artistic "child prodigy"

Maybe from the viewpoint of someone who can't play guitar, emo takes talent. But from the viewpoint of someone who has taken the time to rise above the "talent required for emo", emo doesnt take talent, or at least very little.

It DOES equate... from my point of view. Just like from an artist's point of view, that little girl is painting crap. But from someone who is just starting in the abstract field of art, that kind of work might be good.

And don't think that I didn't know that you'd start listing bands that I might conceive of as emo. Don't think that I don't know that these "true emo" kids aren't going to start accusing me of what truly isn't. I just dont think it's fair for me to have to dig so deep in order for me to truly understand "good emo," when you have to just scratch the surface of old rock or jazz to understand it's incredible while still being considered "good rock" or "good jazz."

And to be fair, Good Charlotte and Yellowcard blow.

Maybe from the viewpoint of someone who can't play guitar, emo takes talent. But from the viewpoint of someone who has taken the time to rise above the "talent required for emo", emo doesnt take talent, or at least very little.

It DOES equate... from my point of view. Just like from an artist's point of view, that little girl is painting crap. But from someone who is just starting in the abstract field of art, that kind of work might be good.

I have played guitar and bass for about five years (admittedly, not long enough to consider myself good), drums for over six, and own over $6000 worth of recording equipment and a home studio. I can recognize talent in music, and i can recognize the talent in "old rock or jazz."

Now, musical bigots such as yourself deny the talent evident in any genre outside of the one they enjoy sucking the crotch danglings of - which in your case is classic rock. I think you put it well when you whined about things not being "fair for [you] to have to dig so deep in order for [you] to truly understand 'good emo.' " As unclear as it is to decipher what in God's name you were talking about when you mentioned it not being "fair," i can only assume that you were and still are unwilling to seek out talent in any other genre.

Hendrix had talent, yes - but if every single artist played classic rock, where would the innovation be? Musical innovation requires talent.. raw skill is useless if you're just echoing an idol's style. You're just looking at guitar talent, apparently, because that's all you mentioned.

Nos.

Hmmm, you know, before I studied art history I used to laugh at any art that wasn't Renaissance*or at least of that calibre. As well, not coming from an artistic background, I had a tough time chewing on anything that wasn't realistic in nature. But after educating myself I came to appreciate art a lot more. I began to actually see things in the art and appreciate the colours and the styles. I actually enjoyed looking at "paint splatter" just because it was appealing to look at. There was no apparent message to study. It was just attractive colours on a canvas for my eyes to look at.

Now, art is completely subjective, but for everyone to dismiss this as crap is plain ol' ignorant. You may not like it, but...what about you people using PS to create some of your so called art? Is it only good if you conform to the norm? Emulating Apple's webpages? Is that good art? How about grunge? Random brushes that have absolutely no purpose other then to scuff up a clean design?

We make 'happy accidents' all the time in design. Not every stroke or element is deliberate. So why not do a painting purely on this? I see so many PS background images or so called 3D experts with demo versions of 3D Studio Max randomly creating textures and trendy spikes and things and then show them off like they are masterpieces...whats the difference? The only arguement I can see that is viable is that she is only 4 years old, and how much of a purpose could she possibly have in her paintings? Well, she is being called a prodigy...maybe it's time to look that word up.

So my comment is, for the uneducated people (art wise), either decide you don't like it and move on, remembering that someone out there may think what you do is crap. And if not, just look at it and appreciate the colours and feel of it. Don't feel it needs to look like the Mona Lisa to be a serious work of art. Let your eyes relax and soak in the textures and everything.

Edit: By the way, the pictures I saw, they look pretty good. I'd be curious to see how many of you could easily replicate that and not muddy the canvas up? It's funny how everyone can fight to the death about their own styles/beliefs on things and dismiss something so quickly when it's not of their own.

