Marla Olmstead, an eight year old art prodigy

francis said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 24 April, 2009

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

Michelle said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 12 September, 2009

well i guess we settled that.

Joseph Pedulla said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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.