Child 'Genius' wows new york

[Cack Hen]

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.

I'm not saying all art is beyond criticism, I'm questioning the definition of 'art' and the way people use that term to fit around their own preferences.

As for the child, you have to put this into perspective. What kind of exposure is she getting? A bit of local fame and the odd newspaper report solely published, as somebody said earlier, so people will get pissy about it and say "pfft". How did she get that fame in the first place? Well, obviously, with a little help from her parents, I'd imagine (I am working on the assumption that she did those paintings herself, though) but somebody, somewhere along the line will have really enjoyed her paintings.

Could it just be childs scribbling? Well, what exactly is child's scribbling? To you it's just nonsense, to somebody else it's beautiful. It doesn't have to be so black and white ie shit/not art - good/art. I don't care how technically brilliant her brush strokes are or how well she's mastered an abstract concept, I only care about what it means to me.

If you think something's shit, then be all means say it's shit. I just object to people dismissing the artistic validity of something because they don't like it.

EDIT- SB pretty much covered it while I was eating peas.

[Cack Hen]

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?

Yes, because it's funny. In fact, I really love the idea of anonymity in art, not in a Banksy sort of way, but in a way that is borderline pointless to a lot of people. I'd love to record a truly amazing piece of music, then set fire to the master tapes. I'm not making any real point - I'd just get a great thrill out of doing something so ridiculous. I think a lot of art is mistaken for po-faced commentary on some complex issue, when actually it's just an exercise in being ridiculous, which in itself holds an odd beauty that I can strongly relate to.

[Huzzie]

How the fuck is that amazingly advanced,

You do understand ages, don't you? You do realise what your average 4 year old child (baby) can do? Or are you just being a tit for the sake of it?

[PAGATRON]

its a photo

I just realised that if you reverse this picture, put a sinister looking doll on the other side of the painting it could be the new BBC TV test card...

...Goodnight Earl, goodnight Randy.

[thugler]

I'm not saying all art is beyond criticism, I'm questioning the definition of 'art' and the way people use that term to fit around their own preferences.

As for the child, you have to put this into perspective. What kind of exposure is she getting? A bit of local fame and the odd newspaper report solely published, as somebody said earlier, so people will get pissy about it and say "pfft". How did she get that fame in the first place? Well, obviously, with a little help from her parents, I'd imagine (I am working on the assumption that she did those paintings herself, though) but somebody, somewhere along the line will have really enjoyed her paintings.

Could it just be childs scribbling? Well, what exactly is child's scribbling? To you it's just nonsense, to somebody else it's beautiful. It doesn't have to be so black and white ie shit/not art - good/art. I don't care how technically brilliant her brush strokes are or how well she's mastered an abstract concept, I only care about what it means to me.

If you think something's shit, then be all means say it's shit. I just object to people dismissing the artistic validity of something because they don't like it.

EDIT- SB pretty much covered it while I was eating peas.

Whilst I agree with most of what SB said, I don't see why artistic credibility cannot be questioned. Anything can hold appeal to someone. But for me personally I think too much focus on shocking people is ruining the art world. What I'm saying is, even though you see some value in what she has done, even if it was awful and you hated it, there would be little stopping it being seen as fantastic as long as it was marketed in the right way with a shocking gimmick like a very young girl having done it. The shocking stuff ALWAYS gets the attention, whereas anything truly progressive and new often doesn't.

The problem I think is that theres no bullshit filter, ever.

[thugler]

You do understand ages, don't you? You do realise what your average 4 year old child (baby) can do? Or are you just being a tit for the sake of it?

Absolutely. What I'm saying is, that pretty much any 4 year old messing around with fancy paint on a massive canvas could quite easily get the same reaction as this girl, and often similar results. As would some randomly dropped paint on a canvas (some of the time), come to think of it.

[Huzzie]

Marry her then Huzzie, for fuck sake.

:-/

[Huzzie]

Absolutely. What I'm saying is, that pretty much any 4 year old messing around with fancy paint on a massive canvas could quite easily get the same reaction as this girl, and often similar results. As would some randomly dropped paint on a canvas (some of the time), come to think of it.

I'm far to tired and grumpy to argue about this now but I really can't agree.


Sorry for calling you a tit by the way.