Now Terry, play nice Conform to the norm! hihi
Well - for one - I used to paint before I took up PS. And I still say it's crap. My paintings were crappy too but I never pretended otherwise. Abstract takes a lot of work - it's not just splatter. Abstract usually comes after you allready know how to draw the regular stuff - like anatomically correct muscles, perspective and the rest. Abstract has to have an idea. Meaning. Even if it's just for the artist. A 4year old has no experiences to draw from, no emotions that come from ideas. What feelings she might express have to come from instinct - like hunger, need for security, "love" - unrefined by any true point of view. Even if she's a prodigy 4 years is not enough for any real life experience - taking into account that at least one of those years was beyond any coherent form of exprimation or real understanding. Art is not inherent - it comes from somewhere- either study or personal experiences of some sort. Talent may be present but expressing it needs understanding from the artist at first. So in those terms - the paintings - are maybe colorful and pleasant to look at. But so is a flower - or a sunset. It happens - it's not what they are trying to push there - it's not art. Granted - neither is grunge or 3d crap that comes out of many of us.

Touche...

I agree with what you have said. I think what I was trying to defend more then anything is artists that are out there painting abstract and surrealism and pop art etc...There were a few comments that dismissed all art like this, not just this little girls. I do agree she doesn't have the foundation to understand why she's doing what shes doing, but I challenge you not to acknowledge that she has some raw artistic talent/understanding that is not usually found in someone her age. Her work probably is crap compared to someone with experience, but for a 4 year old? Deker was trying to be funny with his picture, but to me people that make that comparison (and an obvious one at that) are the most ignorant to art. That's why I don't think that many here that have no art background could even replicate what this little girl has done. Instead it's just dismissed as paint splatter and a "garbage" art form. Hers is technically flawed, but she has a great start at it. Hopefully Pganguly is wrong and her parents don't shove this down her throat her whole life.

I wrote this around 8 pm, but the page was down, so I had to wait till I got home to post it.

I paint, and draw, and that stuff looks like a 4 year old made it. I believe that abstraction is a privelege, not a right, and in order to be able to push the limits of ones ability to make art, one must first exercise, to the greatest extent possible, the ability of the human brain to emulate in two dimensions, the world as it appears around them. That it why I believe that realism should be taught foremost in an art education, followed by a study and then a practice of abstraction, as the student and maturing artist sees fit.

As for this little girl's artwork, I believe that it's kitsch, and something that her parents thought was cute, as well as the gallery owner mentioned specifically, according to the article, has taken hold of and ran with, such that it has drawn the attention of what I'm sure a few artists and or art dealers who happen to live in new york city have taken ahold of and ran with.

[quote=Mark Olmstead, Father]"She does her own thing, she uses a lot of paint but is oblivious to the whole thing."[/quote]Now, this sounds to me like the child's regular pattern of play is not in any manner unlike any preschool aged child's use of fingerpaints, and the habit of most young children to play with their food, draw on their walls, and dig in the mud. It just seems, however that this particular individual has a kitschy selling point. She's a cute 4 year old girl. All of the father's quoted comments would suggest that he sees his
daughter's art career as something serendipitous, and still doesn't take the matter any more seriously than playtime.

The more 'serious' questions, addressing the little girl's fitness and growth as an artist have come almost exclusively from the editorializing of BBC News, and of Anthony Brunelli, owner of the gallery at which the work is being sold. Bear in mind, BBC is a news outlet. It is in their interest, as a business to print subject matter that sells. Little kids doing seemingly grown up things is cute to adults. Brunelli, on the other hand, as a gallery owner, is a salesman. It is necessary for him as a means of yielding a profit, to promote via media outlets the little girl's work by deeming it reminiscent of Vasily Kandinsky, or Jackson Pollock, work long held to look as though it was made by a four year old, however these artists were revolutionaries, and thus well known, and to attach her name to them is to command the same attributes of her work.

