PDA

View Full Version : My Kid Could Paint That


Quasimodo
29-05-09, 02:41
I watched an interesting documentary earlier this week about a child prodigy whose ascension to fame in the art world was cut short when a 60 Minutes segment cast doubt on the art's authenticity.

My Kid Could Paint That (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Kid_Could_Paint_That) raises some questions about how child prodigies are treated by today's society, and the power of doubt to wreck people's lives. Beyond that, there's also the question of the value and legitimacy of abstract art.

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/9131/mykidcouldpaintthat.jpg
j46V9wclBaw

I'd like to hear your thoughts:)

larafan25
29-05-09, 02:43
wow a little child painted that:O

the girl looks sooo realistic:O!!!

I guess some people would buy it because they think it's art...if it isn't:)

BTW I was joking,I know the girl is real;)

Immortalis08
29-05-09, 02:50
I've come across the dvd at my job. Its always caught my eye. Unfortunately I cannot give a valid opinion until I see it myself. Although I would say concerning the legitimacy of abstract art, I personally think its up to the interpreter. It could be inspirational to some, but just a bunch of colors and shapes to others. Personally, I respect more realistic and detailed art more. I wouldn't necessarily say a child can do that, but there is also technique required in abstract art.

TRhalloween
29-05-09, 02:58
The paintings don't look that great.

larafan25
29-05-09, 03:02
I've actually never really understood abstract art...I mean eveatually it all looks the same:)

fuzzycroft
29-05-09, 03:21
Wow, that looks really interesting.

There's definately legitimacy in all forms of art. No doubt there's certain 'artists' who take the **** and come up with random creations, only to be lauded as geniuses. I do find the pomposity in the art world quite ludicrous, and find it mildly amusing that some people see these pieces, scramble for some kind of profound meaning, and pay exorbitant amounts of money for something that was indeed frivolous to start with. That said though, if an artist genuinely pours their soul into those paint splatters and/or the viewer genuinely feels a connection with them, then the legitimacy is inherent. That's the beauty about art - it offers the ultimate freedom in expression, interpretation and communication.

Slightly off topic, I was reminded of these paintings sold in my local zoo done by elephants. I don't know how many others do that, but it's quite cute (plus the money goes to a good cause) :D
http://i414.photobucket.com/albums/pp221/fuzzyrando/tomb_raider/misc/elephaint_1.jpg http://i414.photobucket.com/albums/pp221/fuzzyrando/tomb_raider/misc/elephaint_2.jpg

patriots88888
29-05-09, 03:28
I just don't understand the title. I think it would be better titled, "My Kid Did Paint That".

As far as whether or not 4 year old Marla actually painted these solely on her own or not, the jury is still out on that. There's nothing more here than taking one person's word over another's. Based on the artwork which was presented, it's certainly possible, but not likely.

Seeing how her father is an artist himself, I would say that there's the strong possibility that he guided and directed her to some extent but just how much is anyone's guess.

fuzzycroft
29-05-09, 03:38
I just don't understand the title. I think it would be better titled, "My Kid Did Paint That".

'My kid could paint that' is a common tongue-in-cheek criticism you hear directed at abstract or minimalistic art. The fact that it literally is (supposedly) a kid doing it makes it a more clever title. Plus, as Quasimodo said, the doco raises broader questions about the nature of art that go beyond the little girl, so it's also appropriate.

patriots88888
29-05-09, 03:43
'My kid could paint that' is a common tongue-in-cheek criticism you hear directed at abstract or minimalistic art. The fact that it literally is (supposedly) a kid doing it makes it a more clever title. Plus, as Quasimodo said, the doco raises broader questions about the nature of art that go beyond the little girl, so it's also appropriate.

I see. Thanks for the explanation. :) My knowledge of this type of art is very limited and as such, I didn't recognize the associations you pointed out which make perfect sense now.

