I could only imagine how great she could paint things in EVE.
She’s not an artist, and she’ll never be. Her artwork is soulless, purely mechanical. 
This is how looks the work of a true genius in his childhood:
Picasso at 14. Totally mops the floor with Akiane’s postcards.
Again, art is subjective, always depending on the person who see’s it, I think her work is amazing, the art work of Picasso is obviously undeniably great, however consider this, Picasso painted what was in his world, she is a person of her world, you are trying to equate the 2 because we see items and scenes that are not as they are now, I think this is shortsighted, Picasso is a man of his time.
However, judging from the fact that she can make a very excellent living by her works, to deny her as not an artist…especially when she is still so young I believe you to be too critical.
Well, she’s 23 now (was born in 1994), and you would be hard pressed to tell her latest greeting cards from the ones she painted at 8. Also, after so many years, you still would be in trouble if you had to pick any of her paintings from a random collection of Powerpoint backgrounds, or just tell her 2016 stuff from her 2006 stuff.
This BTW has fueled the suspicions that her mother the amateur painter is the actual artist behind the Akiane franchise.
(And don’t get me started on her… huh… “death and ressurrection” at age 9).
Devaluation of “genius”? I dont know. Maybe. But she is on a high level technically. Unusually talented for her age. I would say she could be called a prodigy. If all paintings are indeed her. Something is fishy with this jesus thing and “miracles” tho.
1 Like
Yep, I’ve been reading the content on her websites and my hoax-o-meter is purring like a kitty.
2 Likes
It may be, humans are not to be trusted, until she paints in front of the camera for all to see, same as not believing that the USA landed on the moon, with the sophisticated cameras today and the “exact” coordinates why can’t we see, I understand it’s not that easy, however why hasn’t anyone come foward, landing, happened or not, no one can seem to prove or disprove.
When I was young, childrens were giving a painting homework made by their parents, regularly. No teacher cared really. Everyone had the best grades and was “super talented”. 
1 Like
Everyone gets a golden star, people want their kids and others not to feel like they aren’t inadequate or a loser of sorts, but in doing this it give no incentive to try harder, to rise, and to overcome.
Now, the problem is that not everyone has an ability to do certain tasks well, well being the key, it doesn’t mean they are not talented it just means they haven’t been encouraged to find a path, i tried and failed to become a musician, my fingers are too uncoordinated, I can do some plucking or tapping but otherwise not good enough, I have tried my hand at sketching, still, not great but marginal, very amateurish, but really my heart is with music, but I’ve accepted that I am not a quick study and to become acceptable it would take a lifetime, but with carpal tunnel this makes it only a dream, however I have discovered I have other hidden talents along the way, mostly understanding how to assemble music with loops, granted it’s not my own but a short tune of a single instrument does not always make a song, I have assembled some works that sound good to me but hey we always think our brand is good.
1 Like
I have this theory that it’s impossible to prove anything, but I can’t prove it.
Also siding with Yiole and Nana on this one. Something’s off.
Well, we actually have images from the landing sites, like this one from Apollo 12:
Those were taken by the LRO (Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter) mission in 2011. The sites can’t be seen from Earth as they’re too small and are too far away, but certainly we can send probes to the Moon and photograph what we want to see on its surface. Like, the Apollo landing sites.
It may be, I always think humans are lying, it’s evolutionary, anything that benefits us or our group we will do what we can to maintain a pro position.
But the flip side is to give the benefit of doubt until otherwise proven, if we can’t overcome ourselves and our suspicions then we are unbalanced, subjecting ourselves to misjudgments.
Well, the thing is, if Joe claims something, it’s his job to prove himself right. The thing is that there’s zero evidence that Akiane paints, and some things about her artwork are quite fishy. Like, why she paints at 23 exactly the same as when she was 8.
I always liked this
Anything is possible, look at milli vanilli, made money faking it.
