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

page: 7
56
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 


I do think there's a large difference between the work you showed and the work of the child being discussed in the op. Judging by the state of that room, I'd say she's just throwing color around for color's sake, while her parents attach meaning to the work. Fun? Pretty? Good for child growth? All of the above. Sign of a prodigy? Hardly.

I recently took my son [3 years old] to the Philadelphia Museum of art, and while there we passed through the modern art wing, and I noticed something interesting with my son. While we were touring the rest of the wings, he was engaged, laughing, smiling, pointing, discussing everything he saw, he was even afraid while walking through the Balinese Temple section, but when we reached the modern art wing he wasn't interested at all, so I began to look around, and what I noticed was a lack of interest from anyone in the wing, including the employees. There were a few paintings and photographs that grabbed people's attentions, but many were just walked past without a second glance or received a comment or two citing the work as nothing but a waste of medium.

An example; there was a line of 20-30 b&w photos lined up down a hall; framed the same, matted the same, yet the subject of each photo was the external speakers on different pay phones. Now is this a reflection of artwork, or is it a reflection of past artistry? Where do we draw the line with art? If I take abstract photos of art pieces in the Louvre, can I claim, dare I claim, to be an artist? If I paint a 3" red stripe on a white canvas am I expressing emotion, or am I selling a 20x20 section of wallpaper?

The work you showed in your post was beautiful, and the very sort of pieces that would've garnered attention in the Philly museum, but no one can deny that a lot of "stylized" art these days, and a lot of prodigies are just slinging paint, for the sake of slinging paint, and I do think there's some definite exploitation happening between these parents and their daughter.

I'm an artist myself, and I know the difference between talent and sham.
edit on 26-5-2011 by Mactire because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 26 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
this doesn't deserve a thread its just a 4yr old having fun with paint throwing it around this isnt news or talent.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4Starlight2Decay0
reply to post by krossfyter
 


All well and true but for me it boils down to skill and talent, abstract in my eyes provides very little of both but thats just my opinion. I can paint a squiggly line and some shapes and tell you it means anything but does it add to the fact that its just a bunch of squiggly lines with human input thrown in? Take a look at David for instance and shatter him and look at the pieces and you will still see beautiful representations of life, take apart abstract and you get colors and lines. Maybe it's the artficial feeling it gives me I dont know



thats because the stuff you seem to like or understand is accessible... easily understood, like Justin Beiber (easy to understand) compared to John Zorn or Ornette Coleman (more abstract), .... not much to discover typically... its all there telling you what it is. unlike in some abstraction... u have to think harder. dont get me wrong just throwin down "squiggly line and some shapes" does not make amazing just like throwing down some figurative formula. there is something transcendent. something that goes further in the works of Mark Bradford or Fabian Marcaccio . You are generalizing too much considering all abstraction ugly. Just because you dont understand it doesnt make it ugly... that just equates to ignorance. Skill and Talent are also apart of abstraction sometimes even more so... but i guess you wouldn't know because you dont understand abstraction. It takes serious skill and talent to be able to bend and break the rules. To abandon figuration and move more towards the void or the form. The David is to a point an abstraction even. But I don't hold it against you for not knowing that because you have a lack of education in abstraction. Believe me how you feel about abstraction is old school. Your feelings about it are from folks with a lack of artistic education/understanding. Very elementary feelings. Its okay for you not to preference abstraction... you can have your preferences but when you say that its all ugly that just makes your point silly and shows your level of understanding.
edit on 26-5-2011 by krossfyter because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by krossfyter
 


Please dont ever compare me to a Beiber fan, you want to talk music we can talk music. Please stop calling me ignorant as well jsut becuase I DONT LIKE IT doesnt make me wrong. You can go on for years teaching and telling me about it and I will still just not like it plain and simple. There is no flaw in my logic as you keep trying to point out. Telling me to think outside the box while hammering me for not liking what you like is ignorant if you ask me.
edit on 04/28/2011 by 4Starlight2Decay0 because: fff
And further more I'm done with this discussion until you stop with the condescending langauge so typical of your masturbatory self loving pompous movement.
edit on 04/28/2011 by 4Starlight2Decay0 because: d
edit on 04/28/2011 by 4Starlight2Decay0 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   
lol, these paintings are awful. Even from an abstract viewpoint, as I am in art school. Her parents are just trying to cash in on her.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4Starlight2Decay0
reply to post by krossfyter
 


