Marla Olmstead, an eight year old art prodigy

Contributor

by Zolton in New Art on Thursday 8 January 2009

I watched the controversial documentary last night, My Child Could Paint That, which looked at the then four-year old art ‘genius’, Marla Olmstead, who was already exhibiting regularly (and selling her works for thousands), despite her age and the questions that were being repeatedly raised about the influence her rather ambitious father might have been having on her artwork. It was fascinating to watch, both for the trainweck story plots which hijacked its generally reverential tone, and for the process by which Olmstead was creating her vibrant, colourful, and exciting modern art pieces. Apart from anything else, the documentary raised important questions about what actually constitutes ‘good’ art and why some art sells for so much more than others. It’s all subjective, of course, but the outcry that greeted claims of third party interference in her paintings (a claim which has been noticeably muted over the years) suggests that it’s often less about the work itself than about the story or personality behind the artist who created it. Either way, Marla Olmstead is now eight years old, is still painting, and is selling her work for remarkable amounts. If you have a spare thirty thousand dollars or so, this piece above is apparently still available. So crack open that well fed piggy bank and get some modern art on your walls.
marla olmstead art

If you're an Aussie, passionate about the culture we feature on LAEM, and you have a large online social following, we have a deal for you: become a LAEM-fluencer and help us spread the word about our site. We'll give you free MP3 releases and some pretty cool extra rewards along the way. Hit us up here and tell us why you want to be a part of this new initiative.

111 comments

francis Thursday 8 January 2009

would this go for 30K if she wasn’t 8? difficult to know whether one can separate the art from the artist..
Zac Thursday 8 January 2009

Perhaps it wouldn’t, Francis, but art like most things in life is all about the story right?

Interesting post, Zolton.
yerp Thursday 8 January 2009

it does not surprise me that an already artistically inclined child who is under the right influence or training can paint like this. it seems children are able to look at the world as it is without being tainted by the habits of sight, if only someone will help them learn how to put that on canvas.

it’ll be interesting to see these kids’ pieces as they grow older and into adolescence.
e. d. bluntzer Sunday 1 February 2009

it’s a shame when educated grown-ups go after parents for doing what the parents thinks is best for their child. maybe i still have faith in people and believe the innocence of marlla olmstead and her family. she has made a name for herself by way of her parents and other adults could not wait to sell and buy her works. do i have the woolpulled over my eyes? maybe, but i think not. this child is amazing, her work speaks for themselves. i would give almost anything to have the shows this child has had in her short life. i am proud of her and her family. they raised a well rounded little girl, who is still a child and has so much more to give to the world of art.
congrats mr. & mrs. olmstead. you are all in my prayers. God Bless
C Sunday 8 March 2009

“it does not surprise me that an already artistically inclined child who is under the right influence or training can paint like this. it seems children are able to look at the world as it is without being tainted by the habits of sight, if only someone will help them learn how to put that on canvas.”

It’s not. Her paintings look nothing like this when her father isn’t “helping” the painting along.

“it’s a shame when educated grown-ups go after parents for doing what the parents thinks is best for their child.”

The parents are doing what’s best for the parents.

“maybe i still have faith in people and believe the innocence of marlla olmstead and her family. she has made a name for herself by way of her parents and other adults could not wait to sell and buy her works. do i have the woolpulled over my eyes? maybe, but i think not.”

You enjoy being fooled. Her father was a painter with a floundering career until he found a decent gimmick, which requires the abuse of trust of strangers. People want to be fooled, which is why people who know full well her story will continue to buy these gimmicky paintings at insanely high prices.
J.Lawrence Tuesday 17 March 2009

The art is what the viewer wants it to be. If the art excites you and invigorates your visual sensibilities that should be what counts. Whether it’s Marla, herself, or her and her father, or her and a team of experts, or not her at all… the art is still something that is attractive to alot of people. The end result is what we should care about. I know… no one wants to be deceived. But if you love beautiful art… and you think the art is beautiful, then I don’t see the problem.
Jenny Thursday 19 March 2009

I think Marla is a fraud.
You can’t watch that film and not have very serious doubts about the the parents influence. They are caught in several very blatant lies and the father is extremely unconvincing in many of his explanations. Additionally, he just flat out lies about his own ability as an artist. In the DVD outtakes he said he was a very talented artist as a teenager which contradicts what he says in the film about how he doesn’t know about art. Pure balderdash.

And physically how could a tiny 4-year old reach the middle of some of these very large canvases without climbing all over it? Look, if the kid could paint she should be able to do it on camera for the filmmaker.She doesn’t. Period, end of story.
Brian Saturday 21 March 2009

Jenny –
Watch the video again and you can see her using a ladder in the back yard to paint. You don’t exactly have to think outside of the box to figure that out. I don’t even think you’re thinking inside the box. That kind of mentality is what causes you to call fraud.
Honestly, from the eyes of an individual who does not see what others see with modern art, I saw very very little difference between the paintings that sold for thousands and the painting that 60 Minutes aired.
I’m not saying her father did or did not help, but I do keep an open mind because I live in reality where I know that the mass will typically always follow the “expert” opinion, which then gives the mass a doctoral degree in said topic. Seriously, when has an opinion from some expert EVER been non-biased. It doesn’t exist.
Everyone knows drama makes the world go round…..
NebulaExplorer Thursday 2 April 2009

I agree with Brian. The media wants us to believe there are rotten people like that out there to raise doubt in the mind of society and to keep us all scared and “in control.” The beautiful thing about art is that you have the freedom to take what you want out of it and for it to be what you want it to be. In a way Marlas story is a piece of art and i like to take the good from it and brush the negativity that 60 minutes placed upon such an adorable little girl and her family, off my shoulders! We have all lost sight of the truth, lets all come together and bring it back!
Katrina Sunday 5 April 2009

I watched the movie, and I do believe that the MEDIA has the ability to make ANYTHING look different than reality, especially when it gives THEM positive publicity. To say that Marla is an artist is just too clean for modern american media, which now looks for the evil in EVERYTHING nowadays…and even if it means disrupting and sometimes even ruining a person’s life..they do not care its all about the dollar for them. I am not an expert, but I am a parent and I do encourage my children in all that they do, so when i tell my daughter on the field, “run” you can do it, does that make her a fraud for being the best player on the team…I dont think her father is a fraud, I dont think Marla is a fraud, I think Marla is a child that paints and its up to the buyer of her art to decide if it IS ART…i think anything that is CREATED by a human being is ART….if you dont like it, dont buy it, dont critisize it…..
Dan Shaw Sunday 5 April 2009

I have seen what 60 min has done in the past to a organization I belong to ,reporting there thoughts and not the facts. They take some info and decide if they want the truth or story. I am not God or do I know the facts, but do not trust everything you see on 60 min.
Susie Monday 6 April 2009

Having just watched the film I have to say that the artist of the paintings done on camera and all the other paintings are done by different people. I’m not an art critic by any means but having raised children of my own, I know the difference between my son’s fingerpainting and work done by a grown up. The works of art are so astoundingly different from one another I can’t believe that nobody out and out called them liars. Or the father is anyway. I think his wife trusts him and believes her daughter truly is a prodigy as much as she may dislike the word.
MOM IN MN Tuesday 7 April 2009

I JUST WATCHED THE DOCUMENTARY ABOUT MARLA. IT SEEMS TO ME ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS THAT SHE SPOKE ABOUT OTHER HELP WITH PAINTING. EXAMPLE WHEN SHE REFERS TO HER BROTHER ZANE PAINTING THE “GREEN ONE”. THIS WAS IGNORED BY THE FATHER COMPLETELY. MARLA CLEARLY STATES SHE DID NOT DO ANYTHING ON THAT PAINTING? ALSO AT THE END OF THE DOCUMENTARY WHEN SHE TELLS HER FATHER TO PAINT A FACE OR TO TELL HER WHAT TO DO. THE FATHER CLEARLY BECOMES FLUSTERED AND UNCOMFORTABLE, WHY DID HE NOT TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK HER ON CAMERA IF HE HAD EVER HELPED PAINT HER PICTURES? THEY ARE COOL PAINTINGS REGARDLESS OF WHO PAINTED THEM SO WHY NOT BE HONEST, I FEEL THAT MONEY IS THE MOTIVATION..
margie Tuesday 7 April 2009

I watched the doco today, & I had mixed feelings all the way. I want it to be true& I love the artwork. Reading the comments has shed no light either way. I have come to the conclusion that art is indeed in the buyer’s eye. you know what you like, who cares who painted irt?
Is it the bragging rights? This was painted by an inpoverished elephant with 1 foot? Is that cool? Are we sick?Live & let paint. If it pleases you, buy it! Why does it have to carry a story.
Rumblefish Wednesday 8 April 2009

Why do people type in all caps?

Also, the film’s title is “My Kid Could Paint That,” not to be nit-picky. Having watched the film at least a year ago, I was not completely convinced one way or the other. However, to not be able to see the difference in technical ability between “Ocean” and most of the others is baffling. I’m not a painter, but there really is a glaring gap that I would think anyone could spot. That said, I don’t think the mother is lying when she says she doesn’t see the difference. It’s her child, so she thinks anything done by them is beautiful.
Alicia Thursday 23 April 2009

I just watched the documentary also. I think all the truth anyone needs to know came from Marla herself. Her words were captioned because she was so young some may not understand her, but it was loud and clear to me. No wonder her father tried painfully hard to ignore and talk over her during those moments of filming. But out of the mouths of babes…….( and seriously, didn’t they think she was going to learn how to talk one day??)

It was almost painfully awkward to watch her father trying to explain why she was asking him to tell her what to do, or for him to finish the painting for her during the filmmakers attempt to film her starting and finishing a piece. Her father and the gallery owner, Anthony Brunelli were basking in the glory of the limelight and the allure of the almighty dollar.

Honestly, I think they would have been well-respected and made a decent, HONEST amount of money had they been up front and said the paintings were father/daughter collaborative works. Neither one of them is a particularly remarkable artist on their own, but together….which clearly that’s what it is….they do some stunning work. So you make less of a splash and not as much money…but integrity is still priceless.
elisabeth Thursday 23 April 2009

I just finished the film and I am not convinced one bit that the paintings she was filmed painting and the others were painted alone by Marla. It is possible that she had a hand in the work, but I think the footage of her asking her father for direction is particularly damning. On another note the materials she paints with are not chosen by her, she doesn’t seem to choose the canvas size or color, which is something most artists consider carefully when working. Furthermore, the titles of some of those pieces are obviously not given by Marla, the supposed artist. It is an interesting film, but it also saddens me. Mostly because it seems as if the father may truly be trying to pull one over on us, but also on his wife and close friends.
ChasM Friday 24 April 2009

Having just watched the documentary and the outtakes (which is an excellent documentary in itself), I share the doubts that Amir so painfully wrestles with. Many of the paintings were clearly done by Marla alone (though perhaps with some verbal guidance from Mom or Dad). Others, such as “Blue Ball Burning,” “Colorful Rain,” “Glitter,” and “Sunflower,” are, to my mind, display a much more detailed and polished technique than the video documented “Ocean,” which was made to “prove” that Marla did ALL the paintings by herself. The dad’s categorical insistence that they had absolutely no hand in the creation of the paintings just doesn’t ring true.