The other day I saw in somebody’s bio in game: "The Apollo landings were fake. They hired Stanley Kubrick to produce them. But he was such a perfectionist, he insisted that the set be built on the Moon. So they had to do a project to land a film and set-building crew on the Moon, at incredible trouble and expense. Part way through production the project ran out of funds, so although the films were completed, they were not entirely convincing."
Something like that. 
(I kind of agree with LG, the artist’s work is kind of… kitsch. Pretty paintings, but not really-- art? But she does have amazing technical skill. Or whoever is doing them does. Perhaps with some maturity will produce good art).
1 Like
Good assessment, I do think that she should broaden her scope.
You know the thing about pro and con doesn’t change the facts. You can include them in the facts, like a filter.
But when you lie a truth is false and something false is true, you do more than change the facts to pro and so on.
Sure, an observer seeing a light beam is related to the conditions in which he sees it, but if you omit important points and change the facts to turn it against those credited for it, it becomes more of the unfair seizing warlike rhetoric, spoils of war system.
Even this can be used in scientific evidence to arrive to the true conclusion.
Bias has little impact or value in science, if any at all.
It’s not the goal and objective.
Art, however, if not science-fiction art, can be different than the scientific elements which makes science.
Propaganda also is a science.
Some talents go unnoticed for years and decades, even centuries, before admitted as such and so on.
Not all human position have always respected the rights of those benefiting society, and often, society prefers to take away their rights if they feel threatened by their influence.
Sure the talent is good, maybe brilliant and needed, or useful, but if someone else was getting paid for the money which would go to the new talent, then it’s possible to interpret it as wrong, negative, even when it’s not the case.
Technology often works like this, if it omits to replace other factors in the related systems.
Many financial systems are in fact flawed due to this.
Inequalities is not good and it is also illegal in essence.
Of course, other motivation can be applied to talent, and some people with no talents literally get paid for decades as well, just because someone with money cared for them.
It may never make them any more talented.
Also, despite the fact that robotics base on the moon are easier to build than exploring mars, men decided to go ahead and get more info and practical data there instead.
Art is often important in war for some reasons.
It serves a few goals, such as security, as to, how to secure the art, and how to keep it secure from spoils of war, and perhaps emotional reasons.
It can be hard to keep weapon safe if art can’t be kept safe.
Often, weapons are used to keep art safe, so that they seem to have a purpose related to the value others or some other person or group give of the art.
I didn’t read why the Apollo project is referred to in relation to the talent of the author, whether those involved with sales of the art related to the talent are related to it , or the cause of it.
I also do art as part of my field of work, and, when it gets attacked, and attempts to cause it to be forfeited and be spoiled in war occurs, make me increase security in the same way and proportion as explained above.
It’s important for a talent to be fruitful.
I would not say however, that to make oneself seem worthy of an argument for the sake of winning or taking someone else’s work with bad intent and discredit them while trying to credit oneself for it is much safe for talent, system efficiency and so on.
It’s even worst when it interferes against other rights.
One more thing, if the system is fishy, it tends to reflects on actions done in that system, even if the actions were good or better.
It’s good to move to another system in those conditions, since there would be no benefit to be gained from the value of the attempts to make efforts for talents vain.
When the investment to render vain is greater than the benefit offered from a system or talent , there must be other systems more cost-effective.
It’s just simply cannot be worth it, even if it’s illegally caused by other parties.
Yes that’s very possible.
Lots of scientific testing are done in America to be able to prove if and what can be proven scientifically, and they have patents to prove it.
It’s around $350 without additional lawyer fee, which, if you’re scientific enough, will never need, to be frank and to be fair.
Debunkers of moon landings lack scientific knowledge, so they claim some stupid things. For example the stars in moon landing images, if they would be seen, then you could tell the images were faked indeed. Lack of stars means they are not faked. Some uneducated person cant know it so they think someone just forgot about them. All the things in conspiracy theories are like that. There is a reason why the stars are not seen in those images and its our imaging technology that is lacking. Everything fits in place, just when you know how things work.