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

[lifelessheap]

Looks like shit. All of it. Honestly, blood spraying on a UFC canvas is just as good.

Kenny painted his canvas just as well as that girl.

 

[ocean size]

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

Very well said. I have trouble communicating this to my musician friends, one for example couldn't understand why anyone would listen to punk rock because of how amateurish the musicianship can be. I appreciate and really do respect classical music and highly technical metal or jazz with odd time signatures, but those pandora stations don't get played too much. I'd absolutely put a couple of the 'coached' pieces up in my house, probably not the photorealistic one although I'd love to check it out in a gallery some time.

 

[Mike]

Oh, they were. Many wanted their money back. Calls flooded in.

One thing to keep in mind is that we're destroying a child in the process. So you better be damn sure you know what the fuck you're talking about.

Eh destroying a child is a bit much. If anything that's on the parents for trying to turn their kid into paychecks. that's not a new phenomenon.

 

[Plutoburn]

Modern abstract art is another way of saying i'm lazy as fuck and i can't be bothered learning any fundamentals. Seriously. This is the only type of art that's no longer held to any real standard. It would be like me banging on piano keys for 5 minutes and releasing it as my new single.

They have a name for that, avant garde performance art.

 

[loyalyolayal]

One might argue that an understanding of realism is not required to make legitimate art.

That's just me. But arguments like these are often used by people who cant draw really well.

 

[bobgeese]

Where was the art again???

 

[Deleted member 196663]

They have a name for that, avant garde performance art.

I had to google examples of what you are talking about...lol

 

[Guestx]

Eh destroying a child is a bit much. If anything that's on the parents for trying to turn their kid into paychecks. that's not a new phenomenon.

I'd say "it's a bit much" ONLY because she was too young to really remember it or understand what was going on.

But also consider this: If in fact Marla did do all the paintings herself with no real help from her dad beyond verbal encouragement, does she--and the family--deserve to be accused of doing otherwise?

 

[Guestx]

I had to google examples of what you are talking about...lol

That's weird, and funny, but at the same time for some reason I also found it kind of compelling.

 

[Guestx]

That's just me. But arguments like these are often used by people who cant draw really well.

Well again, one could argue that drawing--and all classical styles of art--are merely OTHER FORMS of art and that one does not necessarily have to come before, or be connected, to any other. I think, for me, the ultimate question is this: Does the artist produce something that I enjoy looking at or that speaks to me in some way?

Take Marla for instance. I really like some of her paintings, particularly Zane Dancing (the red/orange painting against the black background in the OP), but I know that she does not have a knack for realism. In fact, the last I heard, she was taking lessons to learn how to paint in more realistic ways. But that doesn't change the fact that I like some of what she has already produced with her original skillset.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

You really have to know the rules to break them artfully.
All children are brilliant artists in one sense; the sense that their art isn't encumbered by rules...
But the "pre" work is clearly that of an adult.

 

[HereticBD]

I could just paint with random colors and call it art too

When I was 12, I brought this point up to an art gallery guide on a school field trip. I saw some sponge painting(the shit you do in kindergarten art class) hanging up, and asked the guide what made it good, and told her I could do it. Her response was it was different, because I wasn't known in the art world.

So basically, this type of art is only as good as the signature on it.

 

[loyalyolayal]

Well again, one could argue that drawing--and all classical styles of art--are merely OTHER FORMS of art and that one does not necessarily have to come before, or be connected, to any other. I think, for me, the ultimate question is this: Does the artist produce something that I enjoy looking at or that speaks to me in some way?

Take Marla for instance. I really like some of her paintings, particularly Zane Dancing (the red/orange painting against the black background in the OP), but I know that she does not have a knack for realism. In fact, the last I heard, she was taking lessons to learn how to paint in more realistic ways. But that doesn't change the fact that I like some of what she has already produced with her original skillset.

I respect your opinion. While my realism isn't up to snuff. I've had classmates in life drawing and painting that would seat in the corner just so they could only draw/paint the side view. For 2 years. Which is a copout imo. Since it was academic art, I could say with authority its because they lack the skill to paint or draw a model facing them. Abstract art? Slippery slope. One that's been debated countlessly in art schools while drinking cheap gin.

 

[WrestlinganJudo]

I don't understand abstract art.

 

[Guestx]

I respect your opinion. While my realism isn't up to snuff. I've had classmates in life drawing and painting that would seat in the corner just so they could only draw/paint the side view. For 2 years. Which is a copout imo. Since it was academic art, I could say with authority its because they lack the skill to paint or draw a model facing them. Abstract art? Slippery slope. One that's been debated countlessly in art schools while drinking cheap gin.

The very fact that it's been debated so much just goes to show you how much art really is subjective when it comes right down to it.

 

[Guestx]

When I was 12, I brought this point up to an art gallery guide on a school field trip. I saw some sponge painting(the shit you do in kindergarten art class) hanging up, and asked the guide what made it good, and told her I could do it. Her response was it was different, because I wasn't known in the art world.

So basically, this type of art is only as good as the signature on it.

For better or worse, it's definitely true that the name means a lot. We see this across all forms of art. Just look at movies, if a big director like Steven Spielberg gets attached to a project then instantly that project gets credibility.

A painter with a big name can do just about anything and it will sell for big money.

 

[tehend]

I don't understand abstract art.

You don't understand, you feel.

 

[Mike]

I'd say "it's a bit much" ONLY because she was too young to really remember it or understand what was going on.

But also consider this: If in fact Marla did do all the paintings herself with no real help from her dad beyond verbal encouragement, does she--and the family--deserve to be accused of doing otherwise?

No but the paintings she did while being monitored being lower quality looks bad.


When you expose your children to the public you're taking a risk, same thing with child actors. The general public can turn on someone quickly. Imo a good parent wouldn't do that, it seems clear their focus was money and not their child imo

 

[WrestlinganJudo]

You don't understand, you feel.

Then I will never get it.

 

[tehend]

Then I will never get it.

Confirmed android.