My doubts were even greater after watching the outtakes. Notably, her mom wrote a long caption for a Marla piece she was submitting to a feminist art show (watch the outtakes to see what I mean). From this and other bits in the documentary (e.g., Mark’s anxious comments while Marla paints, and the naming of the paintings, surely not done by a child) it’s fairly clear that the parents very much had a hand in the process. How much is the question.

I taught English for many years, and I’ve seen anxious parents go down the slippery slope of “editing” their child’s writing to the point that much of the prose little resembled the writing in an earlier draft.

Here, we not only have anxious parents, but a whole lot of money and publicity thrown in to boot – a lethal mix of potential adulteration and misrepresentation. I truly hope that the parents are completely innocent – for there sake and the sake of their children – but their actions and words, particularly that of the dad, have not convinced me to forgo my reasonable doubt.
ChasM Friday 24 April 2009

PS Please pardon my typos in the previous post – I’m not very good editing in these small text boxes.
Michelle Wednesday 29 April 2009

I just watched the documentary as well and too have mixed feelings. I will say, Marla asking her dad to help is not too uncommon for children or adults. I have four kids and they can do amazing things on thier own, but the second I walk in the room they want me to do it for them. Also I am very capable of cooking my own meals but if my mother-in-law is in the kitchen with me I will always ask her what she thinks I should do about this or that. It is human nature a sort of self-esteem thing, we all want approval of others. And about her dad getting the canvas and the paint all ready, that is just logical, she is a kid, she would naturally need help with those sort of things, her being an artist doesn’t make her an experienced adult. I think many times we underestimate the mind of a child. Each of them are brilliant and can teach us so much. I do not know if her dad helped her or not, but every artist gets thier inspiration from somewhere, sometimes all it takes is a little nudging and we can all do greater things than we could ever know. In any case, I am sure the truth will come out at some time, she will not be a child forever. In the mean time, the work is beautiful and exciting and we know she painted a few of them herself, you can watch many videos online. They are all better than anything I could do!
Ericka Friday 1 May 2009

I absolutely love everything about the “Marla Olmstead Story” for so many reasons:
1) It draws into question the “validity” of modern art in its title, “My kid can paint that.” Honestly, haven’t we all thought that at some point when viewing a particular painting? When it comes to modern art collectors are not buying the painting for itself… they ARE buying the story. That’s what it’s all about, the pretense. As displayed by the collector who was so in love with the painting that he felt showed an ‘ascension’ and the “little door in the corner.” He said that when he talked to Marla about it she just shrugged. I imagined the little girl looking at him like he was crazy, as if she could articulate the depth of emotion that he was searching for.
She is a child unadulterated and without pretense. She paints because she enjoys it. She just looks at the canvas, and applies whatever she feels like. There is no end result in mind and no limitation… she picks up a color and goes for it… a little here a little there, now try this and that’s it. Just pure emotion, she’s “playing.” Its fun to her. However, when she is being watched/ filmed or Mommy and Daddy are saying “Do it, do it!” it’s not playtime anymore. It becomes a chore and she resists the pressure like any child would.
She is not a prodigy or a genius, she’s just a little girl that likes to paint and is good with matching colors.
2) How it displays the predatory nature of society. I felt horrible that the family had to go thru that. It must have been terrible for them but it made it glaringly obvious that society, collectively, has a fundamental problem.
It started as a really cool human interest story about a little girl who paints. It was just that simple, an “Aww” moment. But then the Micheal(?), the gallery owner, devised the plan to stick it to the art world by giving her a show. He expressed clear resentment of the fact that some artists succeed, not because of talent, but because of the story and he exploited that and it worked. It resulted in some unhappy prick saying “What? A child can’t possibly do that! NO NO NO.” and that set in motion the doubt. So what… just let the little girl paint.
Why do we have to make them out to be frauds or cause them to justify and defend themselves? Its jealousy because of the attention and money that she is making and I think its sad that society has so much “hateration.” We expose, vilify and regularly attack celebrities and public figures when they are just living their lives. If people want to spend $30,000 on a painting that they believe was painted by a 4 year old why does anyone else feel the need to intervene in that process to say that Marla or the art are not deserving?
Do I believe that Marla painted all of the paintings? Yes I do.
Do I believe she did so without any guidance? Prob not.
I do feel that there are some inconsistencies in the style of the paintings that I have seen. Some seem to stick out like a sore thumb. The scene in which she asked her Dad to help her or tell her what to do was a very natural scene between a child and parent. I am sure that happened all the time between them because parents naturally teach their children. I am sure he taught her how to hold the brushes and spatula, and how to apply the paint. I am sure there were times that she got stuck and he’d say something like “Use the blue now.” It’s just natural. I suspect that the father got caught up in the hoopla and became fearful of admitting that at times he makes suggestions. That too is human nature and I don’t believe he deserves to be vilified. This family was thrust into the limelight and that has an unexpected and profound effect on people. Loved the scene when Marla says “Zane did the green one,” that she didn’t do anything on the green one. LoL
I personally LOVE the artwork and I hope she keeps painting. The work is different to me because it looks like a child did them with unrestrained use of color. I don’t get a feeling that the paintings are trying to say anything (the pretense). Besides, I think its fab that at 4 years old she found a niche in which she can potentially build a career to comfortably support herself.
Would I EVER spend thousands on a modern painting? Prob never. I don’t assign that great a value to it. Instead I’d go to art supply, buy paint and get on the floor with my son because hey… “MY kid could paint that!”
Stephanie Saturday 2 May 2009

Our world is divided into dreamers and cynics, and “My Kid Could Paint That” serves as a perfect tale to assuage both. I really appreciate that the film maker struggled so hard with his own ethic and responsibility to both the story and to the family. I believe that it is plausible that Marla produced the paintings, but I agree very much with Erika (previous poster) regarding the probable relationship her father had with Marla in terms of the process and his participation. The fact she continues to paint and promote her art is somewhat revealing.
Jeff Saturday 2 May 2009

I’m not taking the documentary or anyone’s abilities lightly, but does Marla work in any other disciplines? I was thinking something along the lines of refrigerator art. I know it might be somewhat primitive for her, but it might have some comparative abilities. I’m sure if very early works were kept of by a famous artist or their families, they would fill warehouses. If she doesn’t have these early rendering of ability, maybe what we are seeing now from her is normal for someone with advanced skill levels. So to say that some aren’t as complex as others, maybe the less complex would be ones that normally would be discarded by her or her family. As to her father coaching her, we all are coached in one or another form throughout life. If her father was an excellent athlete, but couldn’t achieve at the highest levels himself, he would still have that love of athletics and coach her in that endeavor. She may someday decide not to paint again. If what a person sees moves them today without knowing the artists background, then it should move them tomorrow.
Chet Riley Friday 15 May 2009

Great Flick- I feel that allot modern art does depend on the viewer, and generally is not subjective. Allot of modern art looks like “My Kid Could Paint That”. Many of her works were cool. But if you look at the variation amongst them, its like different artists did them. Yes even in Modern art there is style or basic characteristic that is evident. As a kid I had my monster faze, then my battle field phase, then forts. (But I am not a prodigy)
The works that were displayed are so different, the only ones that were similar where the ones that they taped her doing. The works that we did not see her complete are so much more finished looking, and looked like she probably was not the only one who participated in its creation.
And geez, the parents were a train wreck, the father caught in a lie, is a blundering mess. The mother is even worse she cries because of the families reputation, but not because she along with others exploited the heck out of her kid.
I am all for sticking it to the modern art world, and I feel if some rich idiots want to buy the work, excellent. But the parents have some major issues with reality…… These were the original Octo- Parents!!
Amy Saturday 16 May 2009

I just watched this Documentary myself.
I was unable to come to a clear conclusion on her participation in the process. But I did notice a few things here and there.

1) Dad didn’t seem to be able to focus much attention on her unless she was painting, Yet when too much attention (cameras, other people) was present she seemed to shut down and focus on getting her fathers’ attention back on her. I did not see the DvD so I do not know if the extra scenes show any, but is the mom ever there when she completes these? It seems to me like it is always dad. I would be worried that she is doing it cause she has learned that that’s how you get dad’s attention, not because she is enjoying it.

2) Whether she did them or not, her parents and the coffee shop owner and the gallery owner (who I happen to agree with on a few points) have taken the decision of what she wants to do with her life away from her. She now HAS to do this. She has “collectors” they expect her to go on painting, What if it turns out this IS her refrigerator art and what she really wants to do is become a veteranarian? or a Landscape architecht? Or a Housewife?

Every time (on camera) someone asked what she wanted to do “Paint” was never the answer.

When someone asked her if she wanted to paint, (which happens several times) she only answers “Yes” Once.

When I was young I always wanted to be painting or drawing or playing with clay or making snowflakes or smearing windows with paint just to see what it looked like, I didn’t own a single doll, toy, book, bit of furniture or clothes that didn’t have paint or markers or some other art supply (drafting tape mummy barbie! that was an expensive stint in the corner…lol) staining or stuck to it.

If someone asked me “Do you want to paint?” I said “I already am!”

3) I think the father needs to seriously encourage her to paint alone. I mean, if she is enjoying it, leave her to it. If she’s doing it to get daddy’s attention, then he needs to find another hobby for her.

HOWEVER all that said

-Artists Mature… her works (if they are hers) are not getting less polished they appear to be getting more structure. She is a small child, as her perceptions of the world around her change you should expect more structural elements to come into the work. She clearly enjoys the movement and the color involved, but she is probably just now realizing that movement can tell a story and coming to an age when pure bright colors are more satisfying to look at and work with for her.

-Prodigy? No… at least not yet. The art teacher who refuses to teach her… shame on you! Check your self deprecating ego at the door… this girl needs knowledge… she needs someone who isn’t her dad to explain the basics of art to her… she needs someone to teach her to prepare her own supports (and if you think 8 is too young, you are wrong. I was choosing my own supports at 8 and so were you, you just didn’t know what it was called when the crayon hit the wallpaper) care for her brushes, basic color theory ( a few of her comments led me to believe that when she asks for help with mixing she gets a frustrating non response… she wants to learn and dad can’t won’t, and indeed, shouldn’t be the one teaching her)

She also needs to learn about realism, impressionism, perspective, lighting, shading, hue values, composition, balance, technique. If she can master all of that in the next two years (who among us had when we were ten? that would be a sign that she was special!) then yes she is a prodigy. If she then chooses to continue with the type of art she has been doing (or credited with doing) she has made an informed decision, learned her craft and chosen a path and can silence doubters forever. There isn’t a single verifiable child prodigy who just “Does” with no instruction.

A child may have a gift for being able to quickly learn pieces of music, or finds that reading music makes perfect sense. There may be children who are very good at learning maths. There may be children who understand color or have a gift for what goes well together, But all of these things mean nothing and go to waste without a good teacher.

I have been drawing since I could hold a crayon, and drawing well since I was given glasses as an toddler, my mother said it was freakish how I went from covering entire sheets of paper with color to drawing recognizable things in the space of a day, the day I got my first pair of glasses. But I still needed someone to learn from… I had books, teachers, artists’ biographies, method and material manuals, and endless hours of reading the labels and experimenting with everything in the art supply store.

