Child 'Genius' wows new york

[NoSleep]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/22/60II/main675522.shtml

Nah, I don't believe she produced that stuff herself for one minute - at least not without a serious helping hand. People will do anything to get out of Binghampton.

That's fairly obvious from the comments from her father in the original link. He's attending the whole operation, even if remotely.

[Santa's Boyfriend]

How the fuck is that amazingly advanced, just because it looks a bit like some modern artists work doesn't mean she has an iota of understanding, nor puts any more effort or thought in than whacking a load of paint around for fun. It looks different from average kids art because it's oil paint on canvas.

BECAUSE SHE'S FUCKING FOUR YEARS OLD!!!

Did you remember what you did with paint when you were four?  It wouldn't have looked anything like that - you would have worked and worked on the painting until either it became a brown splodgy mess or you ran out of paint.  I have a painting from when I was 4 (it has an array of colours around the outside, but the centre is a big blob of black - and that's only because the paintbrush was snatched away from me before I blacked out the whole thing), and even if I had as big a canvas as her I wouldn't have ended up with anything that good.  The fact that the colours are separable, considered and with a clear colourscheme and visual structure giving depth and vibrancy to the painting shows a level of artistic understanding far beyond an average 4 year-old.  She is clearly NOT just throwing the paint around.

[Utter Shit]

Have to agree with Santa's Boyfriend on this, those paintings are clearly not just the work of someone aimlessly throwing paint at the canvas. The bottom one in the BBC article is about as close to 'childlike' as she gets, the rest are far from it - as has already been mentioned, the definition of the colours is what separates her from a child, the ability to know when to stop. Just because it's not a flawless, photograph-esque painting of a watering can doesn't mean it's just brainless canvas-mashing.

[wherearethespoons]

When Marla was 2, her favorite bedtime book was a Children's Dictionary.

Oh, fuck off it was.

[Lookalike Mark Chapman]

You really think it's hers, then? I don't think the pieces are shit at all, I just think they're way beyond the capabilities of any four year old, and CTS's link up there, and the BBC article too, confirm have my doubts. A four year old would not have an understanding of the aesthetic or of painting the abstract. A four year old would not know when to stop when her vision had been achieved. She would not plan a canvas or even work at such a large scale. Filming it showed that she was being coerced and was not abnormally talented. The work which she was filmed painting was not as good as the others which were produced with only the parents present. The dad is an 'amateur artist'. And...

The paintings are given simple titles and signed 'Marla,' sometimes with the 'r' reversed

OK, the titles clearly aren't hers anyway, but ...why only reverse the r 'sometimes'? Do kids actually do that, or is it just Toys R Us and people faking kids' writing? I know lower case 'b' and 'd' can be interchangeable, but not 'r'. It does look increasingly like an amateur artist passing off his own work as his kid's. This stuff would be considered above average if an adult did it. There's no doubt there's only interest from serious wealth because of the backstory. Stick a cute signature on it, perpetuate a myth, and you can coin it (plus make pretentious people look stupid).

[Santa's Boyfriend]

You really think it's hers, then?

Impossible to say either way.

but ...why only reverse the r 'sometimes'? Do kids actually do that, or is it just Toys R Us and people faking kids' writing?

She might be a Russian sleeper agent.

[SOTS]

I bet her parents are hipster fuckwits.

[thugler]

BECAUSE SHE'S FUCKING FOUR YEARS OLD!!!

Did you remember what you did with paint when you were four?  It wouldn't have looked anything like that - you would have worked and worked on the painting until either it became a brown splodgy mess or you ran out of paint.  I have a painting from when I was 4 (it has an array of colours around the outside, but the centre is a big blob of black - and that's only because the paintbrush was snatched away from me before I blacked out the whole thing), and even if I had as big a canvas as her I wouldn't have ended up with anything that good.  The fact that the colours are separable, considered and with a clear colourscheme and visual structure giving depth and vibrancy to the painting shows a level of artistic understanding far beyond an average 4 year-old.  She is clearly NOT just throwing the paint around.

Yes. No, I didn't paint continuously until everything was black. I don't understand for a moment what the difference is between a kids scrawlings with poor quality paint on normal paper, and her being given fancy paint and a massive canvas. No not all kids paint until everything is mashed together.

[boxofslice]

Of course its not all good news for a child prodigy, remember this kid from the 80's


James Harries. He went on Wogan at the age of 10 prattling on about his love andamassed knowledge of antiques far beyond his years to an amazed audience. Became quite a star for short time. Then things went downhill, he had some personal problems, worked in various low paid jobs before resurfacing agian on tv after he had a sex change at the age of 20 and became Lauren.

