upworthy

debate

Art

$50 painting found at garage sale questionably hailed as long-lost van Gogh

The Van Gogh Museum, so far, is not convinced.

By Vincent van Gogh - Google Arts & Culture — mwF3N6F_RfJ4_w, Public Domain, LMI Group

The owner of a painting found at a garage sale is convinced it's a van Gogh.

Van Gogh...ever heard of him? Cut off his own ear, painted a self-portrait with a bandage wrapped around his head, one of the most well-known painting masters of all time. Ring a bell?

He was born and lived in the late 1800s. Starry Night, arguably his most famous work and one of the most famous paintings of all time, was completed in 1889, just one year before he died. And though Van Gogh was incredibly prolific, creating well over 1,000 known works, there's something tragic about his art being finite. There will never be another van Gogh, and he will never have the opportunity to put brush to canvas again and give us more of his incredible work to admire, discuss, and debate.

Or...will he?

A painting discovered at a Minnesota garage sale and purchased for less than $50, is dividing the art community. The new owners are convinced it's an original, long lost van Gogh.

 vincent van gogh, van gogh, art, artists, painting, fine art, starry night, master painters, art history, museums Are there still undiscovered van Goghs out there?  Giphy  

An undisclosed buyer snagged the painting from the garage sale—imagine that!—several years ago and found similarities to the styles of Vincent van Gogh. The painting appears to show a fisherman standing by the sea with the letters "ELIMAR" scrawled in the corner. This person submitted a claim with the van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam in 2019, considered the absolute authority on the artist, which was quickly denied.

But the story didn't end there. The original buyer sold the painting of the fisherman to a New York company called LMI Group, who were convinced they had an authentic van Gogh on their hands. They set out to prove it with no expense spared.

After years of meticulous research and scientific evaluation, LMI Group released a more-than-400-page report outlining all the findings. In the estimation of their experts, Elimar was without a doubt, painted by van Gogh. Here's why:

  • An egg-white finish was found on the painting, a technique van Gogh was known to use in order to preserve his works when rolling the canvasses.
  • They believe "Elimar" is the name of the painting, and handwriting analysis matches the lettering to other samples from Van Gogh. "A precise mathematical comparison of the letters 'E L I M A R' to the block and free-form letters found in other autograph works by van Gogh, yielded significant similarities in the letters’ characteristics, including stroke length, counter, angle, stroke width, and bounding size," the press release reads.
  • The framing and pose of the subject mirrors van Gogh's later self-portraits.
  • The materials used are confirmed to match the time period in which van Gogh was actively painting.
  • Perhaps most fascinatingly, embedded right there into the painting was a human hair. "Methodical DNA analysis verified that the hair belonged to a human male, with the investigating scientists observing that the hair appeared to be red in color," according to the report.

If Elimar were truly a van Gogh, it would make the piece potentially worth over $15 million.

 vincent van gogh, van gogh, art, artists, painting, fine art, starry night, master painters, art history, museums The painting, "Elimar", was found at a garage sale in Minnesota several years ago.LMI Group

For all the rigorous scientific evidence outlined in the report, the art community collectively disagrees: They say there's no way the Elimar piece was done by van Gogh.

The Van Gogh Museum even officially rejected the attribution recently, casting massive doubts on the attribution to the Dutch master.

But how can people be so dismissive of all the rigorous evidence, all the forensics, materials dating, and even DNA analysis of the hair?! Easy: Elimar just doesn't look or feel right.

Lindsey Bourret, director of Signature Art Authentication put it perfectly: “One of the defining features of van Gogh’s paintings is the precision within his expressive brushwork—his strokes may be bold, but they are purposeful, creating movement and depth that feel both instinctive and masterful. Elimar, by contrast, lacks that balance...While scientific analysis can date materials, it cannot account for an artist’s touch—and in this case, the stylistic weaknesses strongly suggest that this is not a van Gogh.”

There's also common sense at play. Van Gogh was not typically known to sign most of his paintings or write titles on them. So writing "ELIMAR" in the corner would be very out of character for him to do. Far more likely, experts say, is that the painting belongs to Danish painter Henning Elimar. When you see another example of Henning Elimar's work, well, the case is pretty damning.