Yes she has some talent, but right now and until someone steps in and helps her without ulterior motives, no she is not a prodigy. She *IS* an artist, because she clearly finds some fulfillment while she is painting, and because people who consider it art buy it.

But she really isn’t doing anything particularly hard for an 8 year old to do.

The argument that she is because she “covers the canvas and small children don’t do that” is flimsy, because at some point someone gave that canvas a coat of color for a background and taped the edges for her, I guarantee you it wasn’t her.

Also on the ones where she covers even the ground with designs… I am willing to bet at some point dad said (and maybe innocently) “What about all this dead space you didn’t use? you should cover all the canvas.”. And its fine for him to tell her that, its a point I often have to make to people I am giving art lessons to… don’t be afraid of the blank space…fill it in if you want to, don’t leave it blank cause you are scared to fill it.

I think the dad has probably lied about many things it would have been no big deal for him to have come clean about when originally asked, but since he lied then, the lies have grown, as they must to cover the original falsehood.

Does he help her?… Obviously.

The correct way to respond would be either;
“I stretch and prepare the canvas, by which I mean I pick a color for the background and tape the edges for her, and then I give her a random set of paints and implements and tools”

or

“She tells me what color background and tools she wants and chooses the colors her self and I get them ready for her.”

Both of these answers can obviously be the case, and are perfectly legitimate types of help to give your toddler if they want to paint. Saying “No she does it all her self, I just get the canvas ready.” CAN mean either of those things, but strangely, doesn’t.

So is she an artist? Yes
Prodigy? Not at this point
Does her dad help more then he admits? Clearly
Are her Paintings Art? Yes. Because they are the productive of a creative process and people find them satisfying to look at.

I myself do not care for the “My kid could paint that” school of art in general. I think it speaks to a lack of communication skill in the artist. I did sell a painting I had done in this style when I was Younger for about 500$.

Many people had seen it , but it wasn’t until I changed the name of it to “Pain” from “Playing with my first palette knife” and stopped telling people it didn’t mean anything past I was playing with my new palette knife, that anyone wanted to buy it.

And that alone turned me off of churning more out for easy money. I knew there was no skill involved and I felt like I’d cheated. I donated the money to a charity even tho I really could have used it, it felt wrong to spend it.

Later that may be a collectors’ Item or a rare find (the only one by the artist or whatever) and someone might try to sell someone else some snake oil about how it shows a depth of technique…blah blahblah… but I will go to my grave laughing at them because it was only me playing with a palette knife when I was a teenager; and that’s all it will ever be.

so when Marla discovers that her friends’ parents gave them paper and crayons and put their fingerpaintings on the fridge or sent them to gramma, and put the bbest of their efforts in the baby book, she will have a private laugh over all of this… cause she was only fingerpainting, and that’s all it ever will be.
margaret tuttle Thursday 21 May 2009

I watched the docunmentry of Marla the other day and found it hard to stop watching. I have always thought that childrens art is incredible. I am an artist and i used to look at my kid’s painting and use her choice of colors! I feel really sorry for these people, sooner or later Marla will stop letting them manipulate her and the bucks will come to the end. The gallery owner will go out of business and end up trolling for a new child artist at kindergartens where he will be arrested ha ha. The parents willl probablly divorce, fighting over whether this is good for the kid, the kid will probably end up in therapy because she let them down because she just wants to be a kid. The brother who was swated aside so sis could be in the limelight will rebel. I think a lot of kids coulld produce the same art if someone prepared the canvas and gave them the right tools. There’s a pig that sorta does the same thing. Do I feel sorry for the suckers who paid big bucks for these paintings not a bit. I remember going to an art opening, there was and artist who piled a bunch of hay up in the middle of the floor and called it “back to nature”, the funny thing was my husband dropped an half eaten apple core next to it. We watched as people circled the thing and stood back and talked about what a contrast the apple core made. Fools. I hope that this story has a hpppy ending, but I wouldn’t count on it.
Ashley Friday 22 May 2009

I just watched the Marla Olmstead story, and honestly am blown away! I think we’re missing the big picture here. I read all these comments about the difference in artwork, and techniques, for god sakes the girl was 4 at the time. What techniques did she embody? I dont think one painting resembled the next because she sat and did what she enjoyed, what looked pretty. To critique a young girls paintings is just truly sad, but to push her out in the media like that too also is a shame. All I know is that when I watched that documentary, the paintings I saw were beautiful, wether done by a 4 year old or a grown adult. But I do not believe there is conclusive amounts of evidence proving that the father was artist pushing the brush or Marla was the sole inventor. I just look at it for what it is, and what it should have been from the very beginning, very innovative remarkable and pleasing works of art.
Another comment I have….Many people are saying well she cant paint on camera it cant be her, she’s asking for her fathers help, he must do them! In my opinion and what I saw was the fact that she was 4 at the time, she was under pressure. I mean i’m under pressure when i’m expected to do something of magnitude, and I think they put a lot of expectation on her. I think what Marla did was turn to the person who was her assistant, the person who introduced her to art herself…I think that for the father to sit there and say “well Honey does daddy paint faces on your paintings”….well that in itself would be more convicting than him being frustrated and at a loss for words….like just waiting for the staged conversation to get him out of the deep water.
Anyways, I enjoyed the documentary, and I for one enjoyed the artwork….I guess im a sole believer in good people and believe all people are innocent until proven guilty, and I dont believe theres any evidence showing that father painting those paintings….
Rob Tuesday 26 May 2009

Watching the documentary, I found myself with the sense of hope that she is for real and it’s not a hoax, and a sadness when, by the end of the film, I believed it actually was one. Then I got the joke!! Marla’s father is making a social statement no different than Warhol painting a soup can and calling it art. The soup can is art not because of the amount of time spent or difficulty of creating it but it drew it’s value in most expert eyes because of the attention it received. Marla’s father whether he painted, coached or aided is not the point as far as i can see. What is amusing to me is not the controversy of the “hoax” but the fact people placed less value on what they were viewing when they thought it may not be done by the “child prodigy”. That is what the father was basically saying in the studio interview half way through the documentary. Mr.Olmstead is my hero for sticking up for his family and simultaneously sticking his nose at the so called experts and collectors that wouldn’t have given two minutes of their precious time if they thought an adult created the works. I personally like his/her paintings very much. they have an incredible sense of innocence and sophistication that I don’t think could have been created by he or she alone. I also happen to be an big admirer of Warhol’s Soup can.
Jo Thursday 28 May 2009

I have just watched the movie. I cannot say definitively if her father helped her or not. However I must raise the question does it matter? Are these great works of art only because of her age? I thought that art, particularly this genre of modern art, is about what it inspires in the viewer. If she’s doing it all herself GREAT! She’ll hopefully have a long and prosperous career. If she’s not doing it herself and her Dad is lending a hand it doesn’t change the whimsical view or the bold colors. It simply means that to create such a great work two artists were needed. I would just say that if that were the case the father should fess up. But I see no reason to quibble over the artist. Let’s enjoy the art and save the drama for things that actually matter.
anon Thursday 28 May 2009

Everyone is caught up with Marla. Has anyone thought about the detrimental effects the focus on her “24 hours” will have on her brother. It’s all about Marla. She also disparages him in the documentary saying that he paints but his paintings won’t be in art shows and her father agrees with her right in front of him. Art is art and it is subjective. My problem with this story are the parenting issues and how it will affect the family dynamics in the long run.
Rumblefish Friday 29 May 2009

In response to Jo’s comment about whether or not it matters if her father helped: 1) This question has already been discussed in the thread if you’d like to have a look up above. 2) It matters because it’s fraud. I agree with you about the value of art being in the eye of the beholder and that whether or not they were done by just Marla or both Marla and her father they are still equally beautiful. However, these paintings were marketed as being done by a child prodigy. Whether or not that should matter, it did to a lot of the buyers. There are people who can forge masterpieces so well that they fool many art experts, but people wouldn’t buy them if they knew they were just imitations.
Christina Thursday 4 June 2009

To some degree it almost isn’t relevant wether or not this child’s artwork had “help”. After all, it’s the end result we see isn’t it? Many artists selling for a lot of money have assistants, and some are outright jobbed out. As far as commercial relevance, let us not forget that the currant art market has been totally steered for a long time by a hand full of self appointed “experts”, who have dictated the talent. Basquiet, Harring, Schanble,, the list of the discovered is a long one. Van Gough, only sold one painting in his lifetime.
I think that todays art market was beautifully summed up by the wealthy couple who bought “Ocean”. They didn’t appear to know what or why they we purchasing a Marla painting, other than she had been validated for them. Then after the sale, they went outside, and got into their butt ugly, but equally trendy Hummer. To some extent, our entire world is dictated by hype and media. Only the price tag is negotiated.
GC Friday 5 June 2009

Whether Marla had help in completing her painting isn’t really the important point.
The important point is, at what point does her genuine interest in painting becomes a direction/set up by her father to paint….because the latter is exploitation. At what point does encouragement become “pushing”?
Kron Friday 12 June 2009

I quote Margie:
Who cared who painted it? Is it the bragging rights? This was painted by an impoverished elephant with 1 foot? Is that cool? Are we sick ?
And I ad:
Why buy paintings?= For the same reason we buy jewelry, make up, sport cars, etc… we want to be notorious and attractive. You want your painting to have a story because you think the drama will ad to your value. Like women who really think diamonds are forever…
Same reason why that kid’s father is pushing her, dismissing his son, her mother wanting it to be over, making a website to keep the family business, etc. People see what they want… art’s value is ‘felt’ by the artist.. everyone else is just measuring a means to an end. People just want!
Mike Friday 19 June 2009

Why do so many feel compelled to make any kind of judgment about Marla with a documentary as the only source of information?

This is a case where I think it is extremely appropriate not to decide anything.Certainly the central issues are unknown, and largely unexplored. I’m no art expert, but aren’t there scientific methods used to establish authenticity?

OTOH I recall a nice book on paintings by cats.
Rumblefish Saturday 20 June 2009

In response to Mike: There are scientific methods used to est. authenticity in the case of a possible forgery. They can determine what materials were used in the paint and if those were around at the time the original was made. A lot of it has to do with dating the painting. In this case, the problem is not when, but who. So, scientific methods would be largely useless in this case.
A. Darrell Sunday 21 June 2009

What if, the mother actually did the early paintings herself? Do I believe she did? No. But, if you want to consider all the possibilities you may as well add this to your list.

Marla did say that the work on the walls was hers, when they were going to a showing of the paintings, and I think she believed that it was and I know of nothing to prove her wrong.
Kevin Monday 22 June 2009

I just saw the movie and was browsing the internet to find more information on Marla. I agree with most of your postings that the art world is a bit crazy when it comes to the value of art. Why is it so important to others to make the family out to be something so evil. They aren’t horrible parents or demons. They may be hiding some of the truth but this doesn’t make them evil. I think those out there that need to think that way have some real issues themselves. I would rather believe it is all true and she did it all herself but I am sure that isn’t the whole truth either. Either way the art is very interesting and I find it pleasing to look at. Would I pay a lot of money for it. No way. But I might buy a print to frame. .