Please dont ever compare me to a Beiber fan, you want to talk music we can talk music. Please stop calling me ignorant as well jsut becuase I DONT LIKE IT doesnt make me wrong. You can go on for years teaching and telling me about it and I will still just not like it plain and simple. There is no flaw in my logic as you keep trying to point out. Telling me to think outside the box while hammering me for not liking what you like is ignorant if you ask me.
edit on 04/28/2011 by 4Starlight2Decay0 because: fff


Beiber= accessible music. John Zorn= not easily understood.

its a rather good point. People who want it all told to them usually gravitate towards easy to understand art.


u dont have to like abstract art thats not what im saying at all. my point is to tell u that your are generalizing way too much about abstraction especially since you have no understanding of it at all. How are you going to be persuasive on tenets of National Socialism if you dont know anything about it? choose any subject matter. im not telling u to think outside the box. that has been inferred i guess. im not hammering you for not liking anything. im simply discussing how your view on abstraction is uneducated or under experienced.... you arent alone believe me lol. nothing wrong with that. what is wrong is having that view and then acting like you know whats up with abstraction. that is all.
edit on 26-5-2011 by krossfyter because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
Their biggest mistake was giving her paint :-)


You know Spira, I like you. But liking you doesnt give you free reign to butcher what I am saying to suit yourself. Its an abuse of our friendship. I never said, anywhere, that giving her paint was a mistake. And, I could not have been more clear that I think art is wonderful for 4 year olds. And I also could not have been more clear that what his mother is doing is not "enabling a genius to follow their passion" but "creating genius through trickery, deception and betrayal of their friends for their own selfish reasons."



Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
Would you have denied Mozart his piano ?


Absolutely not. But Mozart really isnt the best example here for your case. Music can be objectively analyzed and someones "genius" can be ascertained. Its like math, you either hit the note, or you do not. The emotive quality, the timing, that may be a little more subjective. Were this child painting still lifes, or portraits, one could argue genius for the same reason. It would display a talent not held by other 2 or 4 year olds. Intention would be clear. And you would have an objective way to measure skill. This "style" is so subjective that critics cannot tell if an adult or a two year old made the work, and they cannot identify a recognized "genius" by his work. In other words, someone is a genius because someone with influence says they are, and other pass the title around for fear of looking like a fool if they cry, "the Emperor has no clothes" in snobby and cliquish art circles.


Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
did you even watch that video?


Absolutely I did. From the ridiculous music in the back ground, to the slow motion flinging of the paint. It was disgusting. Did you notice that you could hear nothing in real time during the video? That you were looking at a dramatically lit and shot and scored little silent film? I did. How do you know Mom or Dad isnt standing there honking out "Now get the blue one, put some blue on there now, shake it, good girl." You dont. Because the film is created in such a way you CANT know what is being said in real time. You see what the film maker wants you to see.


Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
oh - she has the passion - if you can't see it - you simply aren't looking


I see passion. I see the same passion in children making mud pies, and trying to pull the ears off the family dog, and playing with their toes.


Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
Really? How so?


Its so forgiving an experienced gallery owner could be tricked by a friend into displaying and promoting their 2 year old daughters art.

And so forgiving a chimpanzee can be called a genius.

en.wikipedia.org...


