Letters to the Editor
-
@sajwan
No, it doesn't.
Real talent is rewarded with absurd sums of money (take a look at sports). The issue in this case is two fold. One is the talent faked or mis-represnted and two when it comes to art, who is considered a hack, vs untalented vs a "real talent" has an infinite array of answers.
BZZZZT!!
Sorry, but you don't get the hundred dollars *duck ascends back to studio ceiling*
Take a look at sports??? Talk about apples and oranges! It is precisely because of the money-making potential of such talent that it is "rewarded with absurd sums of money." What scares the beejesus out of America is talent that does NOT produce huge sums of money, and that's why we loath people like Marla, why we laud them like freaks and then destroy them, why so many of them are shunted aside like John Kennedy Toole or Frederick Exley, so that when they fail we can point and laugh and say "LOSER!" Google those two names and read the articles about them and their books, and you'll see what I mean (well...in Toole's case OLDER articles). Bukowski only missed the same fate because he peaked in the 60s and 70s, when our culture was perhaps more free than it had ever been, or ever would be again. Ditto Noam Chomsky, who really was invisible but at least could get published in that era.
I'm sorry but you are very wrong about our culture in general and this child in particular.
-
parents don't let your kids grow up to be artists
Seriously. Most creative people are not very "nice." It's a stereotype, but many do have problems with substance abuse and/or mental illness, particularly mood disorders. Creative people can put their work first and the people in their lives second. They can be stubborn, self-absorbed and temperamental, as well as just plain selfish. Working in a creative field often means a lot of rejection, discouragement and poverty before success comes (if it ever does). There are a lot easier ways to make a comfortable living.
I recommend the movie "Searching for Bobby Fischer" for a look at how parents can destroy the mental health of their prodigy offspring. My favorite part was when two parents got into a fistfight at a chess tournament, which resulted in all the parents being evicted from the room. What did the kids do when this happened? Applauded.
-
@ Anonymous
"...but many do have problems with substance abuse and/or mental illness, particularly mood disorders. Creative people can put their work first and the people in their lives second. They can be stubborn, self-absorbed and temperamental, as well as just plain selfish."
Right, because normal non-creative people are never like this.
Creative people go into the arts, despite--and yeah, sometimes because of--all the problems associated with the field, because they simply must to feel complete. Not because their parents "let" them.
I know some substance-abusing and narcissistic creative people. I know more who are kind, decent, and generous. All of them are genuine and ambitious, and mental illness splits pretty evenly between the two groups.
I feel bad for this kid, with the weight of so much attention on her shoulders. Real talent needs privacy and space to mess around and mess up in order to develop. If she's meant to be an artist, whatever that will mean to *her,* then she will be regardless of her parents.
-
There is no such thing as a child prodigy in painting.
I am an art professor with decades of experience. Although there have been seven-year-old prodigies in music, math, chess, and even business, there has never been a documented case younger than 15 in painting.
Two documented cases of mature drawings by 15 year old artists are Michelangelo and Gerard Terborch (17th century Dutch)...those are the youngest. Picasso also did some impressive work at 15.
Visual art is very different from music, etc. because certain perceptual developments that are essential to painting have to occur....usually, these developments occur (in the few that have them at all) between the ages of 19 and 22. Art professors see students who come in at age age 18 undergo dramatic changes in perceptual development by age 22.
A bright (and submissive) four-year-old could be taught to imitate a pattern with variations that follow set rules. Some people think that is art.
-
LOL at mister markle
Oh no, mister markle is upset again, please, everybody, we must all pretend to ignore the facts so mister markle doesn't get upset.
Nobody ever consents to an interview with 60 Minutes if they're not on the level? Please tell me you aren't really this naive, of course they do, all the time, everybody likes to think they're the ones that can outsmart them. The parents clearly felt this way, and that's how they got caught.
I have no problem believing anything...as long as it can be proven, when it can't, and when all available evidence points the other way, then I don't believe it. Clearly you desperately want to believe that the parents were on the level about this little girl, and are willing to ignore all evidence to the contrary. I have no idea why, and I'm not going to try to psychoanylize you as you have tried to do with those you disagree with.
As for Mozart, nice try changing the subject, but this story has nothing to do with Mozart. Yes, I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but there are charlatans out there that try to deceive people for personal gain, this couple got caught at it, I'm sorry if that is too much for your delicate sensabilities to deal with.
Oh dear, I've probably upset you again.
-
As I said at first...
I really like the paintings, but I've thought more about this and read the comments, and my conclusion is that the girl is making at most superficial contributions to the works. I.e., she is not composing and painting these works overall, although whoever is doing so may justify her purported authorship by having contribute ideas and brush strokes.
People keep bandying about the term "prodigy," as if being a prodigy or a genius automatically makes one proficient in all the skills that apply to a craft. For example, being a genius in musical composition (i.e., having that talent from birth) doesn't automatically make one proficient in musical notation; it doesn't let one know the ranges of instruments or their limitations; and it doesn't make one a great piano player. Some of the biggest songwriters have not known how to write music and were poor musicians themselves.
I think what might seem especially fishy in the Marla case is that too many skills applicable to painting have been developed too quickly. In fact, where are any signs that she has developed at all? It would seem that she was painting perfectly from the very start, which is, quite frankly, preposterous.
For example, her being a prodigy might allow her an excellent sense of composition, how colors relate, etc. But being a genius does not automatically bestow the discipline to paint consistently and completely a huge canvas; indeed, we would not expect such discipline to be present in a four-year old, no matter how gifted.
Further, genius in composition does not automatically bestow skill in making the very wide range of brush strokes we see in the works: from chunky, expertly molded blobs to the finest, wirey lines. Not only would it take the aforementioned discipline to maintain consistency of technique across the whole canvas, it would take a kind of physical control and stamina that we definitely do not associate with young children.
To reiterate, no matter how much natural talent Marla might possess, such talent does not automatically convey the mental and physical discipline to complete the works, nor does it bestow the brush stroke techniques which normally would require many years to develop fully.
In addition to the above issue, I also find fishy the following: It really seems that someone has taken pains to vary the techniques, colors, and themes in the paintings for maximum variety. I should think that a prodigious child with good technique would still, say, over the course of a year or so, tend to produce similar works. And the reason for this is quite simple: good, fully developed artists also tend to produce similar works in any given period of time.
Like everyone else who has big doubts, I could be wrong. But the stupid thing is that all they have to do to dispel such doubts is show Marla painting one of her major works from start to finish. But this they "cannot" do--how convenient! I too agree that "Ocean" is not at the same level of the other paintings--not even close; but even this one, readers say, is not really shown being painted start to finish.
I call BS on the inability to install cameras to capture the needed images. For one, $300k can buy a lot of technology and help. Also, I am in Web development, and Marla's website is anything but cheap. If they can afford to promote her to that extent, they can afford to prove her to that extent. It's just that simple.