Live data from Hacker News

Google Arts and Culture site I didn't know existed

artsandculture.google.com

21–30 of 49 posts

Re: Google Arts and Culture site I didn't know existed

#21
post #20
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've mostly used Google's arts and culture site to download hi-res images of famous pieces of art for a side project of mine.

You mean, directly? I remember seeing a few download links for some images, but many of them aren't directly available (random example: [0]) But otherwise yes, it's one of the best online archive. Wikimedia & some museums's websites are good sources of high-quality material as well. [0]: https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/nicolaas-rubens-wear...

many of the high res images on wikipedia/wikimedia of notable paintings come from this google project (the category for it has ~25,000 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Files_from_Googl... )

Re: Google Arts and Culture site I didn't know existed

#23
post #12

Seriously asking this - How did it survive so far?

Can mostly survive on autopilot, & it's s0o0o0o much easier to shut something down for not having > X0 million users, than it is to shut it down a clear charity case because it doesn't make money. (it's not supposed to!) After 7 years there, the greatest lesson I walked away with is motivated reasoning really matters.

[deleted]

Re: Google Arts and Culture site I didn't know existed

#25

I first stumbled on this site over half a decade ago, and it's nice to see it's still going. There's genuine effort to collaborate with locals to produce curated content - see for example the city showcase of Lagos, Nigeria: https://artsandculture.google.com/project/creative-lagos I unironically think it's Google's greatest contribution to media in the 2010s.

I agree. I'm still amazed by the quality and depth of the Brazilian content (I'm Brazilian). The page about Portinari's huge "War and Peace" paintings at the UN headquarters is a striking example.

https://artsandculture.google.com/project/wonders-of-brazil

https://artsandculture.google.com/story/dAVh9lXSqG6hJA

Re: Google Arts and Culture site I didn't know existed

#27
post #12

Seriously asking this - How did it survive so far?

Can mostly survive on autopilot, & it's s0o0o0o much easier to shut something down for not having > X0 million users, than it is to shut it down a clear charity case because it doesn't make money. (it's not supposed to!) After 7 years there, the greatest lesson I walked away with is motivated reasoning really matters.

It seems heavy than maintaining something like Reader, but perhaps that's incorrect.

Re: Google Arts and Culture site I didn't know existed

#29

Seattle’s “nearby” feature lists usual suspects but also the Rubber Chicken museum at Archie McPhee’s, a defunct “Bad Art Museum,” a selfie museum, an NFT museum, a coffee museum… I’m no fine art snob but this looks like it’s powered by a keyword search result.

Yeah but that's okay! They are still museums!

Plus, I never would have discovered this extremely specific museum - https://www.nwkidney.org/about-us/dialysis-museum/

Re: Google Arts and Culture site I didn't know existed

#30
post #12

Seriously asking this - How did it survive so far?

Can mostly survive on autopilot, & it's s0o0o0o much easier to shut something down for not having > X0 million users, than it is to shut it down a clear charity case because it doesn't make money. (it's not supposed to!) After 7 years there, the greatest lesson I walked away with is motivated reasoning really matters.

Very very little at Google survives on autopilot. There’s a constant drumbeat of required changes, whether they be accessibility, regulatory (DMA, hurrah), internally motivated changes (material design++) etc. For anything to survive there must be someone who cares and is willing to invest in it. This is a large part of why stuff gets killed, the default there is for things to die. Yes there are strategy changes too, but very often things die because the person who could champion a thing is no longer there to do so, or has changed roles significantly enough that they can’t plausibly do so anymore.
Post reply on HN