I haven't seen the documentary in question, but I agree with you 100%.
I happen to be taking an art history course this semester which is about modern art (that is, art since the 1940's), and while I can't say I like any of it any more or less, I do appreciate it more, and... well, it's an insult to folks like Mark Rothko and Clyfford Still that people believe a child could do the same, or have the same level of "it" in their work that these guys did.
see also: "All-Around Nell" and that weird girl whose parents are Jesus freaks and she paints real pretty but there ain't no soul or meaning there. her name escapes me at the moment.
I guess I should also say that I feel that children like this are really getting exploited, because you know their parents are the ones keeping all the $$$.
I remember watching that documentary and thinking about what that kid was going to end up being like by the age of 10 or 15. Would her parents actually force her into an art program to justify their actions? Were they just delussional? Greedy? All of the above?
Cause at several points in that documentary the little girl looked like she couldn't care less. Maybe she'll grow up and sue them for the money they made off of exploiting her childhood. Ha.
I just got around to watching the sketchcasts. It's so wierd knowing what you actually sould like. I've gotten so used to webcomic artists/authors as these voiceless, faceless personalities who must of course have real lives to blog about, but whom I interact with solely on the internet.
When I saw the trailer for the documentary my first thought was, "Damn, why didn't I think of that?!"
As for the voice thing, I was hoping that the high pitch of Spike's voice was an affect of the software. That way when I did mine it would level me out to normal. No such luck.
How strange, I was just telling someone about that situation no more than an hour ago. Didn't know it was a documentary though! Btw I love these sketchcast things you do. Hope you find the time to keep them up!
I'll say one thing: I hate it when people make analogies that prove they don't know anything about the field, especially when reviewers or "experts" do it, because they should know better.
Movie reviewers compare any anime they see, for instance something Miyazaki made, to the only anime they've seen before, probably Sailor Moon. There's no real reason to make that comparison.
Er... Actually, reviewers compare/contrast every anime that comes to the US TO Miyazaki's animes. Rivewers really never would have seen Salior Moon, since it was only popular in the US during the time between the big underground, hand stitched subs on VHS, selling out of thier car trunks days and the more recent cat girl craze. I'd with as horrid as the US addaptation of SM was, I'd say it's a good thing they don't compare to it. Princess Mononoke(I feel I mispelled that, but not sure how...) would have never stood a chance.
Forgot to mention: It's like Akira. For near a decade and a half, you say anime, we westerners would say 'Oh, like Akira?'. It's the big name they know. The only one they know.
As to your voice: Actually, I was only surprised that you sounded about like I'd imagined. The sound started to break up towards the end though. Any one else have that issue?
As to the topic: I find it infuriating that anyone could equate the works of a child to any "professional" painter. I also find it disgusting that this kid's parents are milking her for all she's worth, like some kind of modern-day Shirley Temple.
Sure, I gave my five-year-old nephew a little 6x6 canvas to paint on with me, but I stuck that sucker on my own wall and didn't try to pass it off as modern art. It's the scribblings of a child, and I completely agree with all the points you made. Love your kid, tell them they're talented because they need positive feedback, but don't play it up for personal gain.
I share your views on most modern art and the people who try to profit from it - the problem with the movement, or perhaps an aspect of the movement that makes it difficult for most audiences to appreciate it more, is that there really ARE some folks out there who do this kind of thing, and they do have a meaning behind it. That's maybe 15% of them. The rest are tacking on to the movement.
As for this girl Marla, I think we can all sleep happy with the fact that, someday, she's gonna realize how her parents came quite dangerously close to frakking up her life by turning her into a child star - the Shirley Temple analogy is quite apt (especially since Shirley Temple wasn't even that great of an actress - the curls did the blocking for her, so to speak) and she'll get right and pissed about it.
Or, who knows, maybe she'll try to live up to the expectations and actually produce. That's an overly optimistic viewpoint, but hey, someone has to make it.
I remember seeing a news story about her; I didn't watch the whole documentary though, I wouldn't have been able to sit through it. I just remember that after the 5-something minute news segment I was shitting bricks, I was so pissed.
Didn't help any that my mom had to lean over to me every 30 seconds going "Oh look at that! That's so neat! Why couldn't you have done that when you were 4?" and just laughed. Never in my life did I want to slap my own mother... except that moment.
What's even sicker is the way this is being promoted. I am an in an Art AP class that I absolutely hate, the teacher knows nothing, we've never seen her art work and she claims it is because she's too busy but when you go down to New York City every other week to see a gallery opening then you aren't too busy to work.
You know that person who feels like they'll never be a real artist so they associate themselves with people who will be? That's her.
But the thing is, she's full of bull. She said that for our breadth section what we should do is go back in our drawers and take out pieces we did in kindergarten to show that we have improved. I'd like to think after twelve years I have improved. But to me, my art teacher is trying to make a Marla.
Also, that quote could not be truer, she was talking about appropriation, because copying is bad, but appropriating is fine. There was an artist in the 80s that took famous, old, photographs, signed her name to it even though everyone knew it wasn't hers, and made a fortune.
Like you, I don't love modern art all the time, but I can appreciate it if there;s something behind it and I know there is also skill. I was brought up on a diet of Picasso in my mother's art books so there is something about him that I genuinely enjoy, but I know that it doesn't always work like that. Picasso knew what he was doing, that's a fact.
I haven't seen the documentary in question, but I agree with you 100%.
