Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

4 year old little girl, talented international artist - The Prodigy of Color

page: 16
56
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dannijca
reply to post by panicman66
 


lololol?? This is art? Ask her what the picture means.



hi!

what makes you think she has to know what the picture means for it to be considered art? what gave you this idea?




posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by sapien82
awesome , if and when I have kids their bedroom walls are going to be one giant canvas !

Just to add , for those thinking we should get our kids interested in science and energy and space at an early age , yes thats great , but if we cant get our kids to openly express themselves , then they may never have the great ideas and imagination to come up with future science

Art is humanities last great bastion of hope , art in music , art in sculpture , performance art . without it us humans would be nothing more than mindless drones !
edit on 27-5-2011 by sapien82 because: (no reason given)



agreed. please check out the vid i posted on the previous page if you hadnt already. very telling. you might be interested.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 04:23 AM
link   
Well I think that whether this little girl is having fun, being encouraged from the sidelines or is simply using her amazing raw talent, I still think her work is very good.

I don't know why all the hate for her?

She looks extremely focused and also looks completely comfortable.

She enjoys it and people enjoy her work?


Where is the issue?











This one was when she was 2









I don't see a genius, I'm not sure I see a Prodigy either.... I just see a little kid who loves to paint and actually seems to already have a sense and understanding of what she's doing.

And if she enjoys it and gets something from it, and people like it.... where's the harm?


edit on 27/5/11 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by LadySkadi
 


awesome, but anything can be percieved as art not matter if we are drawing stick figures or painting 'masterpieces'. i agree that this kid has talent, but i think if we gave most any kid that has an interest in art lots of paint and a big canvas, the end result would be a jackson pollock-esque painting. children are different from adults in the way that they don't have a 'frame' for all the ideas and concepts that adults do, allowing them generally to be more creative. essentially the lack of creativity in most adults comes from rigid thinking that is imposed on them by the school system (as well as being around other people who reinforce rigid thinking), it puts everything inside these 'frames' and teaches us that anything outside the 'frame' is bad. i have a feeling that this kids parent is trying to exploit her kid's talent for monetary gain.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 06:01 AM
link   
whats most interesting is that she seems to have developed a sense for visual arts without being actually taught by her parents , well unlesss they have actually taught her , but it seems unlikely that a 2 year old would understand the concepts outlined in the principles of art and design .

Mark making is one of the most important developmental stages for children , it allows them to see their direct physical impact on the world around them , and it appears that this child has mastered that very concept at an early age , simply through observation of her parents own artwork .

its not prodigal its not genius its just very impressive, i think using this little girl as a case study , we should encourage freedom of expression at an early age within children as it will only serve to benefit her in other fields.

I think this girl would be a great artist should she turn away from absract art when she learns and develops her other artistic skills , such as illustration and design. Also I think she would do well academically if she sought other subjects.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by krossfyter
 

Well, to me, that is exactly the problem. Not just with her, but with a lot of art in this nature. Why are people paying thousands of dollars for a painting that is truly inane, even to the artist?
I'm a chef, and every plate I put out has to be perfectly cooked and aesthetically pleasing. Every plate I produce has to mean something to me and the guest, in my case I insist on using all locally grown food. This provides my art with depth, not just ripping open a bag of frozen food and throwing it in a fryer.
I am all for art of all kinds, but as I stated in an earlier post, she should have had time to nurture her artistic ability before being exploited for her talent so her art does have meaning.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by sleepypoet
reply to post by krossfyter
 

Well, to me, that is exactly the problem. Not just with her, but with a lot of art in this nature. Why are people paying thousands of dollars for a painting that is truly inane, even to the artist?


what makes you think its silly? why do you think it is silly? because you cant figure out the story in form and color? must it have something recognizable/representational for you to be able to judge how well its done and then try and figure out a narrative from something so accessible? why cant you figure out the narrative in pure form... principals of art and elements of design? im not trying to be condescending at all... just making my point about the narrative possibilities in pure form. as for why people pay a lot of money? this is not isolated to her. people pay lots of money for a number of things that other people question the value and price. not just art. this happens in many many things. one person considers it insane to pay over 200k for a car. we as a capitalist society place a price tag on things dependent on the perceived rarity or non rarity. This child is young... she is making paintings with a very de kooning abstract expressionist feel according to critics. The rarity and specialty of that is why people are placing such a price tag. Also thats just the nature of the art game.... its not so much what you know but who you know. Goes for anything else. She seems like she has a money making team behind her that know how to play that capitalist system to its advantage. What makes that so much different than any corporate biz in america?




