Two year old abstract artist

Last edited:
lionking said:
But perhaps they will not be parted in this case, with the media frenzy surrounding this baby. In fact I can see the prices increasing.

Fifteen of Aelita's "works" have sold before the exhibition opened for between $350 and $2000.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/entertainment/arts/little-painter-big-sales/2009/01/16/1231608988045.html

According to her mother, it is difficult for Aelita to find time to "create".

Give me strength.
Click to expand...

A small correction. 7 of the total 15 works have been sold.

But beyond that, they have sold, not because buyers were fooled into thinking they were the work of a genius, but because of the novelty value.

This doesn't have anything to do with actual art appreciation. There have actually been gimmick "Child Painters" for years, with a major documentary about one "My kid could paint that"

These are not works in established museums or art history books. The buyers are not the art world elite, but curiosity seekers and sometimes investors. It is a fairly common publicity stunt. The parents are always failed professional artists. Do you imagine that a reporter somehow snooped and caught the embarrassed gallery owner?

I assure you that the parents and the gallery owner both worked very hard to get all this media coverage.

These are actually the least interesting children's paintings I've seen.
I much prefer Marla Olmstead but she probably had a lot of help from dad.
Alexandra Nechita actually did her own paintings.

But if anyone was claiming that these works are "fooling" the art experts, why do they need a gimmick to get sold? And why is the lead quote on Alexandra's gallery from reknowned art expert Whoopi Goldberg?
In Whoopi Goldberg's opinion, "The thumb print of the Great One is on her."
Click to expand...
 
Cavemonster,

If you are right, it is just a scam, but the gallery owner did admit to being fooled but agreed to go ahead with the exhibition anyway. Whichever way it happened, people are laughing all the way to the bank.
 
lionking said:
Cavemonster,

If you are right, it is just a scam, but the gallery owner did admit to being fooled but agreed to go ahead with the exhibition anyway. Whichever way it happened, people are laughing all the way to the bank.
Click to expand...

Eh, sort of?
They're spending a silly amount of money for novelty value, but so does everyone who shopped at the Sharper Image. Neither the paintings, nor the gallery are promising anything that isn't delivered.

Now if the people who bought it believe it will go up in value, or that it possesses some expert quality that they cannot see, then they are incorrect. I can't read minds. I expect a good number of them bought it so they can point it out to dinner guests and have a good conversation piece. Not something I would pay that kind of money for, but even in this economy some people have it burning holes in their pockets.

In my mind a scam requires deliberate misrepresentation, I see that more in the case of the paintings presented as the work of the kid in the documentary that were probably done by the parents.
 
My dog just threw-up on the rug. Its quite beautiful.

It would be art, except the Virgin Mary is in it.

(Guess I'll clean it up.)
 
lionking said:
Doesn't art, by definition, require an artist?
Click to expand...
By which definition?
By the one that says "Art is that which is made by an artist", yes.
By the one that says "Art is whatever I deem to be art", no.

Also, what is an artist? By definition, "that which creates art", perhaps?

What about evolutionary art, perhaps of the fractal variety? Art created, for example, by a neural network selecting which individual functions and parameters to reproduce in each generation. The art is inherent in the mathematics. In this case, I don't buy the "ahh but the software is the artist" argument any more than I buy the argument that "the paintbrush is the artist".

You are familiar with genetic programming, right? Would you say that a program that evolved in a genetic programming system had a programmer? To my mind, it's a cop-out to say "but someone programmed the genetic programming system". Would you credit your novel to the programmer of Word?

You might also say that the genetic programming system itself is the programmer, but just as has been discussed here about art and the question of intent, there is no intent, indeed no knowledge, just random mutation, reproduction and fitness testing.

On the other hand, Aaron, a computer, is an artist.

And just for some more fun, is a sunset art? Is the pattern in the sand made by the receding tide art? Morning birdsong?

:)
 
I was a bit of an artistic prodigy as a child, but no one made a fuss over me, other than my mother. If you're a maths prodigy or a music prodigy, you get discovered and encouraged, and given extra educational opporunties. If you're an artistic prodigy, you're usually just ignored.

I have a BFA, but frankly the reason I chose that line of study was so I wouldn't have to take a math course.

I don't yet think this child is a prodigy. It is possible that she might turn out to be one, though, because of all this encouragement she's getting.

On the other, perhaps she'll just turn out to be an insufferable bore who thinks her every little doodle is special.

I think the art world is full of it up to its gills. But at least it gives a number of people something to do with themselves. While an art student, I made much of voicing my fine contempt for what we did. It was fun.
 
logical muse,

Food for thought. I have trouble with the "art is whatever I deem to be art" definition, but I will re-consider this.
 
I worked with enough two-year-olds to know that's not how a two-year-old paints.
1. she would have limited herself to one part of the canvas to create one thing
2. whatever was drawn on any other part, if anything at all, would not be connected
3. circles, over and on top of each other are the standard, maybe with eyes and a mouth
4. unless you stop them they usually add colours until the whole picture is mud coloured

Therfore, I think the parents were directing her works of "genious"
 
Cavemonster said:
BPSCG-
This is the attitude I was talking about


Again, like gay marriage, why do you get so wound up over what other people enjoy? Dishonest weasels? I don't understand the bitterness.

Who exactly are you giving money to against your will?
Click to expand...


Well to be honest, tax payer money does go to support the arts. So I would have to say we do have a right.