 

I think there's a part of all of us that really wants Elimar to be a van Gogh. How amazing is it to think that we could still discover new work by one of the greatest artists of all time?

What if there were new inventions and drawings from Leonardo da Vinci still out there, waiting for us to find them? Or a previously unread play written by William Shakespeare?

Sadly, there's a lot of money at stake in potential discoveries like this. Van Gogh is one of the most frequently forged artists because, if you were to convince the world that you had a van Gogh, it would be worth millions of dollars. Though Elimar is not a case of outright forgery, it's certainly possible that the potential riches and excitement have made experts squint a little too hard to try to make the case.

That's not to say Elimar still doesn't have its believers. Susan Brantly, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, helped work on the LMI report and remains convinced. “The first time you look at it, you could say: ‘What? That’s not a Van Gogh. Everybody knows what a Van Gogh looks like,’” Brantly said. But deep research of van Gogh's letters, life, and artistic style convinced her otherwise.

Elimar aside, new works by van Gogh and other masters are out there. In 2013, a painting called Sunset at Montmajour was authenticated. Before that, a new one was added to the collection in 1928. These events are rare and should be highly appreciated. In the meantime, it's OK to continue holding out hope for the next big discovery.

From Your Site Articles
art
Politics

My Gen Z teen's reaction to the debate between John McCain and Barack Obama was shocking

"Why were they so nice to each other?"

John-Mccain-Barack-Obama | Pimkie | Flickr

My Gen Zer's reaction to the McCain/Obama debate was shocking

Gen Z is a very politically aware generation, though many of them are still in high school they keep up with the political landscape of the world. There are many Gen Z political and social movements as well as official organizations fully run by these young people. Given how politically active Gen Z is, sometimes it's easy to forget they weren't old enough to be politically conscious when Barack Obama was running for president. It wasn't that long ago but some people, it's already history.

Their exposure to politics came to be in some pretty harsh and polarizing times where they were often at the center of the discussion. For many of the older Gen Zers, they felt thrusted into the political sphere to fight for gun reform whether they were ready or not.

Because politics has never been off limits, and I encourage them to research policies to form their own opinions, I hadn't realized there was something missing. Just like nearly every geriatric Millennial I waste a good amount of time scrolling through TikTok while doing mundane chores. But this time my 16-year-old was watching over my shoulder. I was stopped on a video clip of John McCain and Barack Obama's presidential debate in 2008, which happens the be the year my 16-year-old was born.

After a brief comment about how young former President Obama looked in the clip, my child asked, " who is that guy," pointing to McCain, "and why were they so nice to each other?" Admittedly I was baffled by the question and sought clarification to which they explained, "If the old guy is a Republican and Obama's a Democrat then why are they just talking like normal people? If politicians could talk like that we would probably get a lot more stuff done."

We both left the video shocked for very different reasons. It was then that I realized my kid's only conscious exposure to American politics was post-2016. It was hard for them to comprehend that politicians being cordial and respectful toward each other was normal prior to the end of Obama's second term. Of course there were cheap shots taken here or there but they didn't consistently devolve into the shouting matches Gen Z has become accustomed to witnessing by our elected officials.

Joe Biden GIF by PBS NewsHourGiphy

My child couldn't quite understand how American politicians went from being able to have respectful conversations while disagreeing to shouting slurs on the House floor. They were equally as taken aback by the content of the conversations the two men were having noting that they were actually talking about political differences on how to help people and they both seemed to "actually care." In the short three-minute video both men were calm, respectful and didn't attempt to shout over one another. They followed the rules of the debate while still countering each other's stance on issues that impact the daily life of Americans.

McCain and Obama's mutual respect wasn't something that was just for the cameras. While they disagreed on a lot of things politically, they both understood that they had different approaches to doing the same job: caring for Americans. The political opponents weren't waiting for an opportunity to make the other look bad publicly, they saw each other has human first and politician second which is why it wasn't surprising that Obama delivered McCain's eulogy after he lost his battle with cancer.