Originally posted by sleepypoet

I'm a chef, and every plate I put out has to be perfectly cooked and aesthetically pleasing. Every plate I produce has to mean something to me and the guest, in my case I insist on using all locally grown food. This provides my art with depth, not just ripping open a bag of frozen food and throwing it in a fryer.



I respect that believe me. But you have to understand that a lot of great artists have always just played with their materials... question what they do.. .what they can do etc.... without knowing the limits or possibilities. Not every artist in the visual art world has to know exactly what the capabilities of a certain medium or tool is. The nature of playing around is to test and figure out those limits. This exists heavily in abstraction. This is a technique in abstraction to help one be free and not confined to the rules. Thats why its so open. In culinary arts you have to know what you are making to an extent and you have to know what each element does because someone is going to eat it PHYSICALLY not just visually. So harmony of foods to your taste buds is the rule of the game. In the visual arts you have more room to experiment because you arent feeding anyone PHYSICALLY to where they can become PHYSICALLY sick... maybe visually sick... but then again you dont have to look at it. Also im sure a number of culinary foods that in one culture seem great where in another culture or in another person its made them sick and they consider that food gross or in bad taste. It cuts both ways.

Just because one is playing around with their materials and exploring their limits does not mean that there is no depth. It just means you have failed to research or understand the depth possibilities beyond what you have known to exist. A good art appreciation course can help.





Originally posted by sleepypoet
I am all for art of all kinds, but as I stated in an earlier post, she should have had time to nurture her artistic ability before being exploited for her talent so her art does have meaning.



Have you heard of the Jackson Five? Don't get me wrong I am not trying to say that she has as much talent as Micheal Jackson.... who does right? He was an anomaly thats for sure. However the point im making... the Jackson Five were raised by their parents early on in music. They saw the possibilities of their children in music and nurtured that. Gave them everything they needed and more. Some people still question the methods Joseph Jackson exploited his sons for profit. Lots of controversy there to. But from this we were still able to get a Micheal Jackson not to mention the sisters and brothers who obviously still have musical ability. The parents of this child see in their child a person that "could" have enormous potential to be a prominent artist when she grows up. Again not trying to equate her at all with micheal jackson just making a point about parents and parents seeing the potential the child has and fostering that potential as much as possible even to extremes.


So with that being said... why is it being lost here? Why do people fail to see these things? Im curious. Is it because it abstraction? If she was doing beautiful portraits would it change? Why? I think a part of the heart of the problem here is people are offended by the freedom of abstract art. Seems to be the case. They haven't the education to be able to understand that art its its purest form... form/shapes/colors with a playful attitude can still tell a story and mean something. Not many of us are educated in that. We are so use to being able to see something recognizable.... a face or an animal... and how its drawn to its exact replication that we only accept that as art. But thats putting art in a tiny little box. Art is so much more than whats accessible to one person. It sounds like a lot of people are turned off by what they dont understand... this goes for anything. There seems to exist a biased based on a lack of understanding of the nature of art and what it is.
edit on 27-5-2011 by krossfyter because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by krossfyter
 


Honestly, I agree with just about everything you said. I'm not gonna argue with you, I really just don't personally enjoy this type of art. I appreciate the use of colors, but it doesn't appeal to me. I also agree with the fact that I'm just not in tuned to art as people who have taken classes and who are professional artists. But, that's why I don't portray my art with paint and canvas, I prefer food and a plate.
I appreciate your input, and have taken it to mind and I hope I can broaden my horizons to appreciate this art form more. For, as an artist as well, one should find the beauty, the story, etc. in everything. I just find it difficult to find the narrative in these types of paintings.
The Michael Jackson parallel was well placed, touche! I hope she does become an amazing artist, I guess it's more that I really really hope her parents are just being supportive parents and are not just exploiting her. Only time will tell.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by sleepypoet
 


Ya know what? You just made me want to take my lady out to a good restaurant for supper. Thanks for reminding me what a great experience dinner out can be and how much not having to do dishes is appreciated.

