I can’t. Six year olds barely have the muscle control to write their own name legibly. They’re still writing 'S’s back to front. They may be able to draw something a little more illustratively than stick figures if they have unusually strong in-born talent, but they’ll barely be able to keep a paint brush steady enough for a smooth solid line, let alone create a near photo-real painting. It’s complete bullshit from top to bottom. The subtlety in this image would be at the limits of the most talented 13 year old who has ever lived, no way could a six year old do it.
It may be possible, starting with a tracing, and lots of ‘coaching’, and an unusually gifted child. But even if it fits within the stated rules it seems to violate the spirit of those rules in that the result is really not the individual effort of the child, and it may even be more the effort of her parent with her help than the other way round.
Why do ducks have webbed feet?
To stamp out forest fires.
Why do elephants have flat feet?
To stamp out burning ducks.
It would seem to me that a Hans van Meegeren test is in order.
Not every six-year-old is the same. The girl is obviously a prodigy.
And now she has been reinstated as the winner!
http://www.argusleader.com/article/20130503/NEWS/305030019/Duck-stamp-contest-ruling-reversed
I can believe that - my daughter had the same skills at that age. Good enough to create that type of painting from a tracing, that is, not do it all herself.
The British watercolour boy cited above was on a tv programme about gifted children a couple of years ago and does seem to be legit - video footage of him painting, etc. But his work is much less photo-real than the girl in the OP.
In another time and place in my career I could count on seeing half a dozen Duck Stamp prints each year. (I work as a picture framer). I haven’t seen one or thought about Duck Stamps for fifteen years. Maybe this is all a just a clever ploy to put Duck Stamps back on the map.
Reading as much of the linked articles as I care to spend time on I can see where people are deciding that the language of the rules is ambiguous, but in the same situation I would have chosen the least cheat-y interpretation.
Aside from that, the degree of “coaching” needed to get that painting out of a six year old can’t have been very fun for her.
I feel the worst for second Place/First Place/Second Place winner Peter Coulter. He should get to keep the first place prize money for his “pain and suffering.”
You have no idea whether she received any “coaching,” to what degree, or what she enjoys. An attentive parent sharing his work with his talented child, who certainly does not come across as abused in video, is a beautiful thing.
The fact that someone is six does not mean that they should spend all of their time having “fun” playing with no direction or purpose. Learning a skill IS fun, although yes, the fun can be ruined if the adult pushes too hard.
I wonder if there would be a controversy if father and daughter were listed together on the entry form.
Quite apart from the quality of the painting, what six year old ever worked on a single project for a whole year?
People don’t much use the three-cent, anyway.
No, she is being presented as a prodigy. And I will not believe it’s true until I see video evidence.
I just found out that my daughter, who is 16, had considered entering this contest. She said her plan was to take a picture of one of the loons that live near our family’s lake cabin and draw it. Then, it turns out that loons, not being ducks, geese, or swans, are not one of the permitted species.
Her reaction on seeing the winning picture? “I was beaten by a 6-year-old!”
I find it interesting that last year’s winner also traced an unpublished photograph by the father. First of all, where are they all getting these unpublished photographs? Second, it’s interesting that this father’s images seem to be the inspiration for the winners over and over again. I’d feel better about a prodigy whose father was not so closely tied to the competition.
My husband is an artist, and two of my kids have had exceptional ability. One, in particular, was (and is) particularly adept at drawing realistic renditions of things he has only seen once, including animals in motion. So I think a kid with a natural talent could do the drawing part. My youngest kid could have rendered that duck in pencil, water and all, without coaching, without tracing, and with having only seen it once.
Oddly enough, while he could draw anything, his handwriting wasn’t all that great. (It got better.)
But oil painting is–has–a lot of facets that I think would be very boring for a kid, such as carefully mixing to get the right color, mixing the turp, etc. My husband has brought out some great stuff in our kids, mostly by taking the work away from them at a certain point before they wreck it. He let one of our kids do some work on a gigantic landscape he was working on, which he later sold, and the kid did fine–but also, oil is very forgiving.
If you had the patience to chip away at this for a year, coaching the kid, that is not an unreasonable result. Most people wouldn’t have the patience. And believe me, I understand the skepticism. I do think, though, that it’s possible.
As to where they are getting these unpublished photos? From that guy. He’s a wildlife artist, he probably has lots of unpublished photos. I have a lot of unpublished photos, and I am not any kind of artist.