[El Unicornio, mang]

Weren't he and his parents getting attacked in the street too? I seem to recall he was moving to LA to escape

[boxofslice]

Weren't he and his parents getting attacked in the street too? I seem to recall he was moving to LA to escape

Yes, him/her and his/her brother were attacked and moved to the more accepting climate of LA.

[Hank_Kingsley]

That's just fucking sad and horrible. Poor Lauren.

[Dark Sky]

It's very easy to dismiss this as the final proof that all modern art is just a bunch of squiggles and sold to rich twats, but that first picture is genuinely pretty good. Not so sure about the 2nd one but at least it has a form that seperates it from most kids paintings.

Isn't the second one an actual Jackson Pollock they've put on for comparison?

I'm not as cynical as other people and can quite easily believe that she painted these unaided as the father says.  Well done her!

[The Widow of Brid]

You really think it's hers, then? I don't think the pieces are shit at all, I just think they're way beyond the capabilities of any four year old

That - along with most of the other stuff you posted - was pretty much my conclusion. I kept coming back to the fact that a lot of the paintings on the site seem to utilise quite long, fluid, brush strokes when all the photos of her holding a brush or pen on there show her holding it like a normal four year old, very stiffly. I'd say that for a lot of those paintings it's not even a question of whether or not she has the artistic capabilities to do it, she's not yet going to have the physical capabilities to do it.

[Cack Hen]

And why does it make any difference if a 4-year old thugler could have mustered up something similar with some expensive paints and a canvas? People aren't "mugs" because they buy something most people could do, art doesn't have to portray any significant skill from the artist for it to be valid, either. It's like when people use the term "arty", I absolutely hate that, because it suggests there's higher levels of artistic validity in one particular thing, which I simply can't buy into. In my opinion, something like the stock exchange or a crack in a random wall holds just as much artistic validity as the complete works of Shakespeare. It's completely naive and slightly arrogant to say that Shakespeare's plays are objectively better than something inherently mundane, since the possibilities for artistic perception of any entity are infinite. The term 'art' is misused wildly by just about everybody; there's a big difference between not connecting with somebody's expression of something and it not being 'artistic'. Again, it's completely arrogant to say this girls painting isn't art, it's like saying the feelings or emotions she was trying to express are somehow invalid because you personally can't connect with it. Even if somebody doesn't create something for the purpose of it being displayed to a wider audience (for example, me wanking furiously) that still doesn't mean it's not as artistic as just about anything else in the world, because somebody somewhere will undoubtedly find something utterly magical and poignant in me wanking like a chimp. Don't get me wrong, I don't go around stroking my chin to carrier bags in the road or shedding a tear over the sound of a lorry reversing, but I think it's extremely important to remember that art is a huge concept, it's not something you can just limit down to Pink Floyd's discography and the Mona Lisa.

[fanny splendid]

or shedding a tear over the sound of a lorry reversing

Hah, that's beautiful!

[Ronnie the Raincoat]

Here's a child prodigy artist:

http://www.artakiane.com/akiane_art.htm

Her art is all mythical crap but it's amazingly well done.

[Ciarán]

And why does it make any difference if a 4-year old thugler could have mustered up something similar with some expensive paints and a canvas? People aren't "mugs" because they buy something most people could do, art doesn't have to portray any significant skill from the artist for it to be valid, either. It's like when people use the term "arty", I absolutely hate that, because it suggests there's higher levels of artistic validity in one particular thing, which I simply can't buy into. In my opinion, something like the stock exchange or a crack in a random wall holds just as much artistic validity as the complete works of Shakespeare. It's completely naive and slightly arrogant to say that Shakespeare's plays are objectively better than something inherently mundane, since the possibilities for artistic perception of any entity are infinite.

Woah there! There is a middle-ground here too. Suppose we compare the complete works of Shakespeare with the complete works of Jeffrey Archer (to pick on an easy target). Are you saying that those oeuvres have equal merit? Obviously, it wouldn't  be enough to just dismiss Archer's work as "airport literature" and assume it's worse. But when people say Shakespeares' work is the best writing in the English language they're not just hopping on a bandwagon. The prose and poetry contained therein, the subjects and themes which are dealt with, the philosophical musings on love, death and the human condition are extraordinary and all of these things objectively are there in the works to be discussed. While I admit it's absolutely right to question the reasons we laud established works of art, we don't want to just settle on a simple "it's all equally valid" argument either. Because then "art" would become completely meaningless, and Katie Price's novel would be a as good a work as James Joyce's.