All I can say is I hope the best for the family and especially Marla and Zane. They are very cute kids. Why would anyone want to wish they grow up needing therapy and divorced parents. Please, who here is worse? Someone who may not be telling the whole truth about some artwork or someone hating them for doing it?
Annzetch Monday 22 June 2009

As many of you here have posted after viewing the documentary, I too would like to share my doubts, but mostly my hopes that Marla and her family may yet be redeemed. A quarter of the way through the documentary a stumbling block seemed to catch the feet of the narrative. It wasn’t clear why all the joy of the positive media coverage was condensed into such a small proportion of the film, until the controversy reared its head, leaving the doc’s story tattered and so very sad. I was able just now to stumble upon the Marla website, with a very bold label across the top stating that her paintings are (now, I’m guessing) filmed beginning to end, with two-or-so minute clips from the videos of three of her paintings available to the public.
I’ll admit I’m something of a romantic, but I had picked out the ‘Rabbit’ painting as something a bit advanced in the tonality of the background for a child to master, not to mention the choice of the vibrant blue to highlight and almost leap from the canvas in contrast. It was (as the parents seemed to have tried to describe) wonderful in a way to see her gusto, singular focus, and precision in the final layering of pattern on layer upon layer of thick paint.
I also remember the gut-wrenching reaction of the early bidder on ‘Ocean’ who, standing in the room, couldn’t bring herself to rate the paintings on par with one another.
I’m just going to say that I think it’s possible. That’s all. I’ve taken many courses in my time in art & history, etc. and have seen that when the top layers of classic paintings are penetrated with varying spectral light there are just as many colors and changes of design in process as any of the voyeurs of the art kingdom today. I’m sorry for any seed of doubt that may have slithered its way into the dynamic, but I have an idea that I believe in her handiwork being exceptional and child-like in the best of ways.
I would hope, in close, that at least she stays as oblivious to the pressure/controversy as possible, because in the end she is just a little girl dancing out her particular type of expression. The truth is the truth, whatever, but I’m personally willing to have faith where I may. Just my thoughts, I’ve enjoyed all of yours.
Sean Tuesday 23 June 2009

“You enjoy being fooled. Her father was a painter with a floundering career until he found a decent gimmick, which requires the abuse of trust of strangers.”

I think a large factor in the fraud portrayed by the media is that Mark has held a paintbrush in his lifetime. This does not make him a painter; in fact, in the documentary you see some of his paintings in the basement; they are certainly nothing more than what they are treated as: junk in the basement. I have a hard time believing that his hand would take “refrigerator art” to the level of a masterpiece.

Screen shot from the documentary:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_fSpo9WV50t4/SkBtmUwR-zI/AAAAAAAAAB4/MO6QjVSwVYY/s1600-h/Picture+1.png

There are also a lot of questions about exploitation. “What if this isn’t what she wants to do with her life?” “Her collectors expect her to continue!” “What if painting is just for Daddy’s attention now??” We cannot try to pry into the psyche of a five year old, we’re not five anymore. We can pretend to understand a family situation because maybe that is how we look back on our own now that we have grown into adults. To the first, she’s five, this may not be what she wants to do with her life, if it isn’t her paintings will show it, this is guaranteed. From the lack of quality in work, the demand from collectors will dwindle and eventually that part of her life will be just a memory. Sure, she’ll be remembered for her feats as a painter, but that doesn’t mean she won’t be able to live outside of that memory.

Another very important fact to consider is the first documentation of Marla which aired on 60 minutes. The painting “Flowers” is highly consistent with “Ocean” “Fairy Map” “Sick Teeth” and many others, it shows a growth. From further documentation, “Colorful Rain” exhibits a mark consistent in many other pieces as well. Did the parents maybe toss a helping hand in? It’s possible, but I believe that if they did touch that canvas, it’s extremely obvious. There are about half a dozen pieces that look like watered-down Pollocks, and a few others that don’t have nearly the same depth. if any paintings are fraudulent, I’m going to say it’s them. We’ve seen her painting, several times; we can see a mark that is consistent throughout a portfolio, I’m going to put my trust in Marla’s own abilities and enjoy the pieces that I feel are the most accurate representations of a growing young artist. If it were for attention, we would see her shouting for Dad in all the videos shot, not just one or two. In the majority of the videos (even some of the “flops”) Marla appears to be focused on what she is doing, not her father.

This girl CAN paint, she knows how to use different tools, she knows where to put different colors, she knows how to “work the whole”, most of the things she knows I didn’t even begin to fully understand until my first year of high school onward. I’ve worked with a child before, trying to encourage him to achieve an understanding of painting; most kids don’t even have the intention span to work fifteen minutes at a time on such a large scale canvas, it’s intimidating to say the least. While Marla isn’t a “Prodigy” (nor did her parents market her as one, the MEDIA did) she is a growing artist and should be treated as just that, not a conspiracy theory.
Pat Thursday 25 June 2009

I watched the documentary on Marla Olmstead and found it rather amusing when Marla did not perform her artistic talent in front of the camera. although she did a much better job when her mother, Laura, filmed her,there was definite reluctance, if you will, to relax and be herself. I suppose that young children have an intuition about them that they know something is not quite right. Marla was aware of the cameraman in the house and all the to do that comes with visiting media, whether hidden or not.Perhaps this intuition is something we eventually lose as we age and we become more aware of what is happening around us. The scene where Marla is asking her father to help her with her painting does not appear unusual to me. He certainly taught her when she was two years old on the use of the tools of painting and perhaps some techniques. Who knows what goes through a child’s mind when they are asked to perform? Perhaps she felt that her father needed to perform as well and encouraged him to show her how to paint as he did when she was younger. Nevertheless, one can suggest anything but no one can suggest a production like those that were seen in the documentary.

When my son was four years old he could not talk. He was sent to a special education preschool to help him with his developmental delays. He was talking rather quickly, within a month. We don’t know what changed except that he was speaking. He also learned to write his name in cursive. This is a normal motion for young children, moreso than writing in block letters, which is awkward considering that circular motions are more within their age group. He did well enough in the special ed preschool that he was able to attend regular kindergarten when he was five. About two to three months later the teacher had a conference with us. In the conference she showed us his writing ability and commented how concerned she was that he could not write legibly yet. It was major scribbling, the letters were hardly legible. Of course, it was block letters. My husband told the teacher that he could write very well both his first and last names, something most of the kindergartners could not do. Why did my son choose to show that he could not write at all instead of showing his ability to write not just both of this names, but in cursive? Perhaps he was, like Marla, exerting his independent thinking and rather than perform for others chose to act like a five year old.
We can conclude anything we want from a documentary that is made from someone’s purpose for making it. Perhaps the parents could rig up non-stop hidden cameras in Marla’s painting area like security cameras in stores. Is it really necessary? Marla painted her art by herself because suggestions are what they are, we can follow them or we can use them to think of other things to do. Artists will paint what they have in mind.
The comments suggesting or blatantly calling the work a fraud brings to mind how little our society trusts people to tell the truth. More importantly the comments suggest that people cannot believe in the genius that is childhood, or in the wonderful talents and abilities so many of us are born with. Instead we reject the possibilities perhaps because we have no talent or because we have lost our faith in mankind. Marla doesn’t need to be labeled a prodigy for her to create art that people enjoy. We have young musicians like Mozart, we have savants that create art and music without any formal education on the subject. Believe in yourself and you will believe in others.
Lynnette Cooper Saturday 27 June 2009

I was excited to hear about Marla’s painting at age 2 and the filming of her painting at 4. I am an artist and started giving my first grandson paper,paint and a brush at 18 months. He squiggled it every where. By the time he was 3 we would by him expensive artist markers. He liked them because they were less messy. Most every thing he painted or sketched had the same designs until he turned 5. Yes I coached him, hes a child!! I also had to give him a clean brush for each color change. Because a child can’t mix colors they tend to muddy them up just as Marla did in one painting they filmed!!

I thought some of the finished paintings are way to large for her to of painted. Also way to many styles and sesigns. I did see several that a child could of painted and felt the complete backgrounds were painted and Marla added the final touches!! I watched the video over and over and felt the dad did most all the paintings and she helped a little!!

My grandson is going on 10 and thought he was an artist at 3. Like I stated before they get into patterens and a style of their own, At age 4 he sketched dozens of RT-D2 images with the color art markers. He still paints a little, but hes added collages and jewelry making to his artistic under takings!!

Now that Marla is 8 we need to see her paint again with out any coaching!!! The family has enough money they can get her art lessons!! I am not trying to be mean, just that there are to many art styles for someone her age, Plus some of the paintings are very adult looking!!

I bet Sony would pay for another film on her. That would be a good investiment for the family!! They could hire some one to film it for them!!.
Joi Wednesday 8 July 2009

Jenny,
I agree w/you! I watched the program last night and was torn in the beginning, but when I saw what she painted when her dad was in front of her, it was as if she was painting like a four yr. old should paint. Why didn’t they put those paintings up for sale like the others. Isn’t it odd what she’s able to accomplish off the camera? If she’s truly as talented as they’d like us to believe she is; then she should be able to paint regardless if we’re watching or not!
How about when she asked her dad to help her out a couple of times? and when she said it wasn’t her who painted one of her paintings it was her brother Zane.
I love all types of art, and we all can sit here and type about how we feel until our fingers bleed, I just hope when she writes her tell all book and you know she will that she does it w/out her dad standing around.
CNF Wednesday 8 July 2009

There are brush strokes on some of the early works that are more than twice her arms length. Lets go visit Big Foot on the UFO while we’re at it. There is no limit to the human capacity for wishful thinking.
Dave Saturday 11 July 2009

I’m a professional artist/designer who works as an art professor. To be honest I was in school when this Marla phenomenom occurred and had never really heard of her until watching the documentary on her.

Let me state that I like abstract expressionism and outsider art. Marla would definitely fall into the outsider artist category regardless of the contraversy since whether or not her dad helps her paint, she makes art for art’s sake, thus making her an outsider artist.

As a professor I look at students work all the time. I’ve learned to look for patterns in personal artist styles. I noticed in the documentary that all of the work done “off-camera” follows one style, and the work captured “on-camera” by the documentary follow another. The style that is shot “on-camera” follow basic brush strokes and large splotches of multicolored colors, no refined brush strokes or color pattern followed. The work shot “off-camrea” shows sophisticated brush strokes, color patterns and complex artist “build-up.”

As the old expression goes, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and moves like a duck, its probably a duck.The fact that she is never able to create the same style on-camera as off-camera leads me to seriously doubt that her early work was done entirely on her own, something just doesnt add up. The fact that the father’s tone in the film is one of a guilty boy when questioned by his mother about missing cookies doesnt help. I don’t necessarily believe that the father did all of the work from start to finish, but i believe some form of coaching or assistance was given.

