@@gabenakamura4769 Colour theory is very important in art. Colours can really impact the piece's atmosphere so it's not about the fact there are colours or not, it's about what colours she chose that moment to respresent the court's emotion.
I've never really been a big art person. But ever since I was a kid, I always thought courtroom sketches were cool for some strange reason. I've always wanted to see someone either open a museum for them or publish a coffee table book about them.
I think there is an exhibit about the history of courtroom sketches at the library of Congress. But they rotate those things out so it’s probably gone by now
Melissa0774-you don't have to be into art. when they don't allow cameras in the courtroom. these drawings very often become historical documents when cameras are not allowed in the courtroom. motion picture cameras with sound do not belong in a courtroom. its an invasion of civil privacy.
@@cyber_HAF that's why she has to pick out up 6 to or 7 drawings per proceeding. Drawing pivotal moments and repeated gestures (stuff that sticks). She studies anatomy consistently to make the structural leg work easier. That way she can focus more on the emotions. She's been doing this a while. I imagine she's figured out plenty shortcuts to create the scene on paper faster.
+Eltener123 the only way the justice system reaches you is through you either being directly involved or reading/watching the news. And I think a lot if the time media is the ones actually distancing us from the real substance of whats being covered, like the trial of OJ Simpson example.
LagiNaLangAko23 Now that's a compromise that I can understand. We need a more transparent court that reveals what happened after the verdict to avoid intervention on all side.
+Eltener123 Individual trials and the justice system as a whole are two distinct entities. Yes, we shouldn't close our eyes to the justice system, but involving ourselves in the concerns of individual trials is making spectacle out of misfortune.
I definitely prefer not allowing media into courts. I think the problem is that it can end up creating a narrative based more on happenstance reactions and emotional displays than actual court rulings. I mean the media is not unbiased and will latch onto a narrative that sells the most. Maybe that's deciding that someone is guilty, which can influence juries and even if they're found innocent it might influence public opinion. Especially if it's a high profile case where people might have politics or other personal issues mixed in. Imagine if Donald Trump faced another sexual harassment charge, Fox would absolutely do everything to make him innocent and the people charging him crazy or something. It would simply not be safe to challenge any high profile person because you would be sure that the media would absolutely chew you up and you'd probably end up receiving several threats. If we are to allow cameras it would definitely have to be professional photographers specializing in this field, just like court room artists who will only release one or two pictures. Not a portfolio from which the media can pick and choose whatever fits their narrative.
Donald Trump defended by the media!? Lol heck no! Nearly every news outlet is brutally leftist (except obviously Fox), he wouldn't get anywhere near of a fair trial if it was broadcast P.S. Still a great point though; if you let too many people in on a proceeding your ruling gets skewed towards the opinions of the majority rather than from a true and honest trial
Imagine if Hillary Clinton sold our uranium to the Russians and got American soldiers killed through inaction, oh yeah, she did. CNN didn't say a word about any of it. You want to talk bias? You lose before we even start.
Blah But then the justices will know that people will see them and they’ll be thinking of what non controversial and easy cases to decide. So, it can make the courtroom even more boring.
So where do you work? The supreme court. Wow a supreme court justice!!! What an honor to meet you! Nah i just doodle people with crayons. Thats literally 10x better than a justice. You are my hero.
I want to know if she only does one drawing person? Does she sketch a lot of pencil drawings and then “paint” the more interesting ones? Does she start one and stop when something better starts happening? Does she do the full artwork in the room or complete them later? Who purchases the artwork? Do the artists fight for the best space? I HAVE SO MANY QUESTIONS!!!!!
@@kidthebilly7766 i think they do as many as they see fit, were paid for, what they can physically complete in time etc. i don’t think they’re allowed to sketch inside the actual court, they take notes and have to complete the actual piece at home, because remember, the whole point is not be a distraction to the court. this way, she already knows what the big and important parts of the day were when she starts and no time goes to waste. they’re free lance artists more than anything, so they’re paid by whoever wants the art, usually it’ll be a news station when cameras are barred from the courtroom, though sometimes the lawyers, attorneys, clients etc. hire them. by the best space do you mean literally? physically they usually just sit wherever they can, but they usually change and adopt different angles in their art and they have the creative liberties to do that. best space as in best trials, i can’t say. i assume that yes everyone wants the best jobs but i don’t actually know how competitive it is and how much of a choice the artists actually have in the jobs they take. hope this helped!
imagine being the senior editor who heard/read the shot at snowboarders in the script and being like "no yeah that's good and adds to the video, let's keep that in"
Ph.D Dylan hey, sorry Im from the uk so I dont really know what antifa is but I thought it was interesting what they were saying about the medias portrayal of these more left wing protests
The art is amazing. But artists can bend the feelings to their opinion, a camera can catch the truth. Im not saying thats the case here but I can understand why they r being replaced. Time, money and ease.
I agree with you, but it is worth noting that cameras do not also tell the whole truth, how a photographer chooses to light and frame the shot, as well as what gear and settings are used, all effect the image.
The Comfy Geek Photographs can be manipulated just as easily. People are expressive and you just need pick a photo captured at a moment you feel portrays their character. I agree that the practice, while charming, seems out of date and impractical.
The Comfy Geek yeah but the problem with cameras is how people react to being broadcasted publicly. If witnesses are put on the stand but they know that they’re going to be televised, their testimony may sometimes not be as truthful or they might be worried about how they would appear on camera. There’s this podcast called Criminal that talks about these artists
While a photograph captures a scene with visual accuracy, a sketch captures a scene with contextually accurate in a way that a photograph cannot. This is more and more important as fewer and fewer reporters actually bother to show up when they cover events.