[boxofslice]

Piss Christ by Serrano Andres 1987

This was always a bone of contention among my group of friends as to its artistic value vs shock value.

[Hypodeemic Nerdle]

Serrano wasn't trying to blaspheme.  He just liked the way it glowed.

[Cack Hen]

Woah there! There is a middle-ground here too. Suppose we compare the complete works of Shakespeare with the complete works of Jeffrey Archer (to pick on an easy target). Are you saying that those oeuvres have equal merit? Obviously, it wouldn't  be enough to just dismiss Archer's work as "airport literature" and assume it's worse. But when people say Shakespeares' work is the best writing in the English language they're not just hopping on a bandwagon. The prose and poetry contained therein, the subjects and themes which are dealt with, the philosophical musings on love, death and the human condition are extraordinary and all of these things objectively are there in the works to be discussed. While I admit it's absolutely right to question the reasons we laud established works of art, we don't want to just settle on a simple "it's all equally valid" argument either. Because then "art" would become completely meaningless, and Katie Price's novel would be a as good a work as James Joyce's.

I think Katie Price lifted some paragraphs straight from Joyce's love letters, as it happens.

I'm not saying for a moment people should start saying "I really enjoyed that production of The Merchant of Venice, but it was no better than wiping my arse" I fully understand why people enjoy similar things, such as pieces of literature, movies, music etc but my issue is with people who feel the need to dismiss the potential in anything. Alright, so you don't get people stopping in the street, pointing to a street lamp and saying "yeah it serves a purpose, but it'll never move me like ELO" but then, if somebody tried to present it as an expression of how they feel, people would be dismissing it left, right and centre and saying "that isn't art!" except it clearly is, because at least one person has seen something in it and connected with it.

[Howj Begg]

Well whoever did them, "Marla's" work is pretty damn good. She's got a genuine artist's eye and technique, which one would assume comes from untutored talent.

[Tetsuo: Ironmonger]

While I admit it's absolutely right to question the reasons we laud established works of art, we don't want to just settle on a simple "it's all equally valid" argument either. Because then "art" would become completely meaningless

I understand your point, but would you define "art" for me please. I hate to quibble over semantics, but with something as precious as "art" I think we need to share similar views over what the word actually means before we can decide what's good and bad about it (I know I do, at any rate).

Do you think of Shakespeare's writings as art?

Do you consider your first-hand view of a sunrise as art?

Do you consider a stone to be art?

Do you consider a book about the structural make-up and history of that stone as art?

If someone gets more of a sense of profundity from thinking about the nature of processes that went into shaping a stone than they do from studying the Mona Lisa, then perhaps that's how it makes sense to think of "art" - items/concepts containing stimuli that excite the brain into deep analysis being "good art", items/concepts that pass through your brain with only a cursory thought being "bad art".

The problem with that being that that makes everything "art", when it's arguably more useful to classify only "good art" as art. But of course then that leads to some unwarranted elitism. Art... things that the individual sees as relatively profound?

[thugler]

And why does it make any difference if a 4-year old thugler could have mustered up something similar with some expensive paints and a canvas? People aren't "mugs" because they buy something most people could do, art doesn't have to portray any significant skill from the artist for it to be valid, either. It's like when people use the term "arty", I absolutely hate that, because it suggests there's higher levels of artistic validity in one particular thing, which I simply can't buy into. In my opinion, something like the stock exchange or a crack in a random wall holds just as much artistic validity as the complete works of Shakespeare. It's completely naive and slightly arrogant to say that Shakespeare's plays are objectively better than something inherently mundane, since the possibilities for artistic perception of any entity are infinite. The term 'art' is misused wildly by just about everybody; there's a big difference between not connecting with somebody's expression of something and it not being 'artistic'. Again, it's completely arrogant to say this girls painting isn't art, it's like saying the feelings or emotions she was trying to express are somehow invalid because you personally can't connect with it. Even if somebody doesn't create something for the purpose of it being displayed to a wider audience (for example, me wanking furiously) that still doesn't mean it's not as artistic as just about anything else in the world, because somebody somewhere will undoubtedly find something utterly magical and poignant in me wanking like a chimp. Don't get me wrong, I don't go around stroking my chin to carrier bags in the road or shedding a tear over the sound of a lorry reversing, but I think it's extremely important to remember that art is a huge concept, it's not something you can just limit down to Pink Floyd's discography and the Mona Lisa.