Art is art, no matter what the medium and a good chef is every bit a creative artist. However, I'd certainly NOT allow little Aelita to cook for me.




posted on May, 27 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by sleepypoet
reply to post by krossfyter
 


Honestly, I agree with just about everything you said. I'm not gonna argue with you, I really just don't personally enjoy this type of art. I appreciate the use of colors, but it doesn't appeal to me. I also agree with the fact that I'm just not in tuned to art as people who have taken classes and who are professional artists. But, that's why I don't portray my art with paint and canvas, I prefer food and a plate.
I appreciate your input, and have taken it to mind and I hope I can broaden my horizons to appreciate this art form more. For, as an artist as well, one should find the beauty, the story, etc. in everything. I just find it difficult to find the narrative in these types of paintings.
The Michael Jackson parallel was well placed, touche! I hope she does become an amazing artist, I guess it's more that I really really hope her parents are just being supportive parents and are not just exploiting her. Only time will tell.



well said. I can understand if abstraction or that type of abstraction is not your thing. You're not alone in that i can guarantee that. Pure abstraction is a hard thing to swallow for those of us who are used to recognizable imagery/art.

I too have a passion for great tasting food and I appreciate anyone that can make a great dish. That is a wonderful art in of itself. Just like with abstraction you can look at it once... sample it (eat) and not have to look at it again if it makes you gag. Sampling art is much the same way as sampling food for your taste buds. With art its the taste buds of the eye more so of course. I know there is a lot of art that I dont care to taste and ive tasted enough of it to have developed that opinion. Im sure it is the same with you in your culinary experience. You have dishes you love and others not so much. With art/visual thank goodness you aren't physically eating it huh?

I too hope her parents are doing this right and they are being supportive. I share that agreement with you. Thanks for your civil and friendly response. A breath of fresh air believe me from someone who has trouble with abstraction. Keep making great food for the masses!



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
reply to post by sleepypoet
 


Art is art, no matter what the medium and a good chef is every bit a creative artist. However, I'd certainly NOT allow little Aelita to cook for me.





True that. I wouldn't want to eat paint. Who does? You have a great point there. haha

I have done it before (accidently of course) doesn't taste good. Though I can stomach a lot when it comes to visual work. I just have trouble stomach-ing safe art.

Good thing about visual art is that one can push it to extremes (to the head scratching of the populace) and it should be pushed to its limits. With culinary art not sure if that has the same effect. I know there are a number of experimental cooks out there (perhaps sleepy poet knows of this more so than i do) but I wonder to how much they push the culinary arts. I guess its the same thing as it is in the visual art world as it is in music and the culinary.

Atonal music... music that is ment to question ones taste, ones affinity for tonal/harmony can also be in the visual and in the culinary. Thats the great thing about the arts. The arts at their best question perceptions.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by LadySkadi
 


Thank you so much for bringing this awesome little girl to my attention, I had never seen her work before and found it just beautiful!
S&F for sure!
It sure does beat all the crappy vids we are so used to seeing!



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
I wish I had the opportunity to do something so creative beginning at the age of 2! ... I guess I'll have to stick with learning the guitar at age 8.

I must say that everyone needs to support their child when it comes to some as positive as creating art!

Respect,

-AS-



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by krossfyter
 


My apologies if this post becomes irrelevant to the thread too much. But, in terms of culinary art, there are many chefs who push their boundaries aesthically all the time. The one trend that I'm trying to veer away from professionally is the "vertical" trend. To me, it's the abstract aspect of the culinary world. David Sedaris said it best, that in a world full of skyscrapers, it's as if chefs invested in a small parcel of the plate with unlimited sky rights, the rest is reserved for a parking lot apparently.
But, the one aspect of culinary art I can not stomach is a restaurant in California that is serving "farm to table" chicken sashimi. I'll eat chicken in a million and one different ways, but I can't fathom eating it raw.
edit on 27-5-2011 by sleepypoet because: wrong reply to person!