In this case this sours me on the Marla ordeal because it is a case of being disingenuous. Part of her appeal was the perception that she could paint in an advanced style, some said her a “prodigy.” That was the hook, the appeal, the selling point. But in the end the work that is done “on-camera” although good for a young child was average, only slightly better than what my four year old niece could do given the supplies. Although you could argue the outsider artist angle it still feels like a fraud.
Michael Friday 24 July 2009

Even if her father did advise her, that little girl was the only painter. I am an artist, and have been since I was 8, I enjoyed drawing, painting, and carving, I was offered afree scholarship to Santa Fe PolyTechnic Institute. Which I didn’t take. But, from the start I was influenced by my father’s art, every artist gets their start from someone getting them into the art. Did you hear that? Everyone gets help from the beginning, and then take the technique to their own sphere, their own insight, but with some form of influence at the start . If you went to art school, from an instructor, some begin by doodling, others or the mojority of artist are influenced by others at the beginning, most by the aspect of their interest in the field.
Clearly, Marla, enjoyed her painting. You can see that clearly in the documentary. I want to call the CBS people and their crucifiction of the Olmstead family and tell them they are the real frauds here. They have stooped to sensationalism, and I hope their rating go to s–t! Pardon my french, if you will, but I want to congratulate the Olmsteads for raising a talented, gifted, young child.
All of you critics, get your head out of your a-s, and get a life! Every time when someone gets gifted, there is someone that will try their d—–t to discredit the good that has happened to the gifted.
I don’t think I’ll ever watch CBS again, they’ve lost all credibility, and gone to sensationalism to get their ratings to go up. And just like any other news people that stoop to sensationalism they lose it all.
Debra Tuesday 25 August 2009

Step into any artist’s sudio, or even log onto their website, and you will see some works that are more complete, more sophisticated, and more mature than other works. Not everything that flies off the ends of the artist’s brush become masterpiece, and the argument that all the works attributed to Marla do not look similar is invalid by that standard. The fact that four years later she is still painting and selling is a good indicator that Marla is an artist in the truest sense of the word . . . she is driven to share her visions with the world.

Some of you have never been to a dance or music recital to witness your child either out-performing everything you have witnessed previously, or flubbing up so bad that you wonder how they kept going for so long. Kids can and will always have the ability to surprise us.

I am glad to hear she is still painting . . . and apparently ignoring all her non-artist critics . . .
david macdonald Saturday 12 September 2009

well i guess we settled that.
Joseph Pedulla Wednesday 30 September 2009

We have to be careful here. We cannot like her work merely because she’s cute and young. The work has or does not have merit. All other extra-textual considerations are meaningless. It really is tangential whether she is doing the work herself or collaborating with her dad. What is important is the merit of the work itself–and in this area, we are all strangely silent and oblique. Very few posts are concerned with an honest aesthetic criticism of the work itself. We also have an unthinking tendency in America to associate freedom or escape from rigor or form to be something automatically associated with or indicative or artistry. It is the exact opposite that is true. All great artists have begun in rigor and ended in style–their own. Whether it’s in music, poetry, or painting, the first efforts have always been “ruled”; the latter, “unruly.” Now, with Marla the opposite is strangely the case. She has begun in looseness This, as I see it, is the most tragic thing about her situation. She may or may not become a great abstract expressionist, but she is not great merely because that is the type of art she is doing. We have to be willing to expend a few paragraphs on the work itself and see whether it stands up to the withering fire of mature aesthetic critique. Or are we afraid of hurting a child’s feelings? Is this about art? Or is it about day care?
Joseph Pedulla Wednesday 30 September 2009

In other words, before we conclude that the child is a “prodigy,” don’t we first have to establish that the paintings are “prodigious”?
J. Smith-Good Monday 9 November 2009

Marla is not a prodigy. She paints like a child of her age, nothing more. She has been coached by her parents where to put the paint and not to mix the colors together. The parents choose and prepare the canvas, choose and purchase the materials for her and I am sure tell her when to stop. Children given lots of paint will continue to paint until all of the colors are mixed together. It is fun for them to experiment like that. But without guidance, they will create a mess. Marla is told what to do and when to stop and where to add color, shapes, etc. They supply her with squeeze bottles full of diluted paint and spatulas for making different marks in the paint. She didn’t do these things on her own. Sadly, she thinks this is normal. Her father is a failed artist and the mother just goes along with the father’s scheme because they saw how naive the art public is and they wanted to use their daughter for profit. Marla is a little girl who is normal. They are making her neurotic and will cause her to hate art in the long run. They make her paint when they want her to—I doubt she asks EVERY DAY to paint like her parents claim. She is their little cash cow. I’m glad 60 Minutes did the story. When the parents did the “rebuttal” video showing Marla paint a painting “from start to finish,” I doubt it. Also, why is there not audio for all of that film? Dad’s coaching edited out? Why is music playing? Still a manipulated film. Let’s hear it without any music. The poor girl looks tentative and pushed when she is on camera. I taught elementary art for many years and have seen many childrens art and art production over the years. I think I may have had one prodigy out of hundreds of children. A child who produced art far above her chronological age and always went beyond and asked questions and used materials in a different way than other children of her age. This particular girl intrinsically understood line, space, color, balance, composition and consistently used her knowledge in MANY media. She was proficient in painting, drawing, sculpture, and ceramics. She liked what she was doing and was truly an artist. I had her as a student from first grade to fifth grade and she could easily articulate about her work as well. Her style matured as she aged and her parents did not push her, give her extra art lessons, etc. Years later, I found out that, although she still enjoys art, she is in medical school. Could she have been a Marla? Certainly. Her talents far surpassed Marla’s in every way.

The Olmsteads should be ashamed of themselves. They are a fraud. Using a child for gain and notoriety is disgusting. They just beamed when they were riding in limousines and getting the “star” treatment waiting to be on TV. That’s all they wanted. Especially Dad. It was so obvious. Marla could care less. When she was asked questions, she barely knew what was going on. When her father pressed her once: “Where are we going?” Marla looked at him puzzled. Then he said “We’re going to look at art. Who’s art?” Then she said “My art.” She didn’t really comprehend. She didn’t know at age four that they were going to a gallery and Mom and Dad were rubbing their hands together hoping to make thousands of dollars. The parents are sadly immature people who think that they have cleverly found out a way to make money doing nothing. Isn’t that the American Dream? Unless those people who bought those paintings really love them, the Olmsteads and the unscrupulous art dealer who also thought he could be famous, should give the money back and apologize.
Guy Monday 9 November 2009

I just watched the documentry and needed to find out a bit more.

To me i saw a happy well adjusted child who felt loved and protected by her parents.

The rest seems less important.
david macdonald Monday 9 November 2009

i find myself unable to see Charlie Rose at all the same as i used to.

meanwhile, by all accounts, Marla is still painting.

i don’t know that Mozart was either willing OR entirely authentic, at Marla’s age. Unquestionalbly, he would never have done what he did, left entirely to his own childish devices.

everyone is a team. Go, Team Marla!
david macdonald Saturday 14 November 2009

i will add one thing more: during the recent “balloon boy” media circus, there was that telltale “gotcha” moment when the balloon boy let it slip that he had remained hidden because “that’s what you guys said to do for the show”. That boy’s father, in that moment, actually reminded me of Marla’s father. The difference is, no matter how much Mr Olmstead MAY have interfered and intervened……..Marla really did get to ride in the balloon.
Paige Adele Tuesday 24 November 2009

I dont see how grow adults can sit here and talk bad about a talented 8 year old…jealous she has more talent then you have, think so. Leave her alone. “If” she did have the “help” of her dad its still her works and she is still an amazing child. She didnt ask for Fame she asked for some paint and a brush and went to town. if any of you had a father with talent like his im sure you wouldnt deny hiis teachings of how to do this or that. Let it go and stay out of her llife. If you like it dont question it. If you hate then go away.
Cristina Tuesday 24 November 2009

It’s really unbelievable how many people actually care enough to bash a small childs work.
Jealous?
Paint some pictures for your kid and sell them for big money too.
It’s aparently working for them.
considering it’s your business and everything whether she paints them or not.
Go fly a Kite.
Alicia Petals Tuesday 24 November 2009

In response to Christina:

Why do you conclude that anyone with doubt about the origin of these paintings must be “jealous”? And no one is “bashing a small childs work”, or proclaiming it to be our “business and everything”. This is nothing more than an ongoing “discussion” about a movie we’ve all seen. An online exchange of ideas and opinions about a controversial film. It’s how you learn and grow. You can “go fly a kite” if YOU want to. I’ll stick around and continue to expand my mind.
Jayson Saturday 28 November 2009

Cynics abound . I watched the film . The kid is good . .
Some people just can’t handle it .
That’s all there is to it
wes m Saturday 28 November 2009

I watch movie this morning and was jealous of the fact that a four yr old girl can see and do what most of us can not even see in our own minds.What a gift I know everyone is saying that this really dad work for coaching her but we all the same. Tell me when I taught my boys to play football and baseball was I the real player out there on the field? If one of them wanted to paint would I buy them the canvas and paints? damm right I would and if more people would open up there minds to their kids and what they could do the world would be better for all
Tiffany Adams Saturday 28 November 2009

IFirst of all please look over some of my spelling that was never my strongest point but I accept it and hopefully you will also. I have on 2 other occasians caught bits of this movie wishing only that I had started it form the beginning, today I did just that. I first of all would like to say our culture as a whole is the cause for the greif that this family and others like them face every day. We dont just take things for what they are or seem to be we have to pick it apart piece by piece to find faulse in it. If you had a percent on the amount of people that assumed this Child a hoax from the word go it would be at least 50%. Then the other % are the ones that are to the extreme knowing its true. Only to critisize each other for the difference of oppion. What right do either have? Where is the understanding and acceptance of what is , is and to just be. Well my oppion (which is just that a Opipion)seethat people fell they havee the right for one of 2 reasons 1.) $$$$$- Weather you have the $ to purchase a paiting or not If The People are forking out Benjis then we have the right to know if she was coached, taught methods, having pait time with mommy-daddy-brother-doggie or whom ever as if that really changes anything they are stil either beauitful ,ugly, or just simply colors on a board depending on the mind of the person. As parents we see beauty in whatever our kids do these just wanted to share and had a means to do so. NEVER asking in the beginning for $$ that was offord to them not requested by them. Who was that person to but a $ ammount on that paiting? Weather out of kindness or the felling that $ can by anything that is what changed this to what it has become. The moment a bill was pulled from a pocket or check from a book that then give the public the right to pick this creation apart- Needing to know the Who What When Where Why of it All. 2.) The thought that everything is a sign of whats to come or what is in the past, trtying to find proof of a higher power so that we have something to beleive in, think about it some put all that in the paiting of a child or just they put it in a paiting. Wow how simple minded is that. Why so when thier lives dont end up just right it can be blamed on someone or something other than themselves. That then is somehow processed into determining one future which then certianly gives one the right to pick apart the -Who What When Where Why. This is crazy why can it not simply be seen for what I fell it is a child paiting. Finding something they enjoy and simply doing it, having parents that support the process of Imagination and feeding it. Yes the dad was heard ignoring comments,and caught in some tales, he seen what was aware of what the public expected of this and was scared not to fullfill that. After all the $$ was offard first it was not set by them then the questions where asked that was not right did it matter who do the paiting if the buyer liked it ,what did it matter who painted it? Oh yeah it had to either be worth $ or hold a meaning. Bull Shit!!! The parents where scared if they didnt say what we expected them to they would have been in trouble losing everything and the way our system works possibly even seen as abusing their kids for $$. The Monsters, liars, users, greedy people they would have been. I could not imagine the shock those people felt when they seen the mockery people made of a simply childs painting and the disbelief of it being made out to be thier fault and a conspiericy. Its a JOKE we did this not them they done what they had to do to suvive. As for the paitings being different (more polished) yes dad put pressure on her and admitted and regreted that, but just as all childeren sense their parents stress and anxiety she did and you see that in the work. You can look at eacf one just as with all art and see the emotion of the artist. As for the later paitings being weaker than the eairler ones well duh, she liked it at first so she worked hard she lost that towards the end and not only can you see that in the work put if you watch you see that in the child. Why why all this attention why all this sadness I just like to paint. The sadest part for me was when she a 5yr old child asked her Dad to help her or to go get his own and paint with her just as any child does to it parent and he wouldnt that man was so scared to play with his daughter to just bond and spend time with her doing something that they both love because he knew what people would then accuse, how sad for both of them. That is so sad that we are so selfish that we turned a normal beautiful thing into a world changing event. People Why Can We Not Just Let Thing –BE–Marla keep doing what you love if you want to and never let anyone make you question yourself as long as you are satisfied and proud of YOU then NOTHING eles will ever matter!!!!!
bks Saturday 28 November 2009