[Cack Hen]

Whilst I agree with most of what SB said, I don't see why artistic credibility cannot be questioned. Anything can hold appeal to someone. But for me personally I think too much focus on shocking people is ruining the art world. What I'm saying is, even though you see some value in what she has done, even if it was awful and you hated it, there would be little stopping it being seen as fantastic as long as it was marketed in the right way with a shocking gimmick like a very young girl having done it. The shocking stuff ALWAYS gets the attention, whereas anything truly progressive and new often doesn't.

The problem I think is that theres no bullshit filter, ever.

I don't really understand your point. People are always going to like different things, and the more 'experimental' the work is, the more voices will be heard saying "it's shit, you can't even see what it's meant to be!" and the people in praise of it are being told that they're 'pretentious' or 'gullible'. Just because you perceive something one way, it doesn't mean somebody else has that same perception. Do you think The Mighty Boosh's biggest fan thinks about their comedy in the same way as [banned troll]? Of course not.

So if by a 'filter' you mean some sort of objectively agreed point whereby art becomes shit or invalid then I would have to disagree with that completely. It's not just narrow-minded, it's dangerous for the cultural growth of society. If years of cultural change and development has taught us anything, it should be that the possibilities of art are endless. Do you think anybody in the 1920s would have said the Ramones were good? 

[Funcrusher]

I'm definitely calling bullshit on these paintings being done by a four year old.

[Huzzie]

It would be the easiest thing in the world to test. Just give her a brush and a bit of paint and say "do something good and you get a cookie". I'm sure she has done a few "live shows".

[thugler]

I don't really understand your point. People are always going to like different things, and the more 'experimental' the work is, the more voices will be heard saying "it's shit, you can't even see what it's meant to be!" and the people in praise of it are being told that they're 'pretentious' or 'gullible'. Just because you perceive something one way, it doesn't mean somebody else has that same perception. Do you think The Mighty Boosh's biggest fan thinks about their comedy in the same way as [banned troll]? Of course not.

So if by a 'filter' you mean some sort of objectively agreed point whereby art becomes shit or invalid then I would have to disagree with that completely. It's not just narrow-minded, it's dangerous for the cultural growth of society. If years of cultural change and development has taught us anything, it should be that the possibilities of art are endless. Do you think anybody in the 1920s would have said the Ramones were good? 

Agree with the first part.

In terms of a 'filter' being harmful to cultural growth and narrow minded, sure. But I think theres also a danger of, as we currently have a system of anything being acceptable as art, that the wrong things are hailed as genius, and being outrageous and trying to push the boundaries in terms of what can be called art is the only thing that gets any attention.

Theres problems with both systems. All I'm saying is that sometimes, people should be able to call bullshit, nothing to do with questioning artistic validity at all. As I've said before, pretty much anything can be considered art.

Part of what I find ridiculous is the way that people refer to numerous meanings and metaphors and symbolism in pieces of art, when many of these aspects may have not been intended at all. This is the kind of emperors new clothes syndrome which I disagree with.

[Dusty Gozongas]

Unfortunately there wasn't a poll included with this thread.  I'd be interested to see how many people are convinced a four year old painted that stuff.

[Dusty Gozongas]

It would be the easiest thing in the world to test. Just give her a brush and a bit of paint and say "do something good and you get a cookie". I'm sure she has done a few "live shows".

She has, sort of. Here's a link from the first page of the thread:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/22/60II/main675522.shtml

[boxofslice]

A typical childs drawing. Notice her excellent use of perspective.

[El Unicornio, mang]

That's one big lady (and duck)

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Clearly a swan.

[buttgammon]

It's a swan? I thought it was a bloody monster! That poor little dog (which looks really ill by the way - possibly anorexic) will get eaten by the giant duck if it isn't careful. The bit for remote controlled cars is a nice touch, though. I've heard of them have those things for the little remote controlled boats that you sometimes see but never for little cars.

[Cack Hen]

Cack Hen aged 7.

But did I get any recognition?! Yes, some.

[El Unicornio, mang]

I would say that letting the dog walk on the barriers is dangerous but since it's bigger than those two cars it probably needn't worry

And it's a duck. A white one with a long, swan-like neck

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

You're going to uni aged EIGHT? Boy, you're clever.

[Cack Hen]

Haha, yes. My mum still has it on the wall in the hallway, funnier still is that it's right next to a Dali print.

[boxofslice]

Cack Hen aged 7.

But did I get any recognition?! Yes, some.

Who is it?

[Cack Hen]

Jennifer Paterson

[El Unicornio, mang]

The two fat ladies woman?

[boxofslice]

Jennifer Paterson

Oh, I thought it was Enya.

[Santa's Boyfriend]

All I'm saying is that sometimes, people should be able to call bullshit,

Hey, you can call bullshit all you want!  But it does mean other people will come out and tell you you're wrong.  But that's ok, right?

Part of what I find ridiculous is the way that people refer to numerous meanings and metaphors and symbolism in pieces of art, when many of these aspects may have not been intended at all. This is the kind of emperors new clothes syndrome which I disagree with.

People finding meaning in work that may not have been intended is, in my opinion, all part of the fun of art.  It's about what you get out of it more than what is actually put in.  This is all my own opinion, but for me someone could paint the most wonderful piece of symbolic art, but if nobody gets the symbolism, it effectively fails as a piece of art.  On the other hand, if a work of art becomes more than the creator intended, if anything, that is a success for the work of art.  Works having meanings read into them that weren't there happens all the time - it's something that frequently becomes part of a cultural zeitgeist, that happens because of the mindset of the people viewing it.  A classic example was a photograph of the Omagh bombing (apologies if that's mis-spelt) taken the moment before, where someone had cut out all the people.  The fact that all those people were now dead made the cut out figures extremely poigniant, and somehow captured something - a national mood, perhaps.  Obviously it wasn't intended.

Another example would be the synchronisation of Dark Side of the Moon with Wizard of Oz.  Certainly not intentional, but a wonderful piece of work nonetheless.

If people want to read more into this girls pictures than may actually be there, let them.  What does it matter?

[thugler]

Hey, you can call bullshit all you want!  But it does mean other people will come out and tell you you're wrong.  But that's ok, right?


People finding meaning in work that may not have been intended is, in my opinion, all part of the fun of art.  It's about what you get out of it more than what is actually put in.  This is all my own opinion, but for me someone could paint the most wonderful piece of symbolic art, but if nobody gets the symbolism, it effectively fails as a piece of art.  On the other hand, if a work of art becomes more than the creator intended, if anything, that is a success for the work of art.  Works having meanings read into them that weren't there happens all the time - it's something that frequently becomes part of a cultural zeitgeist, that happens because of the mindset of the people viewing it.  A classic example was a photograph of the Omagh bombing (apologies if that's mis-spelt) taken the moment before, where someone had cut out all the people.  The fact that all those people were now dead made the cut out figures extremely poigniant, and somehow captured something - a national mood, perhaps.  Obviously it wasn't intended.

Another example would be the synchronisation of Dark Side of the Moon with Wizard of Oz.  Certainly not intentional, but a wonderful piece of work nonetheless.

If people want to read more into this girls pictures than may actually be there, let them.  What does it matter?

we seem to have pretty much reached stalemate.

What does it matter? well if thats not what was intended it's not really the truth is it? I always find arguing about art a bit pointless, as it's a bit difficult arguing about something as difficult to define and hold down as art.

[Tetsuo: Ironmonger]

What does it matter? well if thats not what was intended it's not really the truth is it?

Well to say that is to assume that the viewer of a painting can completely know any inherent truths present in a work, which is bull. And you're still also negating the possibility that the viewer is actually right in interpreting certain things in the first place. Would someone be erroneous in reading the absence of Roger Waters' father while listening to The Wall?

[Ciarán]

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?

Ooh blimey, I've opened a can of worms here! I was thinking about this yesterday after posting that response to Cack Hen. "Art", for me, is something that is meaningful which overspills science/reason/calculation. It's connotative, it always points to something else, it's referential, it makes you see something differently. A rock would be art if it were contextualised in a certain way. I think that's the point Duchamp was making with his urinal and found objects. Putting a urinal in an art gallery changes the meaning of the object. That's interesting.

I do consider Shakespeare's works to be "art". I think they're brilliant works of philosophy. Harold Bloom's book 'The Western Canon' is brilliant on that point. He says he'd be more interested in a Shakespearian reading of Freud than vice versa. In that book, Bloom's trying to figure out what it is that makes a certain work of literature stick around, stay relevant and so on.

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".

I'm not so sure about that. I think science is about that. It's like the difference between poetry and prose. Poetry can really capture something, make it vivid by alluding to it, by pointing to something else that's not present. Science depends upon presence in some way.

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?

Maybe. At some point the dreaded "it's just a hunch, but I like it" comes into it. I don't think that should be the only thing you can say about art, but at some point out normal language and reasoning falls short.