My respons to the above is that this is one of those oft occurring 'flash in the pan' moments that occur within the art community, because modern art is purchased as an investment, assuming that a young, revolutionary, and initially unpopular artist will ultimately become famous, and respected among their peers, such that their earlier works will fetch that much more money, when sold.

I do not personally believe that many people have that deep of an attachment to many pieces of modern art, such that they are far more willing to part with it, for a price. Which is why I feel that modern/postmodern art can be discussed as a monetary or business
holding, whereas classical masterpieces cannot, given that they often carry with them the weight of a lost way of life, such as the guild system of the renaissance, and or the legacy of a legendary craftsman. It is infrequent within the canon of art made in the twentieth and now twenty-first century that the above conditions are the case.

Since when do you have to be "educated in art history" to express your opinion about a piece of "art"? You say yourself that art is subjective, but then you say I am ignorant and that therefore my opinion doesn't count? I think "modern art" like that is bull****. Call me ignorant, uneducated, whatever. But it's bull****. If people could just say it looks cool because of the colors of the placement of colors or whatever, then I can live with that and it's cool. But all these arty people take some splatters like the paintings that this kid did, and then try to read all this meaning into it. Like it's some revolutionary expression of their rage and torment or whatever. Please, it's just some ****ing paint splattered all over a canvas. If people would just leave it at the fact that "Hey, this is kind of cool looking. I like the colors, it matches my drapes", then that would be great.

And I didn't draw the scribble thing, it just came up on google image when searching for scribble. And yeah it was an easy joke, but I take what I can get...

Eep...I do agree to an extent, although...is the thing about "needing to be educated in art history" directed me in any manner, cuz I wasn't pushing for that kinda overtone.

[quote=Deker]If people would just leave it at the fact that "Hey, this is kind of cool looking. I like the colors, it matches my drapes", then that would be great.[/quote] That's what I meant in the last paragraph of my previous post. I believe that most pieces of modern art will not retain their value in say, 100 years, when people realize wait, as pretty as I think this is, it's useless. I think that these will be seen as kitsch, the same way antiques are. Pretty to lok at, but ultimately useless. I've never understood the bric-a-brac, garage sale frequenting types, who buy cute things that do nothing but require dusting, and do nothing but take up space.

I have to agree on one hand with Spectra in that it takes on a certain closed-mindedness to outright say 'that sucks', but I agree as well with Deker that yes, it does suck, and I think that within the scope of this article, a lot is being made of nothing. Not in terms of this discussion, but in the terms of this little girl's reception and/or exploitation by either her parents and/or her promoter, who seems to be trying to make a quick buck.

All I can hope is that this girl becomes and artist of her own volition, or upon becoming bored with fingerpainting, as I still hold this to be, that this will blow over, and not ultimately effect her outlook on life as she matures and learns in whatever field she chooses when she's more than 4 years old. Child celebrity rarely results in the child becoming a well adjusted adult, although there's a difference between doted child actors and singers and artists, especially those from binghamton, a definite blue collar town, not unlike my hometown, Rochester.

Nonetheless, I think that we can all agree that the wording of the article makes more of the little girls' painting prowess than ought to be made.

I’m not convinced anyone truly knows what “art” is.

At the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art I saw a collection of pieces on display that were traveling around the U.S. One was a toilet…and another was a machine that made random wax sculptures by just dripping wax onto a conveyor belt.. No human being was involved in making the sculptures. So is that art?

Personally I think people that are educated in art history have a better understanding of where certain styles came from or who influenced who. I don’t think it makes that person better at telling what true art is.

No, Pganguly, my comment was directed at spectra who said: "So my comment is, for the uneducated people (art wise), either decide you don't like it and move on, remembering that someone out there may think what you do is crap."

"Is it only good if you conform to the norm? Emulating Apple's webpages? Is that good art?"

No, that isn't art. It's design. Two totally different things in my mind. I wouldn't call a magazine layout art either, but I'd call an illustration of a celebrity in that magazine art. That doesn't mean "design" is any less important than art, but it has a different purpose.