I can’t think of any other discipline than abstract art where this debate could take place. I do remember the first time I was astounded by an artist. It was in first grade and the teacher gave us clay and I made a blob. I turned around and one of my classmates had created a Tyrannosaurus Rsx. It was amazingly good! I couldn’t take my eyes off it. It was better than the plastic models at the toy store. I was sure that he had cheated somehow, but I realized that was impossible. If he had just made blob like mine we could have argued whose blob was better, but I could not have made that sculpture. There are four year olds who can play the violin, but none of them would be confused with competent adult musicians.

Marla is not the fraud. The father is not the fraud. Abstract art in galleries is the fraud.

–bks
Jayson Saturday 28 November 2009

Remember this : Beauty is in the eye of the beholder???
I bet you ALL do ! Right?

If one looks at a piece of artwork , of any type or form , & thinks it’s beautiful , how can it possibly be a fraud .

Maybe the definition of ” Fraud in the art world ” just translates into ” I don’t like it ” , is totally a subjective opinion , & not Webster’s definition at all .

The only fraud existing in the art world generally is ” art forgery ” . That fits Webster for sure .
Rob Sunday 29 November 2009

Watching Tiger Woods in the news due to a automobile accident (get well Tiger) made me think of how different his life would be if his father hadn’t coached him in his early years. As a toddler, he displayed a prodigious talent that was not manipulated (the way some are discribing Marla’s father) but honed. When anyone sees him winning a Masters or numerous other tournements, who in their right mind would think he is a fraud because of his father’s formative assistance. Marla’s will probably grow up to be a (creatively and financially) succesful adult artist one day and will have her father’s involvement partly to thank for living a life that others can only dream about. Or she will grow bored of the art stuff and become a doctor instead. To early to tell.
Edward Monday 21 December 2009

Marla may or may not be a fraud, the father may or may not be a liar – the thing is, the art itself is not a fraud – it is what it is, regardless of who painted it.

Did a man name William Shakespeare write Hamlet, or did somebody unknown write it? Would Hamlet be any less a masterpiece if it turned out the playwright’s name wasn’t Shakespeare?

Most of the art attributed to Marla Olmstead in MY KID COULD PAINT THAT was – in my eyes – magnificent. Personally, I don’t care if Marla painted it or a Martian painted it. I loved what I saw.

It seems like an awful lot of people think Marla’s father painted the good stuff. Well, if he painted it, and it being as good as brilliant, why wouldn’t he just say he painted it? In the film he seemed to have a healthy ego – I think if he was capable of paining those works he would just claim he did them himself, and would have left Marla out of it.

Right at the begining, before there was ANY media or public attention, before there was hundreds of thousands of dollars changing hands, before anyone heard of Marla, why would the father say his 4 year old painted his artwork?

If I had painted those paintings I sure wouldn’t say someone else did them.

As for there being some great paintings, and some amateur/childish paintings shown in the film – well, take a look at a comprehensive book showing Picasso’s work and you’ll really see some childish art.
Laura Thursday 14 January 2010

Some of you say that Marla is to small to reach all the way across the canvas, but they can turn it, make it stand on its sides..like common just because she is a little girls dosn’t mean she can’t do things like we can. There are millions of children out there who have talent and people dont say they are frauds. Marla has ever right to be seen and heard just like everyone of us.
david macdonald Thursday 14 January 2010

http://www.marlaolmstead.com/

there’s no such thing as bad publicity
Joseph Pedulla Friday 15 January 2010

A recent post says that the judgment of art is “all subjective, of course.” Isn’t it interesting that the person who claims subjectivity expects his own assessment to be taken, not subjectively, but objectively? Their statement of subjectivity is to be taken as true–objectively–but another’s statement of the objectivity of aesthetic quality is to be doubted! Anyone who has spent enough time painting or studying aesthetics knows the whole “subjectivity of art” thing is hogwash and comes from weak and effete minds. It is–truly analyzed–more of a political assessment than an aesthetic and is therefore not to be taken seriously by artists or art critics. As with any field, quality tends to accompany experience, as does artistic vision, technique, and wisdom. There are multiple rules on composition, use of color, values (use of light and dark), medium, originality, symbolism, and the artist’s ability to add to the vast stream of historical art by borrowing elements from our predecessors. But all of this is dismissed with the mentally impish and childish school of the subjective, where all artistic consideration is subsumed in the black hole of the “beholder’s eye” myth. Sometimes, when one is unimpressed with a work of art, it is because the mind and education of the beholder are singularly unimpressive! Sometimes the viewer is a lout and does not know what he is looking at! Should we consider Van Gogh a “jerk” and his work “stupid” merely because a three-year-old says so? Careful, people! Steady! Hear not the sound of this Siren, lest she turn you into beasts.
Brian LaSaga Friday 15 January 2010

Most abstract art is crap and has no direction, but not all. True abstract art has a polished
effortless look and feel to it. It has composition, depth, direction, maturity, harmonious textures and color harmony. Abstract art evolves and is not willy-nilly. These ingredients are not present in Marla’s paintings. I’m sorry, but where’s the merit? I hope she keeps painting and grows as an artist regardless of her critics…..including me;)

All the best, Brian
Karen Friday 15 January 2010

I just saw the documentary and believe like many of you do, that Marla did parts of the paintings but did not complete them (or not without coaching from her dad), other than the two which the documentary caught on film. If she truly painted them by herself, she would have been able to paint for the filmmaker or in less than a month for 60 minutes (she could have had coaching by her dad every time before she started). In my opinion though, it shouldn’t make any difference, if people truly like that kind of a painting, it shouldn’t matter who painted it, it’s still the same painting and it’s still an original. I personally don’t get abrstract painting because anyone can do it, even a 4 year old (my kids have done some beautiful paintings). A true artist is someone who can actually paint “something”, not just throw/spread paint on a canvas. You know I’m right. But hey, if you have extra money to throw around, go fot it.
HOMIE Saturday 16 January 2010

SAW MOST OF THE DOCUMENTARY—THE MOST INTERESTING PART THAT TRULY SHOWCASED HER TALENT WAS WHEN SHE WAS USING SIDEWALK CHALK ON THE DRIVEWAY–THAT SHORT BIT SAYS IT ALL.THE BUYERS OF MODERN ART–THIS GIRL’S INCLUDED ARE ATONING FOR MISDEEDS.WHETHER IT WAS EXPLOITING EMPLOYEES COMMITTING FRAUD –WHATEVER.MODERN “ART’ IS ART BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO PRODUCE IT AND DEAL IN IT SAY ITS ‘ART”,NOT FOR ANY OTHER REASON.SOME PEOPLE SEE THE VIRGIN MARY IN A STAIN ON A HOLDING TANK OF SOY OIL.NATURAL SELECTION OVER TIME MAY–OR MAY NOT WEED THESE PEOPLE OUT.ITS AMUSING THAT’S ALL.
Charlotte Hoffman Sunday 24 January 2010

I just watched the DVD ‘My Kid Could Paint That’. No, your kid couldn’t paint that. As an artist with a career in child care, and a mother of grown children, no, most children could not paint those paintings. As I read through all the opinions from various arenas, I, as an artist with exposure to many 4 year olds, believe Marla was capable of painting the paintings. I understand each of us approaches this subject with our own experiences and knowledge to arrive at the conclusions we’ve formed after seeing the DVD or her paintings.
There were 2 children I came across with Marla’s kind of talent, a girl I took care of from birth to the age of 6 who had a phenomal use of color, line, composition and space. I kept telling her mother to frame her art. The other is my daughter who at the age of 2 wanted a pen, not a pencil and a small tablet of paper to draw abstract pictures. She grew up, earned her degree in art and paints large abstract paintings.
Children are NEVER themselves with outsiders around and are completely different people when in their parents presence. I felt Marla’s behavior with the camera man was typical for her age. Children are honest to the bone. She would have publically commented on her father painting on her paintings had he painted on them.
Painting is not something to be forced. It’s an activity to be savoured and when expected to paint publically it’s not surprising the style and quality is different.
My husband and I watched the video together. He thinks the father put the final touches on Marla’s paintings. I watched her use of the brush and paint and felt she knew as much about techniques with paint and color as I . I believe she has talent and is authentic.
Suzanne Kraus Mancuso Thursday 11 February 2010

I just love to comment on this movie-it really is a valuable piece of dvd documentary history
I wish my parents put me on tape-just to see what iit would be like.
as far as these paintings-I really love her work-and maybe the father did help in the begining
but over all I believe Marla does paint them herself now
I know there were a few comments made about some of the paitings looking differenty
I am a painter-floor painting is different than easel paitning-they come out much differently
that may be why some look so different
i wish 60 minutes had real artists give their impression rather than just a dr that iknows little about making the actual art ( i know she is a dr but is she a “painter?????) and who gives her to right to crtique-does she have an art degree-60 minutes was very unfair in their depiction
the smartest people in that dvd were Elizabeth and Mr Kimmel
every one else had too much to gain
30,000 per painting what a gas
Niki Friday 5 March 2010

I feel bad for the whole family here, but the real question is why do they continue to advertise her? They know its bad for her and the family. They have seen it first hand. Shame on them for continuing this. As for the father, I doubt he helped her. It is natural for him to feel flustered when Marla was asking him to paint a face due to his fear of reinforcing the notion that she had help. However, her father struck me as too pushy in trying to get Marla to paint all the time. It was upsetting that he was using her fame like that. As for the paintings, they’re beautiful regardless of who painted them.
bar Friday 5 March 2010

No matter what you think of her art and the amount of help and influence her father had, there is a very important issue that is not mentioned. Even at four years olld she was hearing, feeling and at least internallly, reacting and recognizing all of these questions, opinions and accusations. It is not right and not healthy for a child to have to have all of this going on around them. I too saw the commentary and am sad that her parents were not more aware and carubg about Marla’s feelings and understanding or confusion… I pray that the influence of all this does not take a serious toll on her and their relationship in the future.
Suzanne Kraus Mancuso Wednesday 10 March 2010

I forgot to add-to this ongoing topic of “Marla?”
I can honestly tell you how hard it is to become a NAME in art
this child has far surpassed any modern artist by any means.
I can’t name any other modern artist that commands that amount for her art and actually gets it.
I dont know if she still sells as many as she did
but there are a billion artists in the current art world and very few make it to anything
let alone have Marla’s credantials under her belt
Just had to add-I know the Marla Olmstead mystery will never really be fully solved will it
It is like Where is Amelia? or Jimmy Hoffa
This childs life should be a movie ( for real this time!)
whatever side of the fence you are on-this is all part of modern ART HISTORY
Suzanne Kraus Mancuso Wednesday 10 March 2010

sorry cant spell
David Wednesday 31 March 2010

I have just watched the film, and am left undecided, however the sad thing for me, is the Dad and daughter couldn’t have shared a beautifull moment at the end when she asked her Dad to play with her and join in, becuase for the right or wrong reason he was going to be judged and he obviously thought in a negative way, which leaves me wondering how many times she lost that time with her Dad, what would have been nice is if the other member of the family openly joined in, the the paintings were painted by by “My Dad and Me”, or sometimes painitng was just about fun.

