Nowhere in the article does it state that the Grand Art World Gurus, in their annual Meeting of Aesthetes, ordained this girl a genius - labeling her thusly is just the tactic of a clever gallery owner. $40k for 25 huge paintings really isn’t that much for someone who’s fairly successful, it’s about the going rate.
I think the artwork is outstanding and exceptional. Genius? I don’t know. I’d be curious to watch her paint and see if her Dad “helps” - it’s hard for me to imagine a tiny arm making those large movements with a brush. I’m also concerned about her exposure to the heavy metal components in professional artist’s paints. That’s what makes the colors so vivid, they’re full of cadmium, lead, etc. The article mentioned that she sometimes paints with her fingers - I hope she’s wearing gloves.
BTW, good abstract art is just as difficult to create as good representational art. I say this as someone who has been to art school and does both (sometimes well, sometimes poorly). Picasso mastered representational drawing at the age of 10, that’s why he started working abstractly - he needed a new challenge.
Give any 4 year old those paints and those canvases (who does?) and I bet many 4 year olds will be able to do something similar. I still think she’s just enthusiastically creating what she thinks is an interesting ‘pattern’. And I think any 4 year old would have it in mind to make the next ‘interesting pattern’ look different than the last. Maybe she isn’t messing. Maybe there is some creativity going on. But it’s not prodigy material.
I am not ranting against the child here. I am ranting against the ridiculous art industry, making a child’s interesting pattern out to be priceless art. It’s just stupid.
I think it’s pretty good, for a child anyway. But then, I enjoy a great deal of abstract art.
However, I didn’t like modern art until after my college days, where I was a music composition major and studied 20th century music. Since then, I’ve met several people who enjoy modern art, but in every case it has been someone who studied it formally; I don’t know anyone without a degree in the arts who enjoys the stuff- although surely such an animal exists.
So maybe, as a general rule anyway, modern art is just one of those things that requires a bit of specialized education to appreciate. Or not, just a guess.
Say what you will about young Marla or Pollock and the other Abstracts but just TRY to do abstract art that good. It’s surprisingly difficult if not impossible to sit down and do non-representational art that others would recognize as good. Describing the difference between good abstract art and doodling by a chimpanzee is difficult but once your eye is trained you begin to recognize it (the old “I know it when I see it” thing) without the help of “experts.”
Most four year olds I’ve seen can’t make representational drawings that don’t all look alike, let alone abstract patterns like the girl in the article is making. While the value of what she’s producing is definetly debatable, as is the work of any artist, there’s definetly more going on here than what would be produced by a “normal” four year old.
By what basis do you make that determination? You’ve already admitted that you don’t have any appreciation for abstract art, so how are you qualified to judge the merit of these paintings as compared to professional, adult painters?
Actually, her artwork seems to have a pretty well determined price. About $10,000, on the average. Which, I would say, is a wildly inflated price considering the quality of the work. Except I suspect that most of that price is speculative. Assuming the kid really is producing those works and isn’t getting “helped” by mom and dad, there’s a huge amount of potential there. My guess is that people are buying these paintings now in the hopes that, twenty years down the line when Marla Olmstead is a world famous and highly respected artist, these early works truly will be “priceless.”
Does a B.A. in English Literature count? That and a few introductory art production classes is the sum total of my formal artistic education, and I love modern art. More than most classical art, even.
Cool. I mean, I always assumed that despite my personal experience surely there had to be non-art majors who appreciated abstract art- but nonetheless it’s great to actually know of one. And I wouldn’t be surprised if there were many others who post on the SDMB.
Actually, Finnegan’s Wake is a drinking song with an esoteric subtext that goes over the heads of most revelers.
Finnegans Wake is a book, but I feel safe in including amongst “orations” because it needs to be heard aloud in order to comprehend much of it. It’s certainly not gibberish – if anything, it contains much more information that straight prose. It has layered meanings, and is as much about language itself and protomythology as anything.
When I was four (I’m not making this up) my mom entered my tempera painting of our house (green roof, purple sky, yadda yadda) in a citywide art contest. She accidentally entered it in the wrong age category. I won a ribbon in the adult category. I was on TV.
That piece of artwork is good. It’s impressive and it is obvious that skill was involved in creating it. The child’s paintings, while looking interesting and nice and colourful, have no real form or artistic skill in them. That is to be expected in a 4 year old.
You’ve got a great point there. Here’s a timeline pictorial of (most of?) Picasso’s works. It shows how his ability was built first on copies the masters styles and using that as foundation for taking the art into a completely fresh tangent. IMO, this is the challenge that faces new abstract artists is that they start off in that genre and don’t have the chops to “prove” their new art.
I remember being at the Art Institute of Chicago about 5 years ago and seeing some uninspired pieces there. It was a full exhibit about one artist (blanking on his name) but the more I looked at it, saw his earlier works, understood how his evolution of shapes happened, the more I understood the current works. The more I understood it, the more I appreciated it.
That being said, it’s not meant to discount this 4 year old’s works. I actually really like the one titled “Dinosaur” with its black lining running through the colors. It gives the piece an interesting dimension. Is it genius? Is it a fluke? I dunno. But if it speaks to the audience, the buyer, why not spend the $Ks for it?
This looks interesting. There’s a bit more form to it than the kid’s paintings (there even seems to be the figure of a woman in yellow on the left). I’d be happy to have it on my wall. But I wouldn’t call it a masterpiece.