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by sleepypoet
 


I would agree with you in that being an "artist" does come from within..




posted on May, 29 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by sleepypoet
reply to post by krossfyter
 


My apologies if this post becomes irrelevant to the thread too much. But, in terms of culinary art, there are many chefs who push their boundaries aesthically all the time. The one trend that I'm trying to veer away from professionally is the "vertical" trend. To me, it's the abstract aspect of the culinary world. David Sedaris said it best, that in a world full of skyscrapers, it's as if chefs invested in a small parcel of the plate with unlimited sky rights, the rest is reserved for a parking lot apparently.
But, the one aspect of culinary art I can not stomach is a restaurant in California that is serving "farm to table" chicken sashimi. I'll eat chicken in a million and one different ways, but I can't fathom eating it raw.
edit on 27-5-2011 by sleepypoet because: wrong reply to person!



right on thnx for that. "vertical" trend ? nice. u got a link to an article or something? want to look into this. thank you.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   
It always perplexes me how people will argue so fervently about what's ''right'', ''wrong'', ''good'' or ''bad'' in art, as if someone's artistic predilections are based on anything other than subjective interpretations of aesthetics !

Personally speaking, I like a very broad range of art, including a lot of abstract art.

I think it's pathetic how some people will argue for their artistic preferences and ridicule the ''opposition'' in the same way as if they were supporting their local football team and belligerently criticising their local rival team.

I know that it's a vain hope, but it would be quite refreshing if people would just form their own unpressurised personal aesthetic likes and dislikes, without the need for snobbery, ridicule, belittlement and one-upmanship towards those who happen to have a different taste in art.


As for Aelita Andre, I think that people are being ridiculously unkind when they say that it's ''just a 4-year-old throwing paint around''. If you watch closely, then you will definitely see that she is aiming a lot of the paint dollops and brush-strokes towards a particular place on the canvas or mat, rather than throwing paint in any old fashion.

I will admit that her paintings mightn't have made the highest grade if it wasn't for her age, yet you can hardly realistically judge a talented artist on the basis of their work as a 4-year old !

edit on 29-5-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 06:24 AM
link   
well said.

while it is subjective there have been quite abit of philosophers who discussed what makes art good or what makes art bad. if it was such a pointless endeavor perhaps brilliant philosophers wouldn't have touched it or maybe so? lol

one notable is John Dewey. i like his view. he said in order for one to define what is good art or bad aesthetics/art you have to understand the culture that produces it. i like his view because he realizes that good art or bad or what is art in general is dependent on culture/society. Its not an across the board formula. What is good in one culture can be bad in another. What is art for one culture is trash in another.

arthur danto has another guideline. same for dave hickey. same for robert hughes, plato, aristotle etc. etc.


edit on 30-5-2011 by krossfyter because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
There seem to be a lot of negative comments on this thread relating to Pollock, De Kooning, and other artists painting like four year olds and such. The ability to paint as a child was actually a goal of most abstract expressionists. With this little girl you're seeing her subconscious at work without the influence of societal norms, the "rules" of art, or the pressures of creating something for others to see. They wanted that as a lot of artists do. It's about freeing up the mind and allowing what is in the subconscious to come forth.

If you think that this is just a bunch of paint spilled on a canvas, you're only half right. The reason she is looked at as a prodigy of color is because of her use of COLOR. She uses color so naturally and her compositions are really balanced well. Honestly, looking at her paintings without knowing anything about her I would think she were an adult as well.

Don't think this is art? Well, I'm sorry art is whatever the artist says it is. Art is whatever I say it is. There are no true rules of art. Art can be beautiful or disgusting. It can be an extremely detailed landscape painting or a urinal placed on a pedestal. It can be anything and everything.

Think outside the box.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   
hit the nail on the head PhantomLimb. well done.






top topics



 
56
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join