Jump to content

Talk:Akiane

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

She may be fake

[edit]

http://forums.studioproducts.com/showthread.php?t=27656 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.143.240.34 (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I looked at the link above and found no hard evidence, only second or third-hand insinuation that her art couldn't have been done by her because she hadn't been directly witnessed at work or that different paintings were too different in style to be by the same hand. Nobody doubts that Picasso's Cubist paintings were done by the same hand as the much different, realistic drawings he made of his own young children. And as for the Kitschy aspects of Akiane's work, that seems to me to be a piece of evidence for, not against, their creation by a pre-adolescent. Petersoncello 13:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Hard Proof of Talent

[edit]

I'm noticing a lot of work but I don't see a 'how to' or some other proof of ability. The poetry is hard to see in action, sure, but you would think if she was really this good of an artist she'd have some sort of video of her in action; the official site claims there are videos, but they're not showing them and they sure aren't selling them. If only her parents had a way to spread this proof of her talent without costing lots of money and so lots of people could see for themselves and pass on this information online to other online skeptics . . . oh, I know! YouTube! How silly of me . . .

Furthermore I'm not seeing a lot of range, emotion, or even evolution. A kid who hasn't even hit puberty should be showing at least SOME evolution as her body changes and her arm span gets longer (and especially as the wrist bones change up). She shouldn't even be able to REACH the tops of most of her works, and yet the brushstrokes appear to be consistent, in length, width, and brush-load, AND in spatial perspective? She either has a great eye or a really creative way of getting those little edges of canvas, or something about this isn't right.

The Oprah stuff is from age 9 (and hey, Oprah's been fooled before . . . A Million Little Pieces comes to mind), just a scant year from when she started producing en masse, with very little demonstrated (or documented, for that matter) education. Likewise, her signature in a few places doesn't demonstrate the same care shown in the photos.

It has all the signs of a good marketing blitz, but little more. I'm all for encouraging young artists, but I have a hard time believing this girl when so much of her process isn't available to the public and yet she still has enough time to get this much press and publicity. Veled 00:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a video of her painting here[dead link‍], maybe not as much proof as you wanted but I don't think it's that hard to believe. If you look at her official website you'll see that her paintings have mostly evolved as she's gotten older (ie. they've gotten better). I'm not sure what kind of changes you expected to see in her paintings due to her arms getting longer but surely they would've been minimal? And an experience painter would've been able to compensate for it (by the time she reached puberty she had already been painting for over 5 years.)
She shouldn't even be able to REACH the tops of most of her works, and yet the brushstrokes appear to be consistent, in length, width, and brush-load, AND in spatial perspective?
You've studied her paintings that closely? To tell you the truth I've noticed that the perspective in a lot of her paintings weren't perfect, but still, is it so hard to believe that maybe she stood on something to reach the tops of her paintings? Ospinad 19:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The video of her allegedly actually painting is no longer available. I agree with Veled, there is no evolution with her paintings, they did not get better as she aged and grew up which one would expect, they stayed the same. I bet her daddy did paint them all. He'd already evolved to that point the paintings demonstrate and of course he would not want the recognition, he couldn't have made all the money off that kid if he admitted they were his. The paintings are run of the mill works for an adult.Pedro Pantalones (talk) 03:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


There is a video of her painting here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qIAN18DGIA


SOMEBODY painted those wonderful paintings. If not Akiane, then who? Don't you think the real artist would want the recognition? jspugh 20:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to remember that 20/20 did a piece on her, and suggested that her father was a failed artist, who may be responsible for much of the paintings. That rings likely to me for several reasons. 1) Paintings of that caliber would not create a stir if an adult did them, because there are many adult painters who can paint like that; 2) the very large portraits were a trend among artists of the period when he would have been a young painter - late seventies and early eighties; 3) the level of skill and maturity needed for this work is simply not conceivable to have been created by a child, unless you bring in religious faith. Basically, you'd have to be a believer of divine inspiration (not as to subject matter, but to produce this level of skill) to be able to suspend skepticism, and that seems a likely reason why religion is invoked in the subject matter, and the story that she is divinely inspired. If the family wasn't selling her "original" works for up to a million dollars, and her reproductions (giclees) for thousands, I would have less reason for skepticism. Catwoman07076 (talk) 08:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even think the art is particularly good; it looks like the kind of stuff you see on shirts at flea markets or prints at the county fair that you can get for popping a balloon with a dart. That said, there's no evidence at all that she painted these bad paintings in the first place. Has the whiff of a scam to me and I'm glad others think so —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.77.160 (talk) 22:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