@Tara S. Stories that expand on the context are actually really useful. Would you honestly have been satisfied if they just said "because it's the law"? Would you not have further questions about why there are laws for this at all?
Well the white painting was so impactfull and meaningfull that you brought it up under this video by yourself without it ever being named in the video. Why would you care about a white painting anyway. It´s just white. Nothing there... or maybe...?
Mr.Crazy so bringing up something ridiculous = impactfull (your spelling) and meaningfull? And that makes it exquisite, praiseworthy and worthwhile? Boy am I wrong about Hitler then, the guy comes up all the time in my history class.
Having artists present in a courtroom is so much more than just capturing moments and making memories, it is about bringing culture in the room of justice, people who are full of empathy, are objective and willing to show others the world through their own eyes. Cameras are great but they are never really capturing the feeling as a sketch artist can. At least this is my opinion. :)
Still, a photo will always be less biased than a painting since it can only capture real images. Paintings are subject to the artist's point of view way more than photographs.
Gonzalo Bertrán Sitjar I don't know if I can agree with your statement. When and where a photograph is to be taken are also a very subjective acts. A photograph is also never an exact copy of reality; it's just a different attempt at approximating reality, like the work of an artist, and just because it looks more real, doesn't necessarily make it so. A photograph might contain more details of the objects in the frame, but might utterly fail to capture the atmosphere of human emotions in the room. To quantify the "realitiness" of a painting and a photograph is not an easy task, and without having done that, I don't think one can claim that the one is more "real" (i.e. less biased) than the other.
But photographs can be still biased if they don't specifically show context. Artists can squish a scene to show moments that lead to the reasons the emotions are portrayed in a photo while photographs can not (in some circumstances of course).
Gonzalo Bertrán Sitjar I would think courtroom transcripts are what we use for "less biased" recording of a court proceeding because they're the words used and nothing else. A photograph is the visuals and nothing else. Photos are still limited. Even video can't always accurately capture a moment. A sketch, however, is capable of catching visuals *and* emotion, and the emotion makes it more human imo because it captures what you would likely notice if you were there. Photos and videos capture everything regardless of how important it is, but sketches sort out the most important parts and draw attention to the things that matter most. How emotion is interpreted is up to the artist and that can be different person to person. I guess this could be biased? *But* she mentions towards the end of the video that there's more than one artist in the court room. Someone could look at all the sketches and draw their own less biased conclusions from there just like you would when researching a paper. You get multiple views (sketches) on the same subject (the people in the courtroom).
They didn’t explain why courtrooms still need these artists but only explained why they are allowed instead.I think the artworks are useless for legal purposes because they are too subjective, as she commented. Photographs would do a much better work.Her talent is truly admirable, though.
Photographs and video aren't unbiased representation either. Picking which photos to use and which clips to show can change the impression you get as much as a drawing can. At least with a drawing you know it's an artist's impression.
Eh, we probably should still have some kind of recordings if for nothing else than archival purposes. Perhaps there would be rules as to how that footage can be used or accessed, but everything the government does needs a large amount of oversight accessible by us, the citizens of said government.
+Keith Robinson The government is composed of (some of the) citizens of our nation, though... and nothing stopping any of the others from deciding to run in an election to make changes to something they feel isn't right atm.
I would argue that the courts themselves should be monitored by camera and tape recording, and should be released to the public (after the trial is done), because victims that couldn't make it to see how it worked or so that witnesses can't know what happened in courts if their buddy went in with a camera and filmed what the other witness said. Although its probably fun to make these drawings and they're good it just seems outdated rather than practical.
Jessica Badenhorst its less that he looks "better" but more that the artistic style was more realistic than the classic courtroom sketch. Hell, even compared to her other sketches he looks more like himself.
As an artist who struggles to draw still life or objects (not moving), I can't imagine what it's like to remember an emotion and draw it the next second.
I feel like these courtroom sketches have become something cultural in a way. Seeing an art piece that was created in real time of historic events is beautiful
My mother works as an artist I have to admit that even though I grew up surrounded by my mom's canvases and met a lot of different artists , the only type of art that I've always found fascinating and interesting was courtroom sketches.
Courtroom sketches feel so personal and intimate, like you capture the drama or embarrassing angst of the proceedings better than even a camera could. Almost like you're there. Love seeing the defendant look so guilty and busted.
I know Christine for many years. She is tops. Also a great gal...And I believe she was a young artist when Ida Libby Dengrove (the lady who wrote the book on courtroom artists) was still at work.
But for anyone outside the court -- unless they are shown literally every second of the trial -- they are getting someone else's (subjective) edit of the proceedings. At least viewing it via a sketch is a clear reminder of that subjectivity.
Cameras are distracting and as she said a burden. Some people can't handle the spotlight. I stand by my point, cameras in the courtroom are distracting.
She reminds me of this show on TV, they would read a children's book and an illustrator would draw while you listened to the story. It was pretty great really.
Tanita The real problem is that that particular snowboarder is totally sending it with style, if it had been some dude who goofs around on a board no one would have said anything imo.
I don't know.. I call B.S on cameras being a "spectacle" on cases. I think cameras should be allowed but the news shouldn't be able to cover it on television, only in words (not verbal). While having a 4k camera where we can zoom in on peoples expression at OUR will not to the will of the artist. THAT WAY, only people who are smart enough and willing to actually read it, can have an opinion on it. Instead of the news just spoon feeding it into their mouth.
for which reason there should be press allowed during a court case? there is no reason for that. Everybody should have the right to have a private case.
