A Dutch artist paints his ghost to stop it frightening him
A caller who says they are at the Flatiron Arts Building in Chicago’s Wicker Park describes an artist from Holland. The caller says the building has two ghosts, and this artist’s ghost reappeared to him at night after several years in Amsterdam. On the caller’s advice, the artist painted the ghost. The caller says it has since bothered him only occasionally, and no longer in a frightening way. The caller relays the story secondhand. It ends before a second, unrelated story about a Japanese artist is told.
This clip comes from the source recording. AI chose where it starts and ends, so it may start or end a little early or late. The word-for-word transcript is not published. You can hear the source recording on the Internet Archive (file “Ghost to Ghost 2000-2.mp3”, starting at 12:59). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
The caller speaks for a “we” associated with the Flatiron Arts Building in Chicago’s Wicker Park neighborhood. The caller says the building has two ghosts and that neither is frightening. The caller believes these ghosts have traveled with the building’s artists. The first story concerns an artist from Holland, now living there, who [quote withheld] According to the caller, the artist was working late at night, as artists do, when the ghost reappeared. He had not seen it for several years while he was in Amsterdam, Holland. The caller says it frightened him and that he telephoned the caller in the morning. The caller advised against trying to get rid of the ghost that way and suggested making it a friend: “paint him.” Several nights later, the caller says, the ghost reappeared, and the artist painted it on canvas. Since then, the caller reports, the ghost has not bothered the artist except from time to time, and not in a frightening way. The host jokes that the ghost may have liked the painting, or that an unflattering portrait might have put the artist in danger. The caller agrees and says they had not thought of it. The caller adds that the building was created in 1913 and sits in a neighborhood frequented by Nelson Algren. The caller gives no description of the ghost, no date for the events, and no name for the artist.
Reported events, in order
- 0:02
The caller says they are speaking from the Flatiron Arts Building in Chicago’s Wicker Park neighborhood.
- 0:10
The caller says the building has two ghosts and that they are not frightening. The caller believes the ghosts have traveled with the artists.
- 0:21
The caller introduces the first story: an artist from Holland, who is now there and brought his ghost with him.
- 0:28
The caller says the artist was working at night when the ghost reappeared. He had not seen it for several years while in Amsterdam, Holland.
- 0:44
The caller says the ghost frightened the artist.
- 0:46
The caller says the artist telephoned in the morning, and the caller advised making the ghost a friend and painting him.
- 0:55
The caller says the ghost reappeared several nights later and the artist painted it on canvas.
- 1:04
The caller says the ghost has not bothered the artist since, except from time to time, and not in a frightening way.
- 1:25
The caller says the building was created in 1913 and is in a neighborhood frequented by Nelson Algren.
Claims
Each claim is labeled as something the person telling the story noticed (observation), what they made of it (interpretation), something others told them (hearsay), or something the host said (host statement).
- observation· 0:10
The caller says the building has two ghosts, which they say are not frightening.
- interpretation· 0:15
The caller says the ghosts have traveled with the artists.
- hearsay· 0:21
The caller says, based on what the artist told them, that an artist from Holland brought his ghost with him.
- hearsay· 0:36
The caller says the ghost reappeared to the artist at night after several years in Holland.
- hearsay· 0:44
The caller says the ghost frightened the artist.
- hearsay· 0:59
The caller says the artist painted the ghost on canvas on the caller’s advice.
- hearsay· 1:04
The caller says the ghost has not bothered the artist since, except occasionally and not in a frightening way.
- host statement· 1:10
The host suggests the ghost may have liked the painting.
- host statement· 1:16
The host jokes that an unflattering painting could have endangered the artist.
Scores, with reasons
An AI model gave these scores using a fixed set of scoring rules (scoring-v1). They are editorial judgments and rough guides, not the odds that anything paranormal happened. How scoring works.
