In Europe, mostly suburban towns that grew quickly in the 60s and the 70s around the big cities to distribute the rapidly growing urban population, or in the outskirts of those cities, from what I have seen. Among related examples would be, I think, Evergrande, or countless abandoned molls [1], for example.
I am starting to be under the impression that movements are steered by leaders but formed only when the underlying conditions are present. No single element can make the movement.
I am reluctant to believe stories like "The CIA created modern art", as it is just a single part, although a very influential part, of the movement.
I say this as somebody who is very cautious about believing anything and am quick to call things (probably incorrectly) propaganda or disseminated by paid actors.
My understanding is that the CIA influenced the rise of modern art over Soviet realism, eg, by hosting shows and bidding up prices.
That is “created” in the sense that a movement would have been smaller or fizzled without their patronage, but not “created” as in invented absent an underlying cohort of sincere artists.
If you believe the CIA was an important and necessary part of the movement, you seem to agree they created.1 modern art, even if they co-opted rather than created.2 the style.
>would have been smaller or fizzled without their patronage
this seems entire implausible. Many of the expressionist, surrealist or modernist artists were European refugees who fled fascism, the government apparently spent less on their efforts than an average regional election today costs, and expressionism still exists.
This is the American equivalent of one of those 'are the Chinese behind this' conspiracies every time anything Chinese starts to be popular. Governments who can't get things done for billions apparently suddenly can invent entire art forms with a few million bucks.
No doubt there were people who thought abstract art would make for good advertisement for American liberalism, but no they did not invent, steer or even meaningfully influence it
The problem with rats' nests of infrastructure is that it is effectively impossible to determine what wires are structurally load-bearing in unexpected ways, and there's literally nobody in a position of authority that would be even remotely trusted by a super-majority to construct a suitable replacement system from whole cloth.
They are likely referring to religious fundamentalists, mostly evangelical Christians. Puritans is a reference to an older christian fundamentalist group in the US that now have a connotation as extreme in their views.
Well Kansas has the benefit of being utterly flat and also quite homogenous biome wise. Even though it has no people I' assuming without looking at it that the entire state has been chopped up into square mile sized squares.
Kansas genuinely has a ton of paved and gravel roads all across the state. It's like a gigantic grid. Oddly high amount of street-view coverage too on google maps: https://maps.app.goo.gl/EyBFj9BNQa8nhUcE6
The Kansas landscape is very underrated. Just infinite sky in all directions.
I agree about that landscape. The state is not as flat as people think it is either. Very scenic. I worked the southwest corner of the state years ago and always loved topping a local high spot. We were surveying and out there we could set a flag a half mile away and sight off of that easily with plane table and alidade or theodolite. The atmospheric distortion would get you on a humid day or if you were shooting across a wheat field with all the transpiration but otherwise it was clear with minimal shimmer.