If one is to believe in musical prodigies, I don't see what makes a young prodigy in the plastic arts so difficult to believe. She is not a particularly inspired artist, merely a skilled one. The paintings are out and out kitsch, which makes them quite believable as the output of a child. It is also clear that the kid is being exploited by her family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doktorf (talk • contribs) 10:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find no reference to Akiane Kramarik on the website of the Ophrah Winfrey Show. If she was featured, as is often sited on her websites, then why is it so difficult to see a video of it. Anybody have a URL reference to see the interview on the internet somewhere? (TCJ 6/1/11) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.200.194.235 (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure Oprah's website wouldn't keep a complete list of every person who's ever appeared on her show over the last 25 years because it would be too damn huge. I haven't found a video of Oprah interviewing her, but pictures of her on the Oprah stage showcasing her work are easily found. For An Angel (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
shrug :: and supposing it's demonstrated that she's authentic, you'll find some other reason to dislike or dismiss her? The subject matter is the problem, isn't it? - Jeff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:8C80:1370:4D13:A4CB:9070:D6C5 (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oprah's footage requires licensing which is why it is difficult to find online footage. This footage is included in an exclusive short film at Belóved Gallery. 2603:8080:FC00:3098:7CAB:A06F:DEC0:CC81 (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OKay people, if you really want evidence, look up youtube here https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Akiane — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:B011:4003:124F:6464:7213:7A9C:4169 (talk) 07:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube citation

[edit]

It seems to me that the link to YouTube is a copyright violation and should not be used under any circumstances. Elizium23 (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube references are WP:RS if they come from an official page. Generally, television shows will license a copy of the guest's interview and allow them to display and archive it on their channel -- if there was a copyright problem in that respect, the owner would have requested the clip be taken down. Books are also copy-written and so is news content from newspapers, magazines and websites, are you suggesting that we can't reference (refer to) any copy-written material? 009o9 (talk) 01:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yet this was not an official page, this was some guy who's assembled clips from all sorts of sources without permission. This was not Akiane's channel, this was clearly a screengrab from Dutch TV. Please read WP:ELNEVER for why we cannot link to copyright violations. (We can link to copyrighted material just fine, but you don't seem to understand the difference between linking to copyrighted content and linking to content which is in violation of copyright.) Elizium23 (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What YouTube video are you referring to? If the work is posted on the Artist's official page, and the artist is the subject of the feature TV appearance, we can presume that the work is used by permission and licensed to the artists. Coming (linking) from the subject's official site, we have no reason to presume that the post is copy-vio, and every reason to believe that the work is licensed to the subject as a courtesy -- in this case WP:ELNEVER would not apply.
The "Wonder" time lapse selfie video is also on the artist's official YouTube page, no copy-vio there either. 009o9 (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In case you didn't notice the timestamp on my comment, you're replying to a thread almost four years old. I was referring to a citation I removed back then that was a clear copyvio. It had nothing to do with the IP's link recently posted in the middle of another discussion. Elizium23 (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't notice the time-stamp, being the last section had me presuming that the entry was the latest discussion. I've taken an interest in the subject and saw some contention here (with some current replies) and wanted to see if we are working from consensus or if it is okay to WP:BEBOLD. Happy New Year! 009o9 (talk) 05:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Akiane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Akiane&oldid=1226429926"