On another point the one thing which does seem to have been left out, is age, the first paintingg might have been done when marla’s age was younger and less focused on real objects, and as she grew her painting “developed”?
Joanne Monday 31 May 2010

I think he father’s paintings have improved alot lately. I also think he should be in a jail for frauding people out of thousands. And that maybe someone get hold them to that polygraph test.
Joanne Monday 31 May 2010

Sorry, tired – let me rephrase: I think her father’s paintings have improved alot lately. I also think he should be in a jail for frauding people out of thousands. And that maybe someone should hold them to that polygraph test.
lydia nichols Wednesday 28 July 2010

At this point, it hardly matters if she did legitimately paint these;.a mythology has already been created and circulated about this child and her art. It has been fueling countless discussions (and arguments) and has clearly captured the media’s attention. Her work is selling, but who can be sure why; is it talent or novelty? As another commenter wrote: if she weren’t so young, would these count for anything? Does she have any intent when making these pieces and if she doesn’t, then what is their purpose? Is it just purely aesthetics, and if so, what does that even mean? Will she be expected to develop a more distinct voice and a personal philosophy as most artists are? What about context! Few are being analytical about this–it’s just a meaningless heated debate that gives her (family) more (un/deserved?) attention. Plus, it’s OLD news.
Karen Kuskis Wednesday 25 August 2010

Years ago I saw paintings very similar to the “Marla” paintings done by kids in kindergarten. No one thought of calling them a genius. To me they are just expressions of a little child who likes to paint but I also believe her father puts the finishing touches to it when no one is around to keep the money coming in. There is something fishy about this story. I don’t buy it..
LD Diamond Wednesday 15 September 2010

I don’t know if my last comment made it on here, or disappeared into the ether. The comments from people who don’t paint (or can’t paint) are the best. They are the ones referred to in the title “my child could paint that”….of course.
That’s why it’s a great title. Obviously these same folks have never been to an abstract art workshop. I wish you all could have come to the last 10 that I have attended all over the West. I would bet Marla’s next commission that you would cringe at some of the work. Just watch adults try to make a painting like Marla’s……and I mean experienced painters…..and you’ll see why your comments are ridiculous. Yet Marla’s work is fantastic…..and there isn’t a person in one of these workshops who could execute a painting like any of hers. But if you’re not an artist, you wouldn’t understand that at all. You would just say what everyone who is naive and inexperienced says about it……. There are children’s finger paintings on refrigerators across America. The reason why they don’t command $30,000 is obvious folks………..they aren’t worth it !! Also, Marla’s dad’s work is in the film………….in the basement. Take a look at it. There is no way he painted any of those paintings. Just in case my previous comment doesn’t make it on here……..I would like to repeat my Picasso quote………He said, “It took me 4 years to paint like Raphael. It has taken me a lifetime to paint like a child.” Yeah, him, and Miro, and Matisse. It’s not easy folks. So, if you think your kid’s paintings are so great how come you don’t take them to a gallery?
LD Diamond Wednesday 15 September 2010

PS…..I can’t help myself, I have to add something about the “helping” stuff. If any of the critics on here were creative writers, painters, or sculptors, they would know that any ‘help” they receive with their work…..e.g., critiques, solicited advice, comments and/or suggestions from other artists, mentors, friends, business associates, publishers, editors, etc., would be COMMONPLACE during, before, and after a finished work. Why are people’s panties in a bunch over the dad helping this child paint? Do people really think someone (adult or child) just gets a brush and paints and “knows” how to use them? Do you think Picasso did that, or Gaugin, or VanGogh? These people went to school for years !! I doubt very much whether the dad painted any of these paintings himself. I doubt whether he drew on them, finished them, or painted them in any way. But maybe he taught her how to hold a brush, what colors to use, how to make designs, etc. when she first started. Maybe he answered some of her questions, like “Daddy what color should I use here?” So what ???? Hey, how many studio nobody artists are painting finished works for other “important” artists ? I’d hate to even guess at that. RC Gorman, Thomas Kinkade, and a host of other popular commerical artists have done nothing more than sign their names to some of their collections. Yet I’ve never seen anyone busted for this. So, leave this kid and her family alone. Besides, by the time the linear world of school/education gets to her she may lose all of her spontanaeity and free form creativity anyway. Let her enjoy it while she can and let her family enjoy it, too. What a blessing to have a gift like this. Simple fact is: The reason why people buy her work is because it’s terrific, in the purest sense of what art is……the color, composition, texture, and emotional appeal have drawn people to it. Invited us to come into the piece and stay a while, contemplate it and enjoy what it makes you feel while you’re there. And that is always what good art is all about and nothing more.
Dell Tuesday 21 September 2010

Just watched the film “My Child Could Paint That”. Several points are obvious: The mother works opposite shifts from the father, so her answers to questions are irrelevant and likely innocent. It would be interesting, although not necessary, to have an expert in detecting micro gestures of liars (e.g. Paul Ekman, see Wikipedia) analyze the footage of the father. I once attended a lecture by Dr. Ekman once where he played video of people he knew to be either telling the truth or lying (e.g. the woman who drowned her kids and lied about). He then took an audience poll and it was surprising how many people did not recognize the liars. I got at least 9/10 right. The point of this anecdote is to say that to my eye, the father is covering up something significant. He probably didn’t intend to let things go this far, probably started out with “I wonder what it would look like if I touched this up?”, but things are so big now that he cannot dare admit the truth.. Way too much money is on the line, and all the owners of her work will do everything possible to keep the myth alive. One might think it is innocent fun, but with hundreds of thousands of dollars passing hands, this moves into criminal behavior. It would be interesting to see how the paintings come out when the father is in jail for a year or two (hopefully he is giving her art lessons on the side to prepare for that eventuality).
I felt sorry for the woman who bought “Ocean” against her better judgment (she said, ‘it looks like it was painted by a different artist’) until I saw her get into a hummer.

Meanwhile, I have been inspired by this story to create my own media phenomenon: I have tied a paintbrush to my dog’s front paw, and he is coming up with the most amazing pictures, you wouldn’t believe it! The only problem is, he is very camera shy and cannot paint on camera! Watch for these in a gallery near NYC soon!
Yoram Monday 27 September 2010

Just watched the movie with my wife… we’re amazed to realize how many people believe that Marla actually painted all those paintings. I think the filmaker gave the parents every chance to prove Marla was the real deal. And yet, the artwork on 60 minutes and while in front of the camera looks NOTHING like those stunning other paintings. The “movie” that the parents made showing Marla paint… well we can’t really hear what directions she’s getting, who is handing her paint, who decides what color to use, and so on. And, it looks exactly like the 60 minutes piece and NOTHING like the other pieces, the ones we never saw her paint. It’s absurd, really. And then there are endless incriminating moments in the movie where Dad or Marla are saying strange things like “You paint, or tell me what to do!” Give me a break!!! The father is a scam artist, and as long as people are willing to buy his story, good for him!
Yoram Monday 27 September 2010

This wouldn’t be a bid deal except they are charging people tens of thousands of dollars based on the assumption that Marla is the artist. And, to all the people saying Marla could paint that: maybe. But when she was painting on camera, well, it looked NOTHING like those other paintings. But people see what they want to see. And when Dad yells “use the red, use the RED!!” or when Marla says ” Now you paint Dad. Tell me what to do, or paint it yourself!!!” come on, people! wake up! this guy is taking you for a ride!!!
Mikel Frank Tuesday 28 September 2010

So here’s the thing. I’m an abstract painter and it just kills me to see a 4 year old, who is now a 10 year old painting like this and receiving this kind of attention not to mention those prices. But, more power to her I say….as Warhol once said: “Art is anything you can get away with.” and she is certainly getting away with a lot. I think the moral of the whole story is summed up at the end of the documentary by Michael Kimmelman, who talks about how it’s all a lie. The painting is a lie, painting in general is a lie (Picasso said: “Art is a lie that makes us realize the truth”), the press coverage is a lie and event the documentary isn’t entirely the truth. The truth is that we are all human beings who seem to need some drama in our lives and this story sure supplied that. I hope Marla keeps painting and I hope she makes a mark on the art world in her adult years too. That would be really cool.
Chris Monday 8 November 2010

I saw the documentary last night and coudln’t help but wonder:Wouldn’t a forensic analysis of the earlier paintings reveal telltale signs of adult hands at work? Such as the size of the fingers used or even fringerprints present in the paint?
Kerri Munn Monday 17 January 2011

Alot of what I wanted to say has been said. After looking through all the various comments, the very fact that we have so much to say about it regardless of how we feel is the bottom line….we are talking about it. PERIOD! “Any publicity is good publicity” as many famous person(s) have said.
This little girl (11 now) is a great painter. I mean, don’t you WANT to believe that? With all the nasty ‘crap’ happening in the world today, isn’t it nice to be cultured and talk about art? She deserves her dues. We owe her some gratitude too for making this world a little more colorful (and I’m not just talking about the paintings!). Thanks Marla, you’re beautiful and beautifully talented.
Isabella Thursday 27 January 2011

My ex was a delusional narcissist, the son of somewhat notable artists. When raising our son (in two separate households after he split), his narcissism was displaced on Justin by trying to turn him into an art prodigy, music prodigy and everything else prodigy. He had to paint abstract murals at age four, was given flying lessons at age 8, etc, etc. He was coached on some quick tricks to making five-minute caracatures of people, and trotted out to Central Park to perform like a monkey for his father’s ego and to make money doing that or playing the piano. Although Justin had a 160 IQ and was gifted intellectually, much of his “talents” were due to his father’s incessant need for public attention/ego stroking and his relentless pressure on our son to perform. By his late teens, he was mentally exhausted and became the ultimate underachiever, dropping out of college and running off to Japan, exerting as little effort as possible in any of his failed attempts at work. He hasn’t picked up a paintbrush or instrument in 20 years. I foresee Miss Marla ending up with an adolescent breakdown at some point. Her father seems like the artistic version of baloon boy’s father, just like my ex. So sad when kids suffer the sins of their fathers.
RCM Sunday 27 February 2011

