"My Kid Could Paint That" what is going on around here?
Every once in a while there comes a situation that is both hard to believe and easy to believe. I ask you to, as you read this consider how easy it is to believe either side of the story.
Marla Olmstead- girl artist, 4 years old. Child prodigy or vehicle for scam? Sony Pictures produced somewhat of an Indie Film of 4 years old Marla and her family and their journey. Before they knew what was going on she had sold her first painting for $250. Soon they had a gallery opening and 10 sold for $1000s...$5500 soon one sold to an Asian collector for $24,000. What was happening? I can tell you what was happening, everyone wanted a piece of the pie for as cheap as they could. I can hear it now, the collectors talking about what these things would be worth in 30 years...millions they must have said.
The film maker discussed with gallery owner how incredible it was. This guy was totally sold. As well he should have been since she was selling out every show. There was a 70 person waiting list! She was even offered a gig from Crayola but they turned it down. Laura, Marla's mother was your classic should we or shouldn't we parent. Mark her father was the painter who started her on her journey. He started her on paper then canvas.
The first time I had a thought of hmmm, was one time there was footage or her holding a pink brush yet no pink was on the painting. People came to them asking for interviews from all sorts of media outlets. The press Sun Bulletin wrote the first article then later came the NY Times. She was getting pretty popular pretty fast. My doubts started to film along with some people in the video.
How are they going to prove it I immediately asked. One time in the film you hear, "You should help..." Marla says to her dad. Is she talking about how she cant do it on her own to her father or was it the puzzle she was working on?
The film includes a fair discussion on abstract art. What captures the attention? Christies auction house art going for $20 million. One time there is video footage of her actually painting and guess what? She just paints like a three year old. He parents say that she can't paint in front of cameras as it makes her too nervous. The father says, "it is rare to get to the mud point.", referring to how she just used her hands and mixed the colors making them all muddy. Could she be a prodigy? One of her collectors, an art teacher compares her to Mozart! She would refuse to teach her, "why screw up a good thing.
At the time her painting prices doubles the New York city average for oil paintings, but alas she paints in acrylic. Her own gallery owner says they could be on par with Warhol.
At this point I am skeptical, but I love to see great stories so I was reserving judgment until the end. Then came the 60 Minutes episode. It discussed how she earned more than $300,000, everything started out normal and even was making Marla look great. They talked to an art psychologist specializing in prodigies and she said, "You could put it in museum of modern art." But then once she sees the video of painting she changes her tune about the painting style. She couldn't buy that the same girl did the same paintings. The experts speculated that some paintings were either not finished by her or touched up by someones else. The film shows the parents watching when the bad news comes and are just dumbfounded by the 60 Minutes story. It was not good.
At the LA gallery opening you could tell everyone was nervous after the 60 Minutes episode The collectors start questioning whether she even did them some even wanting their money back. The gallery owner was thinking of leaving town. The film maker is trying to get a painting filmed. It would prove everything to be true. Soon even the filmmaker has doubts about it. Artwork sales come to a stop and mom is fine with it. The gallery owner quits on them, a realist painter who is frustrated with his style vs. abstract is done with it.
Then it happens, seeing the value of marketing, the parents finally get a dvd made of her making a painting. The gallery owner buys back in. He has another opening at his gallery reinvigorated by the idea, he pulls in a customer at the pre opening. She struggles over the painting but finally is convinced to buy the one on the DVD.
Was controversy a positive thing? In a interview with the filmmaker at the end, the couple seems like they have a harder time convincing the film maker that it all is legit. She wants to take a polygraph but we never see that.
The film title says it all. What is abstract art? Can a child do it as well as a professional? You tell me which one of these paintings were done by a child.
Marla Olmstead- girl artist, 4 years old. Child prodigy or vehicle for scam? Sony Pictures produced somewhat of an Indie Film of 4 years old Marla and her family and their journey. Before they knew what was going on she had sold her first painting for $250. Soon they had a gallery opening and 10 sold for $1000s...$5500 soon one sold to an Asian collector for $24,000. What was happening? I can tell you what was happening, everyone wanted a piece of the pie for as cheap as they could. I can hear it now, the collectors talking about what these things would be worth in 30 years...millions they must have said.
The film maker discussed with gallery owner how incredible it was. This guy was totally sold. As well he should have been since she was selling out every show. There was a 70 person waiting list! She was even offered a gig from Crayola but they turned it down. Laura, Marla's mother was your classic should we or shouldn't we parent. Mark her father was the painter who started her on her journey. He started her on paper then canvas.
The first time I had a thought of hmmm, was one time there was footage or her holding a pink brush yet no pink was on the painting. People came to them asking for interviews from all sorts of media outlets. The press Sun Bulletin wrote the first article then later came the NY Times. She was getting pretty popular pretty fast. My doubts started to film along with some people in the video.
How are they going to prove it I immediately asked. One time in the film you hear, "You should help..." Marla says to her dad. Is she talking about how she cant do it on her own to her father or was it the puzzle she was working on?
The film includes a fair discussion on abstract art. What captures the attention? Christies auction house art going for $20 million. One time there is video footage of her actually painting and guess what? She just paints like a three year old. He parents say that she can't paint in front of cameras as it makes her too nervous. The father says, "it is rare to get to the mud point.", referring to how she just used her hands and mixed the colors making them all muddy. Could she be a prodigy? One of her collectors, an art teacher compares her to Mozart! She would refuse to teach her, "why screw up a good thing.
At the time her painting prices doubles the New York city average for oil paintings, but alas she paints in acrylic. Her own gallery owner says they could be on par with Warhol.
At this point I am skeptical, but I love to see great stories so I was reserving judgment until the end. Then came the 60 Minutes episode. It discussed how she earned more than $300,000, everything started out normal and even was making Marla look great. They talked to an art psychologist specializing in prodigies and she said, "You could put it in museum of modern art." But then once she sees the video of painting she changes her tune about the painting style. She couldn't buy that the same girl did the same paintings. The experts speculated that some paintings were either not finished by her or touched up by someones else. The film shows the parents watching when the bad news comes and are just dumbfounded by the 60 Minutes story. It was not good.
At the LA gallery opening you could tell everyone was nervous after the 60 Minutes episode The collectors start questioning whether she even did them some even wanting their money back. The gallery owner was thinking of leaving town. The film maker is trying to get a painting filmed. It would prove everything to be true. Soon even the filmmaker has doubts about it. Artwork sales come to a stop and mom is fine with it. The gallery owner quits on them, a realist painter who is frustrated with his style vs. abstract is done with it.
Then it happens, seeing the value of marketing, the parents finally get a dvd made of her making a painting. The gallery owner buys back in. He has another opening at his gallery reinvigorated by the idea, he pulls in a customer at the pre opening. She struggles over the painting but finally is convinced to buy the one on the DVD.
Was controversy a positive thing? In a interview with the filmmaker at the end, the couple seems like they have a harder time convincing the film maker that it all is legit. She wants to take a polygraph but we never see that.
The film title says it all. What is abstract art? Can a child do it as well as a professional? You tell me which one of these paintings were done by a child.
Comments