Seriously what the fuck?
Huh?
Am I awake?
What is going on?
4 year old child is making a mess with paint, and … my brain hurts… people are spending thousands???
This is not a child progidy? It’s a normal 4 year old doing normal 4 year old things with paint!!
Hey, it’s their money.
If the buyers place this sort of value on these works of art what is it to you?
I also disagree that these are ‘normal’ works for a 4-year old.
Well they are no worse or better than other works of “art” I’ve seen. Colourful too.
Friends, I am sitting on a goldmine. I cannot wait to auction off my 4-girl’s works on ebay!!! 
Reminds me of an incident many years ago when patrons to an art museum were so put off by the displays of modern/contemporary art (such as a rock and spoon sitting on a pedestal or a satck of light bulbs glued together), they went home and made up some name tags to match the ones already in the museum. The next day, the thermostat turned into a piece of artwork called “temperature rising” and a fire extinguisher became “extinguishing characteristics”.
We need to set up a double-blind test to see if art connoisseurs can really tell the difference between these paintings and canvas made from the vests of paintball victims :dubious:
Oh I have no ‘problem’ with idiots, deluded amazingly stupid idiots, parting with money. And I agree that they are nice and colourful. I’d be proud if she were my 4 year old. But Prodigy?? I am just speechless at the levels of insanity that the art world exists at. This is a child making a mess with paint!! There’s no method to her ‘art’ she’s just making a mess for fuck’s sake!
This just in, abstract art = worthless fraud. In other news, meteorologists revealed today that the sky is blue.
You know why we don’t have abstract music or abstract orations? Because they’re just random noise and random gibberish, respectively. How the art world ever enshrined the concept of ‘Eh, whatever’ as an artistic ideal is beyond me.
It’s not just a four year old messing with paint. It’s a four year old that has been painting for a couple of years. Little kid with a purpose using different paints and brushes and having a purpose.
I have a four year old. He scribbles. Sometimes, with prompting, he scribbles with a purpose for two or three seconds. I’m sinfully proud of that boy, but he doesn’t create art on a six foot canvas. He puts scribbles on scratch paper.
Is the art worth all that money? Not to me. But be fair to the girl. She uses different materials, chooses brushes and has a style. Makes her an artist. And the examples they showed in the article look pretty good to me, relative to art I’ve seen created by some adults.
Guess you never heard of John Cage?
Uh, there’s no shortage of abstract music. What is JSB’s Three Part Invention in C about, exactly?
Abstract orations? There’s plenty of room for abstraction. How about Gertrude Stein’s Listen To Me? Sam Shepherd’s Tongues? Joyce’s Finnegans Wake?
Abstract art is potentially beautiful and profound, and representative art is sometimes absurdly vapid.
This kid, on the other hand, isn’t much better than Pollock. 
I’m willing to give experts the benefit of the doubt on these things, and admit it’s possible there’s something there I’m not seeing.
But I’d also like to see this double-blind test…
At the very least, it might be interesting to compare this girl’s artwork with the artwork of other kids her age using the same materials.
I don’t deny they look nice. But the child doesn’t know she’s creating ‘abstract art’ she’s just having fun with paint, and the results are ‘interesting’ but The whole idea of abstract art is a farse. I hate it. I’m all for interesting patterns. I just can’t understand why arty types act as if some miracle has happened, some genius of creativity. There’s a big big huge difference between ‘nice picture’ and ‘masterpiece’ and when people ignore that difference I can’t help seeing the utter dishonesty of it. There’s no ‘meaning’ to these paintings, there’s rarely ‘meaning’ to most abstract art.
Give me a child who can do complex math, paint a portrait, play a violin and I’ll call her a prodigy. Give me a child who can make an interesting looking mess on a canvas and I’ll call her an enthusiastic 4 year old.
Or Jimmy Swaggert.
Abstract art requires no talent, effort or thought. It only requires the endorsement of a coked-out art critic.
I’m unfamiliar with that musical piece, Mudd - and two of the mentioned ‘orations’ - but Finnegan’s Wake is a book, if memory serves. If it’s as incoherent as it’s been made out to be, then yes, it’s gibberish. But I’ve never read it.
Heh, there goes Larry Mudd, making a joke again.
Sold! For more than one hundred times it’s worth in gold.
I disagree. It was an alimental work.
Do you have any children?
Because I’ve seen a mess made by a 4-year old with paint and it’s nothing like her paintings.
Why do you insist that she doesn’t know she is creating abstract art? She is not trying to draw a doggy and has the perspective all wrong. It’s pretty clear to me that she sets out with an idea in her head and gets it onto the canvas. Notice how different all the paintings look? If she was just messing around you wouldn’t get that variety.
Reminds me of when Andy Warhol pissed and shit on a canvas and called it art.
That one’s hanging in the Andy Warhol Museum in Pittsburgh. Guess it’s true that you just have to see some of the shit they call art these days.
Are you, in fact, saying that there is no inherent beauty in line, form or color? That paint on a canvas or sculpture on a pedestal must be representative of a recognizable object in order to be “real” art?