But anything and everything could be considered art. That doesn't mean that we can't decide which bits of it are worthwhile or not. I'd never say that something wasn't art (and didn't), because you always come across the argument that anything can be considered art, which is fine, as long as you don't extend that to saying 'all art is beyond criticism' which is what you appear to be saying. I think it's thoughtless shit which is having too much attention (and money) drawn to it simply because she's a child. If a piece of art can draws the question 'isn't that just the scrawlings of a child?' isn't there the slightest chance that it could be exactly that, yet avoid anyone taking notice of the claim simply because it's been picked out as 'art'. I hate the attitude that it's wrong to try to point out charlatans in the art world, or even accept the fact that such a thing exists.

[El Unicornio, mang]

I would define art as anything that's created to stimulate someone mentally or  emotionally, rather than physically or intellectually (ie: a power drill or a text book aren't art).

[InfiniteFury]

I see more of an investment X potential thing with regards to the interest in her to be honest. Hey ho, tis the world we live in - cynical but I dare say more than a little truth picking away in the purchasers minds....

From an artistic point of view I know fuck all about what's contrived*, what's rehashed, what's old-hat etc etc but for her age she's clearly got a natural talent and mindset for artistic representation which hopefully will get nurtured in a way that doesn't involve her sucking some art-wankers cock for heroin in 15 years or so.

*She's four years old - if her dads not painting them and passing them off as hers I doubt she's done much studying into the history of modern art.

[Santa's Boyfriend]

But anything and everything could be considered art. That doesn't mean that we can't decide which bits of it are worthwhile or not. I'd never say that something wasn't art (and didn't), because you always come across the argument that anything can be considered art, which is fine, as long as you don't extend that to saying 'all art is beyond criticism' which is what you appear to be saying.

I'm glad you make the concession that anything can be considered art - I personally tend to say (and indeed taught in a college) that it's art if the artist intended it to be so.  Whether it's good art or bad art is another matter!  I certainly wouldn't say that all art is beyond criticism.

I think it's thoughtless shit which is having too much attention (and money) drawn to it simply because she's a child.

Whilst I don't agree that it's thoughtless shit, I certainly agree that it would be getting a lot less attention (probably none in fact) if it were done by a 35 year-old.  But then, context is often an important thing in art.  Some works are entirely hinged around context, and I don't have a problem with that.  If these pieces truly are done by a 4 year-old, then I do think they increase their artistic value simply by the viewer knowing that.  But they started selling before people knew they were done by a 4 year-old, and I do think they stand up pretty well regardless of the age of the person who did them.

If a piece of art can draws the question 'isn't that just the scrawlings of a child?' isn't there the slightest chance that it could be exactly that, yet avoid anyone taking notice of the claim simply because it's been picked out as 'art'. I hate the attitude that it's wrong to try to point out charlatans in the art world, or even accept the fact that such a thing exists.

At the end of the day I personally don't think it matters if this is literally "the scrawlings of a child".  The fact is, people like them - therefore, the art has value.  The arts industry in the UK, such as it is, tends to be dominated by the taste of one man, Charles Saachi - and as such, in my opinion, the art has less value because its high profile has nothing to do with the masses.  I think Banksy's work has far more importance because he rose to recognition outside of any such system.  Saachi's system makes it easier for charlatans to appear (although I'm not sure it's a word I would use to describe them.  Bad artists might be a better term), and gives rise to the likes of Damien Hirst, a man who in my opinion has produced no art of any significant value beyond its impact in the tabloids (whose reaction was far more interesting than the work itself).  Modern art of the last ten or fifteen years has relied far too heavily on tabloid sensation and people crying "that's not art" in order to generate debate and interest, and far too little on work that have what I would call a more quietly significant work - ie work that spoke for itself without the need for tabloid hysteria, such as that of Lucien Freud.

If this girl's work is all scribbles or not, ultimately I don't think it matters.  People like it anyway, and that's what is important.

[Huzzie]

I think she has amazing talent! She may not be able to get a Carravagio-esque figue but she obviously understands the create something very pleasing to the eye.

I think she is great and I just hope she manages to keep the imagination she has now when her hand/eye co-ordination gets even better.

[wherearethespoons]

Marry her then Huzzie, for fuck sake.

[boxofslice]

Heres a question. Hyperthetically I go down to Buckingham Palace on the 31st August pull down my pants and defecate outside the gates. I tell the world that i've done it as an artistic statement but don't elaborate. The broadsheets, tabloids, BBC4 and various other media outlets discuss it at great lengths in terms of metaphors and symbolism. Yet I, and only I know i've done it for a laugh. Does this still remain art?