Pierre Brassau refers to a 1964 hoax perpetrated by Åke "Dacke" Axelsson, a journalist at the Swedish tabloid Göteborgs-Tidningen. Axelsson came up with the idea of exhibiting a series of paintings made by a primate, under the presumption that they were the work of a previously unknown French artist named "Pierre Brassau", in order to test whether critics could tell the difference between true avant-garde modern art and the work of a monkey.[1]

"Pierre Brassau" was in fact a four-year-old Common Chimpanzee named Peter from Sweden's Borås djurpark zoo. Axelsson had persuaded Peter's 17-year-old keeper to give the chimpanzee a brush and paint. After Peter had created several paintings, Axelsson chose the best four and arranged to have them exhibited at the Gallerie Christinae in Götenberg, Sweden.[1] Critics praised the works, with Rolf Anderberg of the morning Posten writing, "Brassau paints with powerful strokes, but also with clear determination. His brush strokes twist with furious fastidiousness. Pierre is an artist who performs with the delicacy of a ballet dancer." One critic, however, panned the work, suggesting that "Only an ape could have done this".[1]

After the hoax was revealed, Rolf Anderberg insisted that Peter/Pierre's work was "still the best painting in the exhibition." A private collector bought one of the works for US$90.[1]


And people in general, particularly experts, dont like to admit they are wrong, or have been tricked.

news.bbc.co.uk...


Some of the biggest names in the art world have reportedly been fooled by a biography of a fake artist created by the author William Boyd and the rock star David Bowie.

Last week the glitterati of New York gathered for a launch party of Boyd's biography of the apparently rediscovered American painter Nat Tate. ......................................................................"Part of it was, we were very amused that people kept saying 'Yes, I've heard of him'. There is a willingness not to appear foolish. Critics are too proud for that."


Advertisers know well and merrily exploit the tendency of humans to want to be cool, or stand out as different, or avant garde, and they also know well that facts are the least likely thing to be considered in the decision making and opinion forming of most people. As well as their reluctance to accept they have misjudged.

www.adwiz.biz...


Once you start to form your opinion, you look for additional pieces of information proving that you are making the right decision, despite the fact that many aspects of your decision are not based on fact. You may even find the nearest expert (or non-expert) and accept his or her opinion. That way you don’t have to bother with too many facts. In the advertising business, that’s called “word of mouth.” So how did the ‘expert’ you went to get his or her opinion? The same ‘unsane’ way you did!....................................................................People don’t want to hear that they made a bad choice. They want to be inspired by their association with one brand because it is cool, or thoughtful, or daring, or whatever.


The mother of this child, like a true marketing genius, did everything right in promoting her daughter as a "genius." But when you boil it down to its brass tacks, a person persuaded a friend/acquaintance to show another artists work, once that friend committed to it, and had already advertised it, then it was revealed it was a 2 year old child. The gallery owner was embarrassed, and there was some mocking press,

www.dailymail.co.uk...


Shame-faced gallery bosses discover new artist is just two


Now you have several people with a vested interest in making sure this little girl is a genius. One, to make money and promote her daughter, another to salvage his reputation and credibility in a field where reputation is everything. The more people you could get to say "genius" before they knew the story, the more advocates for this child there are. Once committed to her genius, the only way out is to admit you have been tricked, and no one likes to do that.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4Starlight2Decay0
reply to post by krossfyter
 


And further more I'm done with this discussion until you stop with the condescending langauge so typical of your masturbatory self loving pompous movement.
edit on 04/28/2011 by 4Starlight2Decay0 because: d
edit on 04/28/2011 by 4Starlight2Decay0 because: (no reason given)



my movement? its not my movement. i didnt create it. what are you saying? sorry you consider my attempt to discuss this subject matter with you as condescending. im trying to be civil. i am self loving yes. but i also love others. i have to learn to love myself before i love others. am i pompous? perhaps. but thats neither here nor there in the discussion. everyone has an ego. your words are not hurting me at all if you are trying to hurt me... just letting you know.
edit on 26-5-2011 by krossfyter because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by krossfyter
 


Ok and I'm still saying its talentless lines and blotches and nothing more. So you think I'm simple in music as well? a bold accusation friend.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
I wish I had an eye for art. My wife thinks that this kids art is awesome, but I don't get it Then again my idea of quality art is a painting of dogs playing poker..so go figure.



