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

[Organic Damage]

Abstract art is so ridiculous. It's just people trolling each other over and over.

I see it as similar to a lot of domains of human culture, where value exists only because people believe it does.

 

[Guestx]

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.

You should watch the documentary. One of the main players is a gallery owner who champions Marla while also being a little pissed that his paintings don't get near the same attention. And he's awesome. He does this photo-realistic work that will blow you away in terms of detail.

Here's one of his pieces:

 

[panamaican]

You should watch the documentary. One of the main players is a gallery owner who champions Marla while also being a little pissed that his paintings don't get near the same attention. And he's awesome. He does this photo-realistic work that will blow you away in terms of detail.

Here's one of his pieces:

And this is my understanding of the art world in a nutshell.

I think the above work is so incredible but I wouldn't buy it. I would buy some of the girl's stuff but not others. The only difference is that looking at one evokes some kind of response to the art beyond a emotionless critique of detail and brushwork and the others don't.

Art and music are similar in that way to me. Where technical proficiency is far less valuable than emotive ability.

 

[Guestx]

And this is my understanding of the art world in a nutshell.

I think the above work is so incredible but I wouldn't buy it. I would buy some of the girl's stuff but not others. The only difference is that looking at one evokes some kind of response to the art beyond a emotionless critique of detail and brushwork and the others don't.

Art and music are similar in that way to me. Where technical proficiency is far less valuable than emotive ability.

I agree with you. I admit Anthony Brunelli's technical proficiency, as well as the fact that it can take him several months to finish a painting, but his work isn't anything that speaks to my soul. Some of Marla's work, on the other hand, got a legitimate reaction out of me . . . even though the technical ability is a joke in comparison and her paintings look like they could be done in a week at most.

Poor Anthony. Here he is working on one of his paintings. Shit looks tedious as fuck.

 

[Primitivo]

Nice work, detective.

 

[tehend]

I could do that blindfolded.

 

[Skip Reming]

Abstract art is so ridiculous. It's just people trolling each other over and over.

yeah, Jackson Pollock was a fucking hack ffs!

 

[panamaican]

I agree with you. I admit Anthony Brunelli's technical proficiency, as well as the fact that it can take him several months to finish a painting, but his work isn't anything that speaks to my soul. Some of Marla's work, on the other hand, got a legitimate reaction out of me . . . even though the technical ability is a joke in comparison and her paintings look like they could be done in a week at most.

Poor Anthony. Here he is working on one of his paintings. Shit looks tedious as fuck.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you say it doesn't speak to your soul. I think people underestimate how hard it is convey emotion through any medium, especially paint.

 

[Guestx]

yeah, Jackson Pollock was a fucking hack ffs!

Can't tell if this is supposed to be sarcasm or not. I think it is. But I also know that a lot of people have this opinion of Pollock.

 

[tehend]

Art.

 

[Guestx]

I think you hit the nail on the head when you say it doesn't speak to your soul. I think people underestimate how hard it is convey emotion through any medium, especially paint.

I think the "problem" with Brunelli's work is the exact same thing that makes it so extraordinary: His pieces look like photographs. It's almost as if he is trying to mimic another artform--photography--instead of letting the art of painting sing in its own way.

 

[MoparOrNoCar]

yeah, Jackson Pollock was a fucking hack ffs!

If you like it just because you like the way it looks then hey that's fine. But if you think Jackson Pollock was some sort of genius painter then you are way too gullible.

 

[Guestx]

If you like it just because you like the way it looks then hey that's fine. But if you think Jackson Pollock was some sort of genius painter then you are way too gullible.

I tend to think that the thought process means a lot when it comes to modern art/abstract expressionism. Someone can blindly and carelessly throw paint against a canvas and get a painting that looks a certain way. I wouldn't call that genius or even talent. But let's say someone else creates the exact same painting, but they can tell you why they made the choices that they made, and why this bit of paint is here and that one's over there, then even though it's the same painting, this changes what I think of the artist's talent.

 

[MusclesMarinara]

Also of the mindframe that Jackson Pollock is garbage.

I regard to the critique of Brunelli's work, While I understand the school of photorealism and the effort it takes to create something in that level of detail I feel it falls short of the intention of the artform. It removes the painter and interpretation of the scene. Much as in the way I feel abstract falls short as well. I get to see none of the artist's skill and only expression. Here is where I find impressionism to be the epitome of painting. I know they are waterlilies but there is room for thought.

 

[MoparOrNoCar]

I tend to think that the thought process means a lot when it comes to modern art/abstract expressionism. Someone can blindly and carelessly throw paint against a canvas and get a painting that looks a certain way. I wouldn't call that genius or even talent. But let's say someone else creates the exact same painting, but they can tell you why they made the choices that they made, and why this bit of paint is here and that one's over there, then even though it's the same painting, this changes what I think of the artist's talent.

The story behind the painting is exactly where I think the troll job comes from. You can put whatever deep intellectual story behind it that you wish but in the end it's still just a bunch of paint slung about a canvas.

 

[Skip Reming]

If you like it just because you like the way it looks then hey that's fine. But if you think Jackson Pollock was some sort of genius painter then you are way too gullible.

How so? Because in your opinion he is not any good? What credentials do you have that make you any sort of export on art? Maybe an art history degree? Have you ever painted anything? I of course think you have zero credentials but still interested. You most likely just have an uneducated opinion.

 

[Guestx]

Also of the mindframe that Jackson Pollock is garbage.

I regard to the critique of Brunelli's work, While I understand the school of photorealism and the effort it takes to create something in that level of detail I feel it falls short of the intention of the artform. It removes the painter and interpretation of the scene. Much as in the way I feel abstract falls short as well. I get to see none of the artist's skill and only expression. Here is where I find impressionism to be the epitome of painting. I know they are waterlilies but there is room for thought.

I agree with you when you talk about "the intention of the artform" and I madea similar comment earlier. But then again, who are we to tell someone how to use their paint set?

In any case, I can appreciate a variety of styles, but one of the paintings that has always set itself apart for me in my my mind is Rembrandt's Sea of Galilee. Maybe it's the use of light.

 

[Guestx]

The story behind the painting is exactly where I think the troll job comes from. You can put whatever deep intellectual story behind it that you wish but in the end it's still just a bunch of paint slung about a canvas.

I disagree. I think you're being a bit too reductionist here.

One thing that makes Stanley Kubrick's movies so interesting is the man himself, the mind behind the films. If the exact same films had been made by, say, Rob Cohen, I'm sure we'd still recognize them as good films, but they wouldn't have the cult following they presently have. And a lot of that has to do with Kubrick himself.

 

[MoparOrNoCar]

How so? Because in your opinion he is not any good? What credentials do you have that make you any sort of export on art? Maybe an art history degree? Have you ever painted anything? I of course think you have zero credentials but still interested. You most likely just have an uneducated opinion.

You're right, I didn't waste my college career on an art history degree. Look I'm not saying I'm the art expert around here and that my opinion is all that matters. I just stated my opinion. I think this stuff is a scam and the only "art" in it is what people make up in their minds to make it seem like it's something important. I've read about it and the reviews on the style just make me laugh. I don't need a degree or credentials to have an opinion on something.

 

[Guestx]

How so? Because in your opinion he is not any good? What credentials do you have that make you any sort of export on art? Maybe an art history degree? Have you ever painted anything? I of course think you have zero credentials but still interested. You most likely just have an uneducated opinion.

Is this to assume that everyone who DOES have an art history degree or who is a painter has a high opinion of Pollock?