I've been wanting to blog about 9-year old abstract artist Marla Olmstead for a while now, but I've been on the fence about what exactly to write. As a student of the arts, one is expected to be open to all forms and genres of it, but I've always been a bit iffy about some of the more extreme abstract pieces.I believe a common layman exclamation when viewing an abstract painting would be "My kid could paint that!', and a few years ago, that was exactly what sold Marla Olmstead's work. According to her parents, Marla started painting when she was 2, sold her first painting for around $250 when she was 4, and by the time she was 6, her paintings were selling in the range of $25,000 apiece.
Marla is 9 years old now, and according to the wiki entry, her paintings are still in pretty high demand. All the controversy happened during ages 4-6, however, when CBS News' 60 Minutes II raised the question of whether or not Marla had painted each of her pieces entirely on her own.
In response to this "slander", the Olmsteads secretly videotaped Marla painting one of her masterpieces from start to finish, and made the DVD available to everyone who cared to look. However, after viewing the finished piece and excerpts of Marla's painting process, I remain even more unconvinced that the painter behind her earlier pieces and her more recent work are one and the same. For example:
"Zane Dancing" (painted when she was around 4 years old) is infinitely more polished than the piece she was videotaped doing: "Ocean" (painted when she was around 6).
It doesn't take an art student to see that the quality of the strokes are vastly different. I mean, we're not talking about tiny letter-sized pieces, here. We're talking gallery-sized, 3 to 4-foot paintings-- it would be physically impossible for someone of Marla's reach to make strokes as large as the ones on "Zane Dancing".In point of fact, the 2007 documentary "My Kid Could Paint That" (directed by Amir Bar-Lev) makes it almost impossible to draw any other conclusion other than the fact that her father helped her paint her better pieces.
My love/hate for abstract art aside, this controversy has perhaps had one good effect on me: I now have a healthy respect for the skill that goes into making true abstract art, and will no longer say that my (non-existent) kid could paint that. :P
Posts
15 comments:
Wow, I actually thought this was going to be a boring piece about art... in fact I saw this on my reader 3 days ago and I sorta passed, but this is actually very interesting. And I agree with your observation, and I'm no student of art (or anywhere near anything like that except for the name). Not just the strokes however, the style is much childlike (what one would expect from a kinder art class albeit a much better version) in the videotaped piece as compared with the earlier one.
Philos- Yeah, it's hard to believe that they fooled the whole art world, lol.
I'm thinking about teaching my dog to do abstract paintings. I'd make a shitload of cash!
I'd have to get a dog first though.
JC - And you'd have to take care of it. *shudders*
Maybe she's like Benjamin Button except she dies at 8. Ok, sorry bout that.
Hey JC,here's a thought. Catch a stray mutt (or go get one from the pound)--pick a really hair one though--lock him up in a box (put a diaper, I don't think shit painting sells) with lotsa different colored paints and tada! Abstract art!
I Actually just finished watching "My Kid Could Paint" documentary and I'm left with a sense of sadness. Sadness for the little girl,the brother but mostly for the Mom...So, I google her name hoping that all of the madness had stopped, but to my surpise she still painting and selling her work... I do believe she is painting on her own, but belive that the work that made her famous was mostly done by her Father..
@philos: What? Um, no. You're a sicko :-P
Anony-mouse- I concur with your observation. Some of the classier paintings are simply too mature to stand up to her newer pieces.
Hi there, its nice to discover a blogger who writes about art. regarding the kid artist, its really annoying to see people who try to exploit art resorting to some "trick" just to make some quick buck. Art is a lifestyle and these people are posers specially the parents of the kid [well just in case they actually committed deception of public trust.hehe]
Anyway, do you paint for a living? I'm contemplating on going back to my passion which is painting. I deserted this profession since I was hooked with the corporate world.
I'm thinking about doing what my heart wants me to do instead of being helplessly drained with my 8-5 job forever.
bionic- I always say it's important to try to go for your dreams no matter what! :) I do graphic design and comics rather than straight out painting, because it's very hard to make a living being a studio artist. I suggest painting during your free time and having an exhibit at least once a year. If all goes well, you should be able to support yourself in a few years solely through your art. :)
actually, if you know kirby roxas and parker encisa, they are my former classmates in FEU. They did painting full time. They are multi awarded artist now. I just don't know if they are doing ok financially but I heard they got a good backer and respected art dealer on their side. Sooner, I'll go back to this field. It really sucks doing something that u are not happy with.
This IS boring. This blog has not one piece of information that anyone else hasn't already said - Nor did you back your opinions with any art scholar know how. Basically you were sold by a propagandist indie documentary and felt the need to take a swing at a four year old, shame on you - see the footage, stand in front of "Ocean", confront the father, visit the child without an agenda, learn how to write, then MAYBE the last four minutes of reading this wouldn't have been such a waste of time. tisk tisk*
Anon- Actually, the information I put up was for the benefit of my readers who aren't familiar with Marla's work or her story.
It was also quite clear in my entry that I was stating my opinion of the child's work after observing her taped and untaped pieces. The last time I checked, the internet was a haven for free speech, and I see no need to defend stating my own opinions on my own blog.
However, if you want my "art scholar know-how" (i.e. wanker opinion), here it is: The juxtaposition of the three circles (i.e. the hidden Mickey) with the white smear of paint creates a disharmony that I find absent from "Zane Dancing". The varying densities of the black lines are visually unappealing and the circular patterns (i.e. blobs) on the lower left corner seem haphazard and confused. The use of bright pink on the right quadrant is jarring, but compliments the juxtaposed blue hues next to it quite well... if it was the color palette for a baby's room.
All in all, this piece is a mish-mash of undisciplined strokes that have no rhyme or reason. Unfortunate, since prior pieces are possessed of strokes that seem quite deliberate. Proof, in my opinion, that the child had help with her prior work.
That said, feel free to pour on the love for Marla's art on your own blog and under an actual name. Anonymous commenting is unwelcome here.
hey, so im a 19 year old guy living in texas and am going to school to get a degree in graphic disign and communication. i just watched the whole show about "marlas" paintings, and felt i should find a blog to express my opinion. not that mine is any better than any other person, just didnt want to go unheard. i thought it was crazy how the parents could flat out lie like that on tv. Some of the paintings that were shown i believe she did do. But majority of them, obviously she did not. just look at the combination of colors that were used. in marlas paintings, she shows no relevance in the combination of colors she uses. what ever she thinks "looks pretty." even some of the style of painting, were designed by no amateur little girl. Plus her father being a painter, a pretty good one at that, doesnt help her case. I think he made a pretty big ass of him self, just trying to make some extra cash of HIS paintings.
Clayton - Thanks for dropping by and weighing in.
"She shows no relevance in the combination of colors she uses."
- Completely agree with that. It's probably the most telling hint that the paintings weren't by her.
Post a Comment