I would never have guessed that this girls paintings were valuable to anyone except her parents.
My wife says it is because I am a caveman.
edit on 5/26/2011 by Sparky63 because: added comment
edit on 5/26/2011 by Sparky63 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   
The difference between this little girl and any other who enjoys paints, is that she has 2 parents who both are artists and she has watched them work since she was born. Then you have parents...any parent who does something and sees their child take a shot at it is proud and almost always sees their child as especially talented, the difference here is they had connections in their profession and probably friendship with the person who decided this particular art if genius!
We only have their word, that the friend..gallery owner did not know the age of the child but that is of little consequence anyway.
I think if there is real talent the person can creat non abstract art readily also...

A child prodigy is someone who, at an early age, masters one or more skills far beyond their level of maturity.[1] One criterion for classifying prodigies is: a prodigy is a child, typically younger than 18 years old, who is performing at the level of a highly trained adult in a very demanding field of endeavour.[1][2]

en.wikipedia.org...

Personaly i don't think this definition fits here.
edit on 26-5-2011 by Char-Lee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4Starlight2Decay0
reply to post by krossfyter
 


Ok and I'm still saying its talentless lines and blotches and nothing more. So you think I'm simple in music as well? a bold accusation friend.



im not saying you are simple in music. sorry u misunderstood the point. im saying you gravitate to easily understood art for a reason and that reason is due to it being accessible or easily reached or entered just like a lot of realism is compared to abstraction. im using music to make an analogy. i have no idea who u listen to and i dont really care.

u can say its talentless lines and blotches... that is fine. but saying all abstraction is ugly without having no understanding of it what so ever shows ur level of understanding. i tried to bring up some analogies to help u understand but i guess its not working. that is all im saying.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by missvicky


Well to be truthful, your painting seems a little amaturish compared to the 4 year old abstactionist. But a good start! Keep at it you have potential........



To be truthful, you are only saying that because he confessed up front how he did it and how long it took. If that same painting came with several critiques by art critics calling it soulful genius, I bet you would be singing another song.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
I love your thread OP and I really really enjoyed seeing the little one having so much fun.
BUT....almost all the children I know do the exact same thing.
If the little girl was painting portraits at that age...well, that I would call a prodigy!



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by krossfyter
 


Not trying to hurt you, notice im not the one calling you uneducated and ignorant in every other sentence for not agreeing with me.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by TETRA.X
I love your thread OP and I really really enjoyed seeing the little one having so much fun.
BUT....almost all the children I know do the exact same thing.
If the little girl was painting portraits at that age...well, that I would call a prodigy!



*hits head* lol

" Our reactions to abstraction and or representation also affect how we interpret any work of art. Many people accept Sheeler's artwork even when the abstraction is more pronounced, because the subject is still recongnizable. However, other people react adversely to simple, non objective shapes like those in Albers's paintings. Unfortunately, viewers who value representational artwork because they can easily interpret the subject matter often fail to see the intellectual metaphor and visual effects of the shape relationships; they don't appreciate how form itself may be the subject matter."



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4Starlight2Decay0
reply to post by krossfyter
 


Not trying to hurt you, notice im not the one calling you uneducated and ignorant in every other sentence for not agreeing with me.



your view on ABSTRACTION seems uneducated and ignorant (judging by ur opinion on it). u may very well be a PHD in astrophysics and smart. i dont know. lol
edit on 26-5-2011 by krossfyter because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by krossfyter
 


Whatever dude Im simple and what not, I'm stupid and uneducated get off my case already.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by LadySkadi
 


Wow. I am so impressed that little girl is amazing !! But also the mother of that little girl let that little girl have her space and "make a mess".. I am sure that is how it started out anyways. I know some mothers that don't let their children reach their full potential. When a child grows they want to grow quickly and you need to take advantage of that and let them learn. I know a lot of mothers that would never let their kid spray and squirt paint everywhere and just do whatever they wanted. You never know what your child is capable of.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4Starlight2Decay0
reply to post by krossfyter
 


Whatever dude Im simple and what not, I'm stupid and uneducated get off my case already.



you're saying that not me.
but yeh... totally misunderstood everything i have said. sorry u feel that way.





new topics
top topics
 
56
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join