As an adult that has been voting since George W. Bush ran for president, I was familiar with the normalcy of healthy cordial debates, my kid on the other hand was convinced that this debate was an anomaly. That's when we watched another video of McCain defending Obama at a town hall to solidify how normal it was. Their disbelief of political decorum and their categorization of "red bad, blue good" based on videos coming from our political leaders was a glaring condemnation of what American politics has morphed into.

People pick a political party like they're picking a sports team and have become accustomed to seeing them speak to each other in a way that wouldn't fly in any middle school in the country. This political devolvement has trickled down onto the American people and the younger generation is consuming this via social media as "normal." If this is our normal now then how far will we devolve before the pendulum swings back in the other direction? Is it too late to require better behavior from our politicians so we can course correct before the youngest Gen Zers are of voting age?

Though my child and I had very different reasons for our mutual shock after watching that video, I certainly agree with them. If politicians spent more time speaking to each other with respect and actually taking time to listen to the points made by their counterpart, we would have a much better outcome. Politicians are meant to compromise to find the best solution for all Americans, not just the loudest but that can't be done without listening to understand and treating your colleagues with respect.

From Your Site Articles
american politics
Education

People's wrong answers to this 'easy' LSAT question are why public discourse is so hard

The basic reading comprehension and critical thinking question almost feels like a litmus test.

Photo credit: Canva

LSAT questions start easy and get harder as the test progresses.

Public discourse can be great when it's done well, when everyone brings thoughtful, well-informed opinions to the table and puts forth cogent arguments backed up by evidence. We don't all have to agree on everything—differences in perspectives and priorities are important ingredients in a democratic society—but the quality of the actual arguments themselves matter.

Since the advent of social media, public discourse has not been so great, especially on the internet. The written nature of online discussions seems like it would lend itself to fewer misconceptions and better understanding, but it doesn't. People draw erroneous and illogical conclusions all the time, and it often feels like reading comprehension and critical thinking skills are hard to come by. According to an unintentional social experiment on X, there may be some truth to that.

An X user (@sarahpatt08) shared a photo of a question from the LSAT, the test people have to pass in order to be admitted to law school, and asked if people found the question easy or difficult. The instructions are partially cut off but appear to indicate that you are to choose the best answer based only on the information given, avoiding assumptions that are not directly supported by the passage.

The question reads:

"Physical education should teach people to pursue healthy, active lifestyles as they grow older. But the focus on competitive sports in most schools causes most of the less competitive students to turn away from sports. Having learned to think of themselves as unathletic, they do not exercise enough to stay healthy.

Which of one of the following is most strongly supported by the statements above, if they are true?

(A) Physical education should include noncompetitive activities.

(B) Competition causes most students to turn away from sports.

(C) People who are talented at competitive physical endeavors exercise regularly.

(D) The mental aspects of exercise are as important as the physical ones.

(E) Children should be taught the dangers of a sedentary lifestyle."

These kinds of reading comprehension and reasoning questions are common to tests like the LSAT and the SAT. One way to tackle them is to start eliminating the answers that are not directly supported by the text. Starting from the bottom:

(E) is not supported because the text doesn't say anything about a sedentary lifestyle actually being dangerous, and this answer doesn't include anything the passage is focused on (competitive sports turning kids who aren't competitive away from exercise).

(D) is not supported because while competitiveness could be considered a mental aspect of exercise, it's not always. And there's nothing in the text to support the idea that mental and physical aspects of exercise are equally important.

(C) is not supported because the text doesn't say anything about talent. Someone could be competitive and enjoy competitive sports but be totally untalented, and being talented at something doesn't necessarily mean you do it regularly.

(B) is not supported because there is no indication from the passage that most students (in general) aren't competitive, only that most of the less competitive students turn away from sports.

(A) is the answer most supported by the passage because the crux of the argument in the passage is that noncompetitive students are often turned off of physical education by the emphasis on sports in most schools. Therefore, the most logical conclusion is that having more noncompetitive activities would get more kids involved in physical education.

For some people, the correct answer was simple and obvious. For others, not so much. Some people made what they thought were strong arguments for (D). Others insisted it was (E). Not many said (C) but there were a handful on the (B) train. And those who knew the answer to be (A) were taken aback by how many people came to different conclusions.

