fairly high end construction, and that survived 2000 years without someone saying “we should pull that down and build an office block”. A lot of the stuff that didn’t survive mightn’t be so inspiring, and after the stuff around at the moment goes through the same filter, in the 40th century people may marvel at how amazing 20th century architecture was!
Unless it is actively preserved for the entire duration I doubt any modern concrete building will survive 2000 years. Brickwork may last that long, depending on the quality of the masonry. There is definitely some selection bias with ancient architecture, the buildings built to stand forever are the ones that have stood forever.
I wonder how granular people will look at this period of history in 2000 years. Just like how we tend to lump a period of half a millennium together as “roman times” people in 4000 ad might consider a 17th century cathedral and a 21st century court house to be from the same era.
It’s because we are new. America doesn’t have any domainant original cultural memory. Our edifices are second hand European. Every other place from Rome or India or Caucasus have had invasions and migrations and intermingling of cultures etc that paint everything in vibrant shades.
I would imagine colonization happened for economic gain with the colonists benefiting. The colonized population were likely still governed by the locals who were controlled by the colonizers.
For example, India was a colony of Britain. All trade was diverted to Britain to benefit them. The great famine of bengal for example was because farmers had to grow and send cotton to England rather than grow food for Indians. The economic activities were controlled by the colonizers armed forces.
The British colonized India. The Moghals invaded India. Alexander, The Great...for example..tried to invade India, but had to retreat. It’s usually done with armies vs colonizations that is through trade.
An invasion is when a military moved in and took over the government. The invaded country became the de facto territory of the invaders. And the invaded people have to live by the rule of the invaders. Example: Georgia was invaded by mongols and the Turks and then Russia. Each time, it became part of the other’s empire.
The US was colonized with entire family units being uprooted and moved, and little cultural and marriage intermingling, sometimes by law.
Mexico and Central/South America instead starting as a military venture with mostly men raping/“marrying” the native women and having children that way.
I suppose the main difference is that the colonization of the US was an invasion that was so successful that native Americans living there before were almost exterminated(being today less than 1% of the US population) and as a result nobody cares about them anymore.
Usually invaders, like Alexander the Great, Tariq ibn Ziyad , Kublai Kan, Hernán Cortés or Napoleon will kill opposition(mostly males) but leave women and children and men who don't oppose them.
That means most of the society remains the same after the invaders take control of power, and grant special privileges to themselves, like owning the best land or having sex with the local women.
In the US, they never mixed with local population, they just expelled them of fertile soil until they died from starvation, illnesses or fights.
I'm not sure I understand how native Americans are unrelated to the topic at hand. They still exist, and there are still thousand year old villages in the US and Mexico.
A United States where a significant fraction of the Native population had survived, intermingled, and developed their own 20th-century culture and architecture on a significant scale would be very different.
Salary is higher in areas where the source of money creation is. The current source by our economic design is currently in the banking credit area. Then the business type, telling the story that appears to be the most interesting for these kind of guys, gets most credit, with this credit, all saleries are paid (so independent from real market or need, just based on a 'market' of imagined future value, if we would sell it would be..remember finance crises, people lost real jobs because money creation stopped). So it is no wonder that health care workers get less and others a lot more. Its not really earned but shared along story telling lines. One fairy tail is "market". Unless the banking investment guy gets sick, once in a while, he has no interest for biology or health care, but he likes big machines and cars. Its hard to imagine how biology is usefull for him, unless just to make a lot more money to buy more cars and penthouses, why not 'invest' in that directly?. Just my little theory :-D
