Letters to the Editor
-
I agree
I have to agree with anonymous. The only way I could believe these were painted by a 4 year old is to personally watch her paint one. Otherwise, I think it's just extremely - very extremely - unlikely. They are not the creation of childlike playing around. The color choices are often too deliberate and carefully contrasted. There is craft and purpose in their design and composition. They are not as random and free as they might seem.
I withhold final judgement until I see the film, but right now I'm definitely skeptical.
-
Not Painted By A Child
I agree with those who say the pictures posted at marlaolmstead.com were not painted by a child. I have seen plenty of kindergarten art and never seen anything even close to the better pieces posted on the website. Some of them seem to have blatantly naive elements plastered on otherwise quite sophisticated compositions, but that is not what gifted artists of any age actually do. That is what happens when an adult artist lets his little child help a bit.
I believe this is a hoax or fraud. Until they produce a video of the child doing it on her own, I will not believe their incredible claims. There is no reason why they could not and have not produced such a video if this is for real. It reminds me of the Mili Vanilli hoax. The father might have been frustrated at his own inability to get noticed and figured the novelty of attributing some works to his daughter the "prodigy" would be a harmless way to get something going. He probably painted some stuff with her and when asked said it was her work wihtout thinking the whole thing through very far. But, then it all just got carried away as the success of the enterprise got out of control. I bet if the duaghter performed on her own she would fare no better than Mili Vanilli did when they did not lip synch.
-
Videos at Website
The website actually has videos showing Marla Olmstad doing three paintings. Not surprisingly these three paintings are about what one would epxect from a child with a lot of training and guidance. They are also noticebly inferior to the more celebrated pieces that she supposedly painted when she was younger.
-
where are all the other four-year-old jackson pollocks?
surely she can't be the only one in the field of art/painting. who else can we name within history? anyone? bueller?...bueller?
i saw the "60 minutes II" report w/rose when it was first aired and was amused by who can be sucked into a scam.
i also caught a few disjointed minutes tonight of the parents on "nightline" and was struck by how dad appears to say all the correct things, but something is still "off." i switched the channel just when i heard him say something about continuing to encourage and sell "marla's art" because, essentially, "we are not rich people." (to paraphrase.)
that was more than enough for me to turn the channel and not return.
i seriously do not think they have a moment's shame as to what they are perpetrating upon this child. but whatever money they accrue from "marla's art" i do hope it will go the years of therapy she will need.
--
-
Pollock, Kandinsky and all those guys were frauds anyway
Read "The Painted Word," by Tom Wolfe. Most modern art, post WWII, was a fraud perpetrated on the world by an incestuous cabal of painters, dealers, and critics in New York City.
That this girl's (or whoever's) work has been compared favorably to theirs pretty much drives that point home once and for all.
Thank God for Andy Warhol and a few others who refused to join in way back when.
-
Collector's Items
I think that the difference between acknowledging the art as that from Mark, instead of Marla Olmstead, is a matter best considered in light of a investor's purchase.
Surely, if this girl is 4 years-old and painting like this, then when she is 40, and in her prime as an artist, these paintings from when she was 4 years-old would be immensely valuable.
On the other hand, if this is the father's work, there is no guarantee that the paintings will ever be worth anything more than the face value from an investor's point of view.
The artistry is the same, but I think that after visiting the web site and seeing all the paintings that have been marked "sold", there are quite a few people who watch Antiques Roadshow and believe that they are getting in on the ground floor of something big. It's their chance to buy IBM, Microsoft, or Google at $10 per share.
-
why it matters at all
Well, see, I'm not all that appreciative of abstract painting. I can tell good from bad, I understand composition, etc., it's just not my thing. People, on the other hand, interesting people, those are my thing. I'm more interested in stories of child prodigies than in a handful of (sometimes delightful, but nonetheless not newsworthy within the field of adult art) paintings.
Mozart was a prodigy who also made lasting art. Billy Sidis was a prodigy whose creations were forgotten even before his death. Both are interesting as prodigies. It's a shame, therefore, that Marla's story apparently belongs to the history of hoaxes, not prodigies.
Although I suppose there are people out there who are into hoaxes too.
-
As a parent
I witness my artistically inclined kids doing something really brilliant and spot-on once every few months. Those lightning strikes are even less repeatable for kids than they are for adults. Sounds like the mistake here is a controlling father trying to make the phenomenon consistently repeatable. But artists spend a lot of time painting, and most of their work is not that great. The museums of the world are full of second-rate paintings by people who are remembered for a smaller number of phenomenal pieces.
-
I'd have to see her do it
I don't believe it, either. I've seen the paintings on display at the web site. Most of them are very nice. Quite competent art. Some of them are very good indeed. But not one of them, in my non-expert opinion, was created by any child. There is just too much order and integrity to them -- to this untrained eye anyway. The one titled "Lines" is an excellent example of what I mean, way too disciplined and controlled to have been painted by a child. That painting suggests a well formed thought held in meditation for some time, which is not the sort of way a child behaves, at least not any child I've ever known of.
I leave room to be proved wrong. I invite the proof: Please prove us wrong. It would be delightful to be proved wrong about this. Leave the hidden camera running all the time. Let Marla paint at her own pace -- or however she is purported by her parents to paint. Then post the video online and let us see for ourselves, not what her dad says (who really cares what he says) but what Marla does. Until then, I think her dad is sabatoging his own artistic career. Prove me wrong.