I’ve spent plenty of time “coaching” artists for the sake of The Product; something I NO LONGER DO. Marla’s early work was, indeed, “coached” [I use the word politely]. Her later works [age 8+] seem to be more her hand – more honest. People do strange things for strange reasons – recognition, cash … both? I know I sure did. Not proud of it. Never again will I touch another artist’s brush or canvas. Time, and her ability to tell people to f-off, will sort all of Marla’s issues. She’s got a nice college fund thanks to the Art World. Well done “Marla”! ;->
pethom Thursday 31 March 2011

I agree with what many has written earlier and only want to add that Laura Olmstead, Marla’s mother, is a gourgeos woman. She looks a bit like Nina Persson, the singer in the swedish group Cardigans. I wonder if Laura has either swedish or finish ancestors. Whatever happens in the future Marla can be proud to have such a beautiful mother and Mark doesn’t have to find someone to have on the side.
Brian Thursday 31 March 2011

All the viewers of ‘My kid could paint that’ have to do is to wait a few years. Marla will soon be old enough to answer all questions. If it’s a scam Mark maybe goes to jail and Marla, Zane and Laura can live the good life. Now and then they send postcards to Mark with the words ‘Wish you were here. But we have to wait about ten years before we can go traveling together’.
jonathan shepherd Thursday 14 April 2011

I can’t for the life of me understand why anyone would be remotely surprised that a child can paint like that, its exactly the sort of stuff my 4 year old used to produce when i let her loose with my acrylics or oils. Painting like this is not difficult or skilful, its just spreading paint around a canvas in a semi random pattern. Whats hilarious is that anyone would pay a large sum of monsy for it, if you want a paintings like these go and buy some paint and a canvas and have a play, it will work out much cheaper.
Tommyjumbo Thursday 14 April 2011

What a load of BS. We all love a good con story. Her early works were not done by her, her dad is a nut job that needs psychiatric help and Mamma is a gold digger. Her more recent work is the work of a child that has been severely coached to paint abstract yet some of the finest abstract painters were trained in fine art and classicism. Compare a Picasso of 4 with Marla’s (dads work) and they are worlds apart. What a poor kid to be stuck with twats like that for a family. The thing that gets me is that there is no proof of her painting a single picture from start to finish. Yanks with too much money and an obsession with celrety status is eroding there inner selves for the entertainment of others like me! Hahahahahahahahahahaha
margaret Friday 15 April 2011

i watched th docu last night, If it was an adult painting these pictures i would be wondering how they managed to sell, really !!! I think they are Lovely for a child artist, As long as she’s having fun painting i dont see what all the fuss is about……Beauty is in the eye of the beholder
rose Sunday 12 June 2011

Why are we so surprised that a child can paint like this? The inner ‘censor’ has not yet emerged
and she followers her head and heart freely.
mrkonja Tuesday 9 August 2011

One has to be utterly clueless to believe she DID paint those pictures.
The ‘effect’ of the camera on that child was amazing (NOT) – she wasn’t ‘herself’ even when the camera was hidden. Imagine that.
For anyone who STILL has doubts, here’s an interesting interview with Amir Bar-Lev : http://www.directorsnotes.com/2007/10/26/dn-lff07-my-kid-could-paint-t hat-amir-bar-lev/
Suzette Tuesday 6 September 2011

This is a movie that is much more than about painting. What would my life be like if Ihad a spouse that was complicit in my lies? And when my kids were awake I lied to them too, I told them they could do anything, I told them they did things I was doing for them while they were sleeping? I would cry about any pain I may have caused my child too. (I believe her parents doctor her paintings while she is asleep, and then when she wakes up tells her its her painting) For the rest of us who WANT to believe Marla painted these without help, it just shows how we are always looking for a superhero. I like the paintings, but the ones are film are different than the others. Yes, the father coaches her. And I believe they lie to her to distort her memories..
Claire Sunday 9 October 2011

To those who believe she did the paintings herself, I have a bridge to sell you. I believe her father was a failed artist, who saw an opportunity, and took it, together with his artist pal Brunelli, they strong armed Marla’s mum, into essentially allowing her daughter to be used in a massive fraud. And yes it does matter who painted the artworks, a little legal concept known as fraud. Further Rob, Warhol’s soup can was about elevating the mundane commercial images of advertising to works of art.
AJ Sunday 30 October 2011

Since we’re all throwing theories out here…the friend (Tony, I think?) who was marketing Marla’s works seems quite contemptuous of abstract art and revels in the fact people were paying so much for “simple” artwork. What if HE was actually the one doctoring up paintings? He is clearly a trained artist and he was also making a profit off of the whole deal.

I don’t really understand abstract art, anyway…sometimes it’s aesthetically pleasing, but many other times I wonder why I never thought of drawing a few circles and squares and splashed some paint on a canvas, too. With that said, I was quite surprised when even I saw the difference between “Ocean” and some of the supposedly more polished works. So that probably doesn’t bode well for the authenticity of some of those paintings. But who knows. It was a great documentary
peacey 10 Thursday 15 December 2011

i absoulutly love the paintings and all of that
Julie Thursday 22 December 2011

I think the parents are lying. But I have no right to judge them as I have told a few lies in my life too. It’s important to understand and put yourself in their shoes. They need the money for their kids. But you need to put yourself in the children’s place. Marla is under pressure and Zane is being ignored. Is money for college more important then listening to your kids? No. It isn’t. I know what it’s like to be asked to lie for I was 8 or 10 when something organized was fixed and I had to pose as the winner when I knew I was not. Because the organizer did not have money to pay the real winner. Although he hadn’t planned it and he was now stuck, I was very scared and sad and felt tremendous guilt that day and the next day. I saw that look in marla’s face two times in the doco. Once at the first exhibit and next when she tells her dad, “I didn’t paint it dad. Zane did.” she was angry and so was I because people had been talking and they felt cheated and I was a child but aware of all this and I would be angry at my father for putting me in this position too. You never tell a young budding artist what to paint, it’ll mess them up. I am an artist and when I was little I never once asked older people how to paint. Art is about expressing yourself. It’s what makes me go ahhh. The little sensors go off in my head because it’s the only time I get to do whatever I like. No I don’t think they are her paintings or maybe he coached her.

A few of you mentioned about why people need to know the story behind a painting and that’s because people were not just buying the painting, they bought it because they were told it was done by a 4 year old. They bought her art at 4 years old because loved it. People have the right to know what they are buying. It’s called a fair exchange. This girl loves art and she needs to be doing it on her own. And I hope that’s the case because all children are brilliant and so is Marla and her little brother too. Her parents are wonderful people who love their kids and care enough to lie so they can secure their future. Did any of you ever tell a lie? People have no right to talk about them. It’s between them and god.
Julie Thursday 22 December 2011

Marla and her parents and Zane too, I think you are a beautiful family with lots of love and talent. May you be happy no matter what people say you did or did not do and regardless of everyone’s standards and principals you set your own and learn from your own mistakes without being watched and judged by people who are no better than anyone else.
Muri Tuesday 13 March 2012

I don’t remeber how, but yesterday i have seen a docummentary on tv about Mrla and her family and about human jealousy.It is much easy think badly then positively.The people are geting blind with wickedness and it is so simple.Just have to look to that child eys and see the pureness and freedom on her standing…
even if the fother could help her…why not? is the fother.However anybody can see that is not an adult language. YES,IF I CULD I WOLD GIVE A LOT,LOT,LOT OF MONEY FOR A Marla’s painting,because i have seen a lot of abstract paint and no one can make do such as beautiful painting.GOD BLESS YOU YOUNG GIRL AND ALL OF YOUR FAMILLY.
AG Thursday 29 March 2012

“I am not God or do I know the facts, but do not trust everything you see on 60 min.”
-Dan Shaw

Well, it certainly is reassuring to know that god doesn’t hang out on the internet discussing the validity and authenticity of pure abstract art.
George Harris Tuesday 24 April 2012

I wonder why this is so difficult for people. Marla’s two on camera paintings are “blobby” and “preschool-y.”

All fat strokes of paint. No patterns. No underlying symmetry. Your mind has to work harder when looking at them. They aren’t easy on the eyes. A woman in the documentary actually says this very thing (right before she buys Marla’s preschool-y“OCEAN” painting.)

These things are easy to see. They are quite obvious. Marla’s two on-camera paintings have a grimy, preschool look to them. So different from the tight organization and intricate brushstrokes of her father’s paintings.

Marla’s father often paints with something called “hatching:” very thin lines of paint placed side by side. Like a bunch of tiny knives. Many of the father’s paintings are covered with these delicate, very precise line strokes. They give his paintings a high degree of order, like a multicolored swarm of tiny minnows, swirling round and round on his canvases.

This effect is entirely lacking in Marla’s two camera-caught works.

Marla’s are all lumpy. All fat lines of paint and ugly blobs of color. Florid, pasty blobs of color, too. Like the blotchings of a toddler set loose with finger-paints.

If these were the only kind of paintings that were shown to people, Marla would never have become famous at all.

I only care because I don’t like being lied to. By anyone.
Molly Saturday 5 May 2012

Beautiful paintings. I wonder how she started painting and how she made the pretty?
I like them
Gerry Sunday 22 July 2012

This girl is now 12, someone show us her recent work
shamim Monday 23 July 2012

I’m from south africa, first time I heard this story! Jus watched it on TV, my Comment, Human NNature always allows us to talk bad about others rather than Good! We are not here to judge?? Hell if this Kid made those paintings appreciate it, can nobody rather say, mabey at that time in her life a gif was bestowed upon her, I’m not a religious go by the book kinda a person but I do honestly have a feeling in my heart that @ that time in Marla’s life she was gifted with something, mabey it will stay with her, her whole life, mabey she will be 30 and forget how to hold a brush or she could end up being the worlds most famous painter! My point is, what we as human beings did to that family like we always do with any famous story is bring the devil into it somehow! Why??? Cause of the theory “its always easier to talk bad rather than good” I suppose all the peepz who easily spoke shit abt the parents and fraud etc are people with empty souls and no matter what Jelousy is a bitch! Grow up leave the family alone and to the people doubtin the paintin they bought, ” u make ur own decions” if u like the painting u like the painting!! Ahhhh, this is why and how we bring our people down, if we had true love for each other, trust and honesty wud have never been and issue……anyways that’s my say, yoh, its long
Lavinia Monday 17 December 2012

The painting she did on camera are nothing like her other paintings. Someone is finishing off her paintings. That was obvious.

Lost at E Minor

Marla Olmstead, an eight year old art prodigy

111 comments

Become a Contributor

From our Store

Lost at E Minor

Marla Olmstead, an eight year old art prodigy

111 comments

FOR CREATIVE INSPIRATION

Become a Contributor

From our Store

OUR MOST POPULAR POSTS

Non destructive masking tape graffi...

Fernando de La Rocque paints with c...

Stunning replica of San Francisco c...

This granny’s tattoo is edgier th...

Lord Vader and more: Star Wars figu...