Now this is not directly related to graphic design but since I have already reached my weekly quota of blog postings I feel I deserve a superfluous post of unrelated material. Though I don’t feel it is completely unrelated instead it is under the broader umbrella of art, a little more specifically modern art. The other night I watched a documentary titled My Kid Could Paint That, about a 4 year old little girl who painted pictures, her work was so popular that she ended up being labeled a prodigy by some and getting gallery shows at which she sold thousands of dollars worth of paintings. Then inevitably this all came crashing to a halt when 60 Minutes did a special on her and speculated that she couldn’t be doing it on her own sine the painting were too “adult” to have been done by a child and it is suggested that her father is either doctoring her work after the fact or simply painting them himself. There were secret cameras (secret to the child not the parents) in which the girl looked less then enthusiastic about painting and a clip in which her father can be heard basically begging her to paint and then heavily suggesting that she use different colors etc etc. Then collectors of her work become outraged and her popularity diminished and people quit buying her work. Her parents then released their own video of the makings of one of her pictures from start to finish to quell the rumors, however this didn’t help the kid’s popularity rose and fell some more. The parents hoped the documentary would put an end to the doubt however the ending of the documentary was inconclusive. This is in no way a criticism of modern art since I happen to be quite the fan but here are some points I would like to make:
1. Who decides what is considered art, even if the father did the work entirely and completely lied about it who says that is not another form of art. Stranger things have been done in the name of art, such as German artist Joseph Beuys the man who locked himself in a gallery with a wild coyote for three days, for some people that was art, for others it was just insanity.
2. Next if people like the art its quality shouldn’t change based on the artist, I mean you either like it or you don’t. It’s not like she was some well established master of painting and somebody was trying to pawn off their work as hers. If they had claimed a four year old was painting using photo realism that would have been more extraordinary and relevant however they weren’t instead they were saying she was painting like any other four year old, with random colors and none representational shapes so in actuality it would be more impressive that her 30+ father was painting in the style of a 4 year old.
3. In defense of the kid even though I do not have a concrete opinion of whether she painted them or not and I like the paintings either way. If they were at all familiar with children they would realize one of the quickest ways to get a child of any age to stop doing something or change the way they do it is to tell them to do it a specific way or to put to much focus and pressure on what they are doing, which in my opinion makes the footage totally irrelevant.
4. Against the kid, or more accurately her parents. The dad was a total “pageant” dad and even in favorable footage can be heard mercilessly “encouraging” his child to paint and seems just totally blinded by the fame and money. I think a likely scenario is the girl started out as the painter and then the dad’s insane drive to keep her paintings coming caused him to start helping her or coaching her in order to keep up the production and therefore the fame and money that went along with it. After just her first show (in which she sold every piece she had) there were 77 more people on her waiting list which is a pretty hefty demand to fill for a four year old. No matter if she did them or not I believe her dad ruined it because even if she was truly the artist of all the work he definitely managed to suck the fun out of it for her and make it all about him.
2 comments:
Interesting...this is such a never-ending thought that goes on and on and on, the idea of what makes it art so if it were a short blog, it would be weird beause there's so much to say about this topic, but what I wanted to comment on was about your second point that you made:
something about the artist and how the artist influences how the work is perceived and appreciated. This is kind of a big issue for me because there are certain things I like that are made by people who, to some people are unlikeable, for example Woody Allen movies or Michael Jackson songs; one might say that Woody Allen is a pervert and how vould you like his work when he's such a pervert, but I think his movies are wonderful and beautiful and I don't necessarily agree with his lifestyle choices, I still think he makes great films, and Michael Jackson is just crazy, but he made some really great pop songs...
And then there are people that i just don't really care for so I won't consider their work, for example, if I read an interview with a musical artist and I like what they have to say about their music, it makes me want to hear it even more. I guess it just depends what I come across first, the artist or the artwork, but I usually try to keep them separate...
I think I just rambled on about nothing...
Not rambling, mine was though. On your topic I hate Woody Allen movies they make me nervous and stressed out as does listening to him talk. Harsh but true. I love Michael Jackson songs though and understand the whole separation between artist and art.
Post a Comment