Melonie Tomb Raider
29-05-09, 04:12
I love abstract art, don't get me wrong, but I wouldn't label her a prodigy unless she was talented in other styles as well.

sandygrimm
29-05-09, 09:14
I doubt Marla is a prodigy child. I mean give any kid some paint and tools and you're bound to find another one out there better or equal.. this is just parents exploiting their kids. Anyone can splatter paint on a canvas and look like "art"..

do you consider this "art"?

http://i40.************/xoh6iv.jpg

Dennis's Mom
29-05-09, 12:53
Of course it's art. Whether or not it's "good" art is for the ages to decide.

But in the end if people like it, they want to look at it, it's art.

I can understand that no one likes to believe a four year old is making more money than they are without even trying. I suppose (and maybe the movie answers this) her father could have found the perfect gimmick to sell his own work.

]{eith
29-05-09, 12:56
What's the difference between a painting done by someone who chooses to paint like a child and a child's painting? :D

patriots88888
29-05-09, 13:04
Of course it's art. Whether or not it's "good" art is for the ages to decide.

But in the end if people like it, they want to look at it, it's art.

I can understand that no one likes to believe a four year old is making more money than they are without even trying. I suppose (and maybe the movie answers this) her father could have found the perfect gimmick to sell his own work.

That's certainly an interesting and plausible possibility and one which I hadn't thought of. It leads me to believe that those who actually like and value these paintings are seeing it more from the novelty perspective than the actual artwork presented.

fuzzycroft
29-05-09, 13:05
{eith;3682536']What's the difference between a painting done by someone who chooses to paint like a child and a child's painting? :D

About $150 million if you ask Jackson Pollock :p

]{eith
29-05-09, 13:07
About $150 million if you ask Jackson Pollock :p

I hate getting older. I could be loaded. :p

Dennis's Mom
29-05-09, 13:10
{eith;3682557']I hate getting older. I could be loaded. :p

It beats the hell out of the alternative though, ]{eith. :p

]{eith
29-05-09, 13:13
It beats the hell out of the alternative though, ]{eith. :p

That's true. Fortunately. :p

Tombraider95
29-05-09, 13:16
wow a little child painted that:O

the girl looks sooo realistic:O!!!

I guess some people would buy it because they think it's art...if it isn't:)

BTW I was joking,I know the girl is real;)

what do you mean "the girl looks so relistic? Thats actually her!

fuzzycroft
29-05-09, 13:23
Of course it's art. Whether or not it's "good" art is for the ages to decide.

But in the end if people like it, they want to look at it, it's art.

I don't think even that is a prerequisite for what makes art. If it's a legitimate outward expression of the artist, it's art; even if nobody else appreciates it, or ever sees it. If it's a child's paint splatter with no forethought, but someone finds beauty or meaning in it, it's art. There's a relationship between the work and the creator, and a relationship between the work and the viewer. The two may be in sync or totally incongruous, but if there's a connection to be made in either of those relationships - whether it's simply an appreciation of the aesthetic, or some profound meaning - that's where the artistry lies.

Rai
29-05-09, 15:02
This is art - four year old child's art. Any four year old could paint like that. she isn't a child prodigy.

Her parents are proud of her, any parent would be, but that doesn't give them the right to push her in the spotlight. If someone wishes to buy her paintings, then fine. I just hope the money is going in a trust fund or something for the little girl to have when she's older.

patriots88888
29-05-09, 15:14
This is art - four year old child's art. Any four year old could paint like that. she isn't a child prodigy.

Her parents are proud of her, any parent would be, but that doesn't give them the right to push her in the spotlight. If someone wishes to buy her paintings, then fine. I just hope the money is going in a trust fund or something for the little girl to have when she's older.

You raise an interesting point and it's the same one with which I view this. It appears that this is no different than any other parent who pushes (I use that term loosely) their child into the arts. Whether that is painting and visual art or the musical arts such as the typical piano lessons or any other instrument. The same could be said of sports as well. I wish parents would just let them be kids and let them decide on their own what it is they wish to pursue in life, rather than all the uneccessary pushing, primping, and prodding.