I happen to be taking an art history course this semester which is about modern art (that is, art since the 1940's), and while I can't say I like any of it any more or less, I do appreciate it more, and... well, it's an insult to folks like Mark Rothko and Clyfford Still that people believe a child could do the same, or have the same level of "it" in their work that these guys did.
see also: "All-Around Nell" and that weird girl whose parents are Jesus freaks and she paints real pretty but there ain't no soul or meaning there. her name escapes me at the moment.
I guess I should also say that I feel that children like this are really getting exploited, because you know their parents are the ones keeping all the $$$.
I remember watching that documentary and thinking about what that kid was going to end up being like by the age of 10 or 15. Would her parents actually force her into an art program to justify their actions? Were they just delussional? Greedy? All of the above?
Cause at several points in that documentary the little girl looked like she couldn't care less. Maybe she'll grow up and sue them for the money they made off of exploiting her childhood. Ha.
But yeah, what that kid was doing was not art.
I just got around to watching the sketchcasts. It's so wierd knowing what you actually sould like. I've gotten so used to webcomic artists/authors as these voiceless, faceless personalities who must of course have real lives to blog about, but whom I interact with solely on the internet.
When I saw the trailer for the documentary my first thought was, "Damn, why didn't I think of that?!"
As for the voice thing, I was hoping that the high pitch of Spike's voice was an affect of the software. That way when I did mine it would level me out to normal. No such luck.
If I were anywhere near Chicago, I'd hug you. Does that make me a creepy fan? Maybe. But I couldn't agree with you more. Marla's folks are tools.
I agree her parents are total tools, and it's probably a scam. I'm not too down with any kid being a "painting star" or comics star.
I want to ask, though: why does it bother you? Why be bitter?
How strange, I was just telling someone about that situation no more than an hour ago. Didn't know it was a documentary though! Btw I love these sketchcast things you do. Hope you find the time to keep them up!
I'll say one thing: I hate it when people make analogies that prove they don't know anything about the field, especially when reviewers or "experts" do it, because they should know better.
Movie reviewers compare any anime they see, for instance something Miyazaki made, to the only anime they've seen before, probably Sailor Moon. There's no real reason to make that comparison.
Er... Actually, reviewers compare/contrast every anime that comes to the US TO Miyazaki's animes. Rivewers really never would have seen Salior Moon, since it was only popular in the US during the time between the big underground, hand stitched subs on VHS, selling out of thier car trunks days and the more recent cat girl craze. I'd with as horrid as the US addaptation of SM was, I'd say it's a good thing they don't compare to it. Princess Mononoke(I feel I mispelled that, but not sure how...) would have never stood a chance.
Forgot to mention: It's like Akira. For near a decade and a half, you say anime, we westerners would say 'Oh, like Akira?'. It's the big name they know. The only one they know.
As to your voice: Actually, I was only surprised that you sounded about like I'd imagined. The sound started to break up towards the end though. Any one else have that issue?
As to the topic: I find it infuriating that anyone could equate the works of a child to any "professional" painter. I also find it disgusting that this kid's parents are milking her for all she's worth, like some kind of modern-day Shirley Temple.
Sure, I gave my five-year-old nephew a little 6x6 canvas to paint on with me, but I stuck that sucker on my own wall and didn't try to pass it off as modern art. It's the scribblings of a child, and I completely agree with all the points you made. Love your kid, tell them they're talented because they need positive feedback, but don't play it up for personal gain.
I share your views on most modern art and the people who try to profit from it - the problem with the movement, or perhaps an aspect of the movement that makes it difficult for most audiences to appreciate it more, is that there really ARE some folks out there who do this kind of thing, and they do have a meaning behind it. That's maybe 15% of them. The rest are tacking on to the movement.
As for this girl Marla, I think we can all sleep happy with the fact that, someday, she's gonna realize how her parents came quite dangerously close to frakking up her life by turning her into a child star - the Shirley Temple analogy is quite apt (especially since Shirley Temple wasn't even that great of an actress - the curls did the blocking for her, so to speak) and she'll get right and pissed about it.
Or, who knows, maybe she'll try to live up to the expectations and actually produce. That's an overly optimistic viewpoint, but hey, someone has to make it.
I definitely agree. And for the record, your voice sounds just like I expected it to. :D
I remember seeing a news story about her; I didn't watch the whole documentary though, I wouldn't have been able to sit through it. I just remember that after the 5-something minute news segment I was shitting bricks, I was so pissed.
Didn't help any that my mom had to lean over to me every 30 seconds going "Oh look at that! That's so neat! Why couldn't you have done that when you were 4?" and just laughed. Never in my life did I want to slap my own mother... except that moment.
What's even sicker is the way this is being promoted. I am an in an Art AP class that I absolutely hate, the teacher knows nothing, we've never seen her art work and she claims it is because she's too busy but when you go down to New York City every other week to see a gallery opening then you aren't too busy to work.
You know that person who feels like they'll never be a real artist so they associate themselves with people who will be? That's her.
But the thing is, she's full of bull. She said that for our breadth section what we should do is go back in our drawers and take out pieces we did in kindergarten to show that we have improved. I'd like to think after twelve years I have improved. But to me, my art teacher is trying to make a Marla.
Also, that quote could not be truer, she was talking about appropriation, because copying is bad, but appropriating is fine. There was an artist in the 80s that took famous, old, photographs, signed her name to it even though everyone knew it wasn't hers, and made a fortune.
Like you, I don't love modern art all the time, but I can appreciate it if there;s something behind it and I know there is also skill. I was brought up on a diet of Picasso in my mother's art books so there is something about him that I genuinely enjoy, but I know that it doesn't always work like that. Picasso knew what he was doing, that's a fact.