NEWS: Four-Year-Old Artist

CULTURE: Four-Year-Old Artist

At the age of four, most of us were still finger-painting with our own shit. But four-year-old Marla Olmstead's paintings are full of emotion, layers, details, and accents that are beyond what any other child, let alone adult, can imagine. And they sell. Good God, do they sell.

I would have hated to have been in her kindergarten class as a child, especially if the teacher broke out the watercolors.

Link?

I saw a segment on a weekly news show about her a month ago. It was very interesting. I think she even had her own (art) show.

marlaolmstead.com

Here's a link to her site:


http://www.marlaolmstead.com/

The server seems to be bogged down though.

-ScOttRa

I'm not a big fan of abstract painting, but I have to admit I wouldn't have guessed in a million years that a 4 yr old had done that stuff.

it kind of annoys me that a girl who can't spell yet has paintings with names like "ode to pollac" and "frenzy."

You learn to speak before you
can spell.....kids will pick up all
kinds of words from their families and
environment

art is dead.

She did not pick up "Ode to Pollac".

Sorry.

that girl has access to alot of paint.

I have no problem admiting that I can't stand seeing shit like this. Its not like this girl is the first kid to be a genius supposedly, I can recall hearing at least 7 different stories similar to this in the past 6 years (and at least 3 from longer ago, those kids should me my age). I think its ridiculous. By definition, what she does is not art; what she produces are pretty pictures with a good use of certain (very) basic elements of art. What she is producing are cliches. As stated by the Cornell chairperson (I don't trust people on a chair anyway, money got them there) what she is soing could be done by many others in the right circumstances.

I'd be completely willing to bet that her "vision" is crap and basically non existent, while her process is also probably standard for a preschooler: use alot of paint, alot of colors, alot of movement.

I could go on for much . . .much longer, but won't.

Most people won't understand my anger and frustration, but those few out there (most likely artists themselves) will understand my view.

Myself and half my preschool buddies were producing Marla Olmstead knock offs before she was even born. That's no ta joke, the shit we made looked just like her stuff, and it was cliche also.

So i guess all the years in school and countless hours in the studio were just a waste of time.Id be better off teachin my dogs to walk through wet paint and onto some canvas and calling them genius' If people are dumb enough to shell out the cash, then more power to the kid.She'll be a head case by 12.

[Edited on Jan 15, 2005 4:39PM]

Damn, I'm gettin in the game late.

i remember doing similar "works of art" in preschool...

only they got thrown away cause they were just paint smeared and thrown on construction paper.

There's no difference.
I realise that's what you were saying (I'm pretty sure)
I just want to hammer the point home.

From the article: "We don't want to spoil the fun of painting by turning it into something that's unpleasant."

I wish that thought had run through my MFA advisors' heads sometime before I decided to drop out.

ha! look at all the jealous artists.

she wears the clothes of an emporer
but her paintings are a sham
and they're going for a grand

I'd have to agree with L., here. Clement Greenberg would have definitely ripped her a new one over the abscence of composition in many of her pieces and her muddy handling of the color that appears to have been applied and manipulated with brushes.

Of course, from what I've heard of him, Greenberg may have ripped her just to enjoy having made a four-year-old cry.

If her paintings are full of emtions and tension yet she's barely old enough to even have some of the ones she's attributed to having, doesn't that mean we're reading too much into her artwork?

Kind of a tangent, but I've never met or heard of anyone named Olmstead that wasn't terrifically creative. Weird.

Its not a matter of jealousy really- it more a case of contempt for the stupid people who are gullible enough to buy these things. Its the 'theres a sucker born every minute' thing. As well, theres resentment for the fact that there are so many incredibly talented artists out there busting thier asses to create works of sublime beauty or at least meaning and significance, and its this stupid marketing ploy that gets the $. This kid isnt a genius. The day I see an excellently executed representational painting from that kid is the day I'll eat my words. A true artistic genius can cross styles and genres and still turn out fine work. Dont agree? Think Picasso.

Edited for spelling.

[Edited on Jan 15, 2005 by hermetica]

art is really all subjective in the first place. what has depth and meaning to a 60year old man whos too full of himself critic is what some people have done when they were in kindergarten. she probably comes from well to do parents and they have the means to get the word out that its 'talent'. if she could play an instrument like a prodigy or do something non abstract and have it be amazing i think thatd be the test

Sorry, but this is crap. These stories of child-prodigies do no one any good except maybe Jay Leno. The 'acclaim' she is getting now is obviously fueled by a PR team of adults, setting a poor kid up for disappointment or worse when she doesn't get a MoMA show at 10.

Moreover, these stories are belittling to practicing adult artists - the 'oh, my kid could do that' attitude. Art is not so simple, especially if you're doing something right.

I sure as hell wasn't making anything this remarkable when I was four... hell I'm still not now.

As far as the comments about her not being a "real" artist, things along those lines... I don't see what the fuss is all about. If she enjoys doing it, she can make money at it somehow, what's the problem? There are a lot of artists out there that someone or another doesn't think deserve fame. It's not as if any are detracting attention away from what you might call "real" artists. If the patrons that you think are so eager to fawn over the next new sensation, emporers new clothes or not, are really that way-- Do you think they'd be going out of their way to support more authentic, perhaps struggling artists? It'd just be some other hack. Well, I don't think anyone who does what they enjoy is a hack, but using your line of reasoning...

I mean, I can understand saying "hm, not for me" but not the resentment I'm seeing, especially directed toward the kid. Maybe the art community, yeah, that might make sense to be upset about, but not the kid, or even her parents persay.



[Edited on Jan 15, 2005 by pygmy]