The story is coherent but entirely secondhand. It names places but gives no sensory detail, no date, and no discussion of ordinary explanations. The secondhand cap of 60 applies and is not reached.
Evidence for and against
- The setting and building age are specific: [quote withheld] and [quote withheld]
- The sequence is orderly: night working, reappearance, morning phone call, advice to paint, later reappearance, painting.
- The ghost is never described: no figure, sound, temperature, or physical effect.
- No date or time frame is given for the events.
- The caller raises no other explanation.
- The labels showing who is speaking shift between several callers, but it appears to be one caller.
- The artist is unnamed, so the claimed source cannot be assessed.
- 0:02
- 1:04
What the model inferred (not said on air): Source closeness was scored at the low end of the secondhand range. The caller relays the artist’s experience but had direct contact with him (the morning phone call). Specificity was scored low because only the setting, not the strange event, is concrete.
Nothing is examined or produced on air. The story rests on the caller’s word about an unnamed artist’s experience. A painting is claimed to exist but is not described or shown.
Evidence for and against
- Checkable specifics are named (building, neighborhood, 1913, Amsterdam), but none is checked.
- A painting of the ghost is claimed to have been made: [quote withheld]
- No second witness speaks on air. The artist never speaks.
- The claimed painting is not examined, described, or produced.
- It is unclear whether the caller is speaking about their own building or relaying a shared claim.
- 0:59
- 0:46
What the model inferred (not said on air): Placed in the 11 to 25 range because there are checkable specifics and a claimed witness and object, but no on-air confirmation and no examined evidence.
The caller presents the story as harmless. It moves from fright to a friendly remedy (painting the ghost), with no threat, contact, or escalation.
Evidence for and against
- A ghost appearing at night to a lone artist is a common source of unease.
- The caller says it did frighten the artist at least once: [quote withheld]
- The caller says the ghosts “are not frightening.”
- In the end, the ghost stopped frightening him after being painted.
- No description of the ghost is given, so its appearance cannot be judged.
- 0:11
- 1:04
What the model inferred (not said on air): Scored near the comforting, harmless end of the scale, given the caller’s own framing and the settled, non-threatening outcome.
A ghost that follows a person across continents is a familiar idea. The remedy, painting the ghost to defuse it, is a distinctive detail. This score is a first estimate, pending comparison with the rest of the archive.
Evidence for and against
- The ghost is said to have traveled from Amsterdam with the artist rather than being tied to the building.
- The fix is to paint the ghost: [quote withheld]
- The elements (night working, a reappearing figure, occasional later visits) are stock.
- The comparison with the rest of the archive is not yet done. This is the model’s estimate only.
- 0:53
- 0:36
What the model inferred (not said on air): Compared with stock themes (a night figure, a recurring haunting), the ghost attached to a person plus the painting remedy justify a score near 55 rather than 20.
Scoring confidence 0.45 · analysis confidence 0.60 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: The caller’s secondhand word about an unnamed artist’s experience.; The caller’s own statements about the building and its residents.; A claimed painting of the ghost, described only as having been made, not examined.. The originality score blends the model's score (55) with how rare the story's details are across the archive. This method is still provisional.
Ordinary explanations to consider
These are possibilities only. None is a finding about what happened.
- A lone artist working late at night in a large old studio building might imagine or misperceive a presence, through pareidolia, expectation, or unfamiliar building noises. That would fit the lack of any described appearance or physical effect. · The caller says the artist was [quote withheld] and gives no visual, sound, or physical detail of the ghost.
- Reporting a frightening night experience and then being advised to paint it could create an expectation effect. Later visits would then no longer be seen as frightening. · The caller says the ghost [quote withheld] only after the advice to paint it and the painting being made.
What stands out
The remedy is more distinctive than the haunting. The caller’s advice is to paint the ghost, after which the reported fright stops. The ghost is also said to have moved with its artist from Amsterdam to Chicago rather than being tied to a building. The caller offers no description of the ghost at all.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.