The old, but still interesting, case of Marla Olmstead: Child prodigy or unknowing fraud?

G

Guestx

Guest
I'm not sure who here has seen the documentary My Kid Could Paint That, but for those who haven't here's the basic premise:


arts-graphics-2007_1182444a.jpg


Marla Olmstead, an abstract painter, was called a child prodigy at the age of four. Around this time she started showing her work in local galleries and selling her paintings for as much as $15,000. National attention soon followed.

However, a 60 Minutes piece that ran in 2005 questioned whether or not Marla actually painted the paintings. Her dad was known to have done a bit of painting when he was younger and rumors began to swirl that he was either directly helping her paint or he was coaching her. More fuel was added to the fire when it was realized that any time Marla was shown painting on video, she was never expressing the sort of masterful flourishes that made up her best work.

Mark Olmstead with Marla:


marlaolmstead1.jpg



People began calling for a start-to-finish video showing Marla completing a painting. When one was finally delivered, many said that the painting was not of the same quality as those that had been previously sold.

You can judge for yourself. Here are a few of Marla's Pre-60 Minutes Paintings:


Asian-Sun.jpg



474389.jpg



Zane.jpg




And here was the painting delivered start-to-finish for 60 Minutes:


marla_ocean.jpg




In 2007, a documentary was released called My Kid Could Paint That, which opened this story up to a much wider audience. The filmmaker, Amir Bar-Lev, said the film was originally planned before the controversy and was simply supposed to be a documentary about a child prodigy. But over time, he also began to have this doubts that Marla was actually doing all the painting.

Trailer:





These days, Marla mostly stays out of the spotlight. She continues to paint, but mostly for herself. Her website hasn't been updated in a few years and she reportedly has turned down requests to show her work. She says she doesn't really remember all the chaos and happenings of her younger years, when she was an in-demand artist. This makes sense, considering how young she was, but it also means that she could believe that she did those paintings herself when in reality she just doesn't remember that someone helped her.

Marla in 2013:


635861442205535069-20151218-BGM-Marla000046.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Me, personally, I'm on the fence about this one. On one hand, her later work has shown that she has talent. On the other, almost all of her later pieces are very similar in style and even the colors used, and they don't really look much at all like some of her Pre-60 Minutes stuff.
 
The real suckers are the ones who buy that type of art because they think a kid did it.

.
 
The real suckers are the one who buy that type of art because they think a kid did it.

Well that touches on a few questions that are brought up in the documentary:

1. Should it matter that a kid did it? As in, should you want the piece more if it was done by a four year old instead of being done by a 34 year old?

2. Is modern art itself a scam.
 
Abstract art is so ridiculous. It's just people trolling each other over and over.
 
Its just smears of paint on canvas. Prodigy my ass.
 
Well that touches on a few questions that are brought up in the documentary:

1. Should it matter that a kid did it? As in, should you want the piece more if it was done by a four year old instead of being done by a 34 year old?

2. Is modern art itself a scam.

it is a bunch of...
DHS16239full_771_0.jpg
 
Abstract art is so ridiculous. It's just people trolling each other over and over.

Its just smears of paint on canvas. Prodigy my ass.


I can see it both ways. I have seen a lot of abstract art that looks like shit, but I have seen a lot that seems to have a sort of maturity and form to it. For instance, the first and third of Marla's pre-60 Minutes paintings--Asian Sun and Zane Dancing--look like much more to me than just randomly pushing paint around.
 
Well that touches on a few questions that are brought up in the documentary:

1. Should it matter that a kid did it? As in, should you want the piece more if it was done by a four year old instead of being done by a 34 year old?

2. Is modern art itself a scam.
To me, you pay for the art not the artist.

If someone wants to pay $10k for a bowl of snot, who am I to stop them? I'll tell you what I will do though...go grab an empty bowl.
 
Lol at people spending 1000's of dollars on a child's scribblings.
 
To me, you pay for the art not the artist.

I think in an ideal world, that's the way it should be. But I can confess to being someone who would be more willing to pay for a piece if I knew it was done by a child prodigy. I think that's because I'm not only interested in the art itself, but also the narrative surrounding the art. A better story surrounding its creation can make a piece more interesting.
 
id pay money for this i love it. also, idk if it was all a work or not but the painting that she did for 60 minutes is actually very nice IMO. even if she didnt do the others thats impressive for a child. i like it.
 
I think in an ideal world, that's the way it should be. But I can confess to being someone who would be more willing to pay for a piece if I knew it was done by a child prodigy. I think that's because I'm not only interested in the art itself, but also the narrative surrounding the art. A better story surrounding its creation can make a piece more interesting.


This is a child prodigy.
 
Usually dont like to hear about people getting scammed but when those people are paying tens of thousands of dollars for a piece of paper, I dont really mind hearing about them getting ripped off
 
id pay money for this i love it. also, idk if it was all a work or not but the painting that she did for 60 minutes is actually very nice IMO. even if she didnt do the others thats impressive for a child. i like it.

That one's called Zane Dancing and it's also my favorite of all her work. So, bro fist.

I don't much care for Ocean (the 60 Minutes painting) but she's done a few since then that I think are nice.
 
I can see it both ways. I have seen a lot of abstract art that looks like shit, but I have seen a lot that seems to have a sort of maturity and form to it. For instance, the first and third of Marla's pre-60 Minutes paintings--Asian Sun and Zane Dancing--look like much more to me than just randomly pushing paint around.

Don't get me wrong, some of it can look pretty cool like the one with the black background and the orange and yellow brush strokes but there's not a lot of skill involved in it and there's certainly no genius. Drawing a face accurately requires 10000x more skill. You just brush the paint around for a bit until you figure out a few techniques and land on something that looks cool. You can't just sit down and draw an accurate face unless you actually have an eye for art.

I just think it's ridiculous that people pass abstract art off as something special and fork over thousands for it.
 
Back
Top