And therein lies one answer to why our public discourse often feels like it can't get anywhere. Answering a reading comprehension and reasoning question like this correctly is easy for some people. Some think it's easy but then get the wrong answer, and some see multiple answers as equal contenders for "best." Everyone believes they're the ones thinking critically and using logic, but many people fail to recognize the assumptions they make when reading and the biases and unsupported ideas that slip into their reasoning.

The most supported answer based on the text is (A). Is that what you got?

From Your Site Articles
education
Culture

Woman stands for entire 7-hour flight and sparks massive debate on airplane etiquette

Passengers were annoyed, but commenters had some empathetic theories.

envisionaries/TikTok & Leo McLaren/Unsplash

People just can't stop finding new ways to drive each other crazy on airplanes. Whether it's using kids as an excuse to try to switch seats, eating smelly food, standing and block the aisles immediately after landing, or having phone calls on speakerphone, airplanes have become hotbeds of bad behavior. The unique cocktail of travel stress, cramped spaces, alcohol, and altitude seems to have a big effect on our judgment for some reason.

One passenger recently went viral for some interesting behavior during a long flight. And let's just say, her fellow passengers couldn't stand it.

Richard Duong posted a video on TikTok of a passenger several rows ahead of him on a flight. The caption: "Lady stood on my flight the ENTIRE 7 hour duration watching her movie."

Although the video is short, it definitely backs up his claim. Through several clips stitched together, we see a blonde woman standing in the aisle staring at her back-of-seat screen. Lights on? She's standing there. Lights go off? Still standing there.

Duong mentioned in a comment that she did return to her seat when the pilot turned on the seatbelt light, but otherwise, she was standing the entire time.

He also mentioned that passengers on the flight were definitely annoyed. People asking to squeeze by to get to the bathroom, and even the flight attendants trying to serve drinks, were less than thrilled that she was blocking the aisle for so long.

I can imagine it made the passengers around her uneasy, too. Have you ever sensed someone standing over you and felt a sort of unexplainable anxiety? It must have driven the people seated near this woman absolutely bonkers!

We've heard of people having too much to drink or taking their socks off during a flight, but standing the entire time has to be a new one.

@envisionaries

#onthisday


Commenters on the video — unlike some passengers on the flight — had a lot of empathy for the mysterious standing woman.

Apparently, there are a lot of reasons someone might want to stand for *checks notes* seven hours straight.

Some people suggested the woman had a clotting disorder and couldn't sit down for long.

Others speculated about back issues like sciatica, a broken tailbone, severe motion sickness, a herniated disc, or fibromyalgia. Someone said the woman probably had restless leg syndrome.

interior of an airplane with seats and movie screensAlev Takil/Unsplash

The theories just kept coming — to date, the video has racked up nearly a million views and 800 comments.

Duong, who posted the video, probably had the most likely explanation: "I thought she was standing just to stand."

It's true — some people just like to stand! Maybe they read an article about the dangers of sitting and leading a sedentary lifestyle, or maybe it just feels good and relaxes them. The mystery woman could very well have restless legs or a back injury, but maybe she just felt like standing except when she was specifically told not to.

What I loved about the response to Duong's video was the outpouring of empathy. People were really willing, and even eager, to excuse the woman's admittedly pretty obnoxious behavior by justifying it with a medical reason.

It was honestly really refreshing to read the incredibly laundry list of possible medical conditions that could make someone want to stand for an entire flight. We're often so quick to assume the worst in people — that mom trying to switch seats with her kid is just trying to take advantage, people who stand up right away after landing are just being jerks, etc. It's rare that we stop to think and realize that we don't know their story, their medical history, what happened to them earlier that day, what they're really like as a person.

In a follow up video, Duong clarified: "Yes she would get out of the way (for passengers and crew), she was very polite, no fuss or anything, but it did impact the flight."

"The video was not meant to be mean or judgmental. The video was never about her as a person. It was a funny, unexpected event. A woman standing on a flight for seven hours, you don't see that every day."

From Your Site Articles
airplanes
Trending Stories