Comparing it to gay marriage is not a good link in that regard. In some small way our taxes may go to support the actual " getting married" to a degree, but we don't support gay marriage as an institution through our taxes.

The reason people get mad is because its bullship. And we all know it. Trying to wear a woo hat of sophistication is a defense mechanism to hard truth.

All creativity is art in its own right. However what is considered social art, or art that is supported by society, should have some merit.

Although I can understand an artist who has trained technically, putting out abstract art, this child is a hoax all the way.

In the first place her mother is preparing the canvas for her, so I don't doubt that mom perks up or guides the child in the painting. Giving a little kid tubes of paint to play with on a prepared canvas is the art of the MOTHER not the child.

She's selling it as child's art because otherwise she's violating an ethical standard in using her child in this way.

Nuff said. :whistling:nope:
 
lionking said:
logical muse,

Food for thought. I have trouble with the "art is whatever I deem to be art" definition, but I will re-consider this.
Click to expand...
I used to take the "everything is art" viewpoint when I was in art school, but eventually disabused myself of it when I realized that such an assertion is intellectually and creatively bankrupt.

If "everything is art" then it must necessarily follow that "nothing is art"; because by declaring everything art, one completely eliminates any distinction between art and non-art, leaving nothing to differentiate between the two. At that point "art" simply becomes another meaningless buzzword, used to denote personal preference, rather than a distinct and definable entity.

The "everything is art" concept is strictly a postmodern one, and shares in postmodernism's pseudo-populist anti-intellectualism, couching it as a specious "anti-elitism". It is an attempt by those who lack the ability, training, and discipline of true artists to garner the respect and approbation commonly accorded to said artists, while at the same time deriding the source of the approbation they seek. It's a self-important and self-serving commoditization of the concept of art.
 
Roma Hart said:
I worked with enough two-year-olds to know that's not how a two-year-old paints.
1. she would have limited herself to one part of the canvas to create one thing
2. whatever was drawn on any other part, if anything at all, would not be connected
3. circles, over and on top of each other are the standard, maybe with eyes and a mouth
4. unless you stop them they usually add colours until the whole picture is mud coloured

Therfore, I think the parents were directing her works of "genious"
Click to expand...
Well, that's the whole point. If the kid actually pulled off those painting herself, it's pretty remarkable, no matter how much somebody disparages abstract art. It's hugely different than the random swirlings that a 2 year old makes - there's obvious intent and design in them.

I'm mean, I'm with you, I'm guessing the kid had lots of help.
 
roger said:
Well, that's the whole point. If the kid actually pulled off those painting herself, it's pretty remarkable, no matter how much somebody disparages abstract art. It's hugely different than the random swirlings that a 2 year old makes - there's obvious intent and design in them.

I'm mean, I'm with you, I'm guessing the kid had lots of help.
Click to expand...

I also agree. I don't think she was told what to do - hell, a two-year-old won't listen, in all likelihood.

I think that what makes these works a little striking is the color(colour) pallette. What kid would choose a black canvas? Not many. And all the canvases are black or red, obviously someone already pointing in a certain direction.

And the colors, probably chosen by mom, just coincidentally go perfectly with the background to make "bold statements"? I don't think so. I think mom's coaching her, choosing the background, and then choosing colors and limiting her to those colors.

Globs of paint with a little smearing can be interesting, even attractive. And with a little guidance to make sure junior doesn't get big old blobs of blue and yellow in with the red, thus heading for that purplish-brown that Roma refers to, the results can be pleasing to the eye.

I once framed a piece from my six year old daughter, and the CEO of the company stopped by and asked where I got it. I thought he was complaining that I had unapproved artwork on my wall, so I quickly said, "Oh, it's something my daughter did - I just liked the effect." He said, "Pah! If your daughter can do that we'll all be rich." He actually thought it was a Kandinsky print. (I don't know if that speaks more to his lack of knowledge or her "ability". I just thought it fit into this discussion.)
 
luchog said:
The "everything is art" concept is strictly a postmodern one, and shares in postmodernism's pseudo-populist anti-intellectualism, couching it as a specious "anti-elitism". It is an attempt by those who lack the ability, training, and discipline of true artists to garner the respect and approbation commonly accorded to said artists, while at the same time deriding the source of the approbation they seek. It's a self-important and self-serving commoditization of the concept of art.
Click to expand...

What's a true artist? Is it like a true scotsman? Are there degrees of truth in artists, and if so, who is the truer artist, Duchamp, Mondrian, Turner, Michelangelo, Picasso or Hirst?

I argued with my History of Western Art lecturer about M.C.Escher's status in the art world. She was of the opinion that he wasn't a "true artist", because he didn't belong to an art school or discipline.

She also didn't agree with me that a computer (Aaron) could be an artist.

I won't argue with you about postmodernism, as I think we probably have similar views there, but I cannot accept a prescriptive definition of art or artists.
 
lionking said:
logical muse,

Food for thought. I have trouble with the "art is whatever I deem to be art" definition, but I will re-consider this.
Click to expand...
I only gave that definition to illustrate that there is not one canonical definition of art, which I think was implied in your post. My personal view is closer to that than to any other definition I can currently think of.

That could just be me being stubborn though. I'll not have anyone tell me what is and isn't art! :D
 
I'll believe that anything anyone wants is art.

I'm willing to render the term useless.

I'm not willing to believe that anything anyone wants is good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom