Comments on: Marla Olmstead, an eight year old art prodigy

By: Julie

Julie — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 13:46:24 +0000

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.

By: Julie

Julie — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 11:45:03 +0000

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.

By: peacey 10

peacey 10 — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 04:50:38 +0000

i absoulutly love the paintings and all of that

By: AJ

AJ — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 04:32:11 +0000

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

By: Claire

Claire — Sun, 09 Oct 2011 13:09:20 +0000

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.

By: Suzette

Suzette — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 01:03:24 +0000

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..

By: mrkonja

mrkonja — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 21:43:51 +0000

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/

By: rose

rose — Sat, 11 Jun 2011 18:41:19 +0000

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.

By: margaret

margaret — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 18:26:09 +0000

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

By: Tommyjumbo

Tommyjumbo — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:45:50 +0000

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

By: jonathan shepherd

jonathan shepherd — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 22:07:20 +0000

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.

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 22:38:33 +0000

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’.

By: pethom

pethom — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 22:03:59 +0000

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.

By: RCM

RCM — Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:28:24 +0000

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”! ;->

By: Isabella

Isabella — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 06:45:53 +0000

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.

By: Kerri Munn

Kerri Munn — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 07:13:18 +0000

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.

By: Chris

Chris — Sun, 07 Nov 2010 20:31:04 +0000

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?

By: Mikel Frank

Mikel Frank — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 20:53:02 +0000

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.

By: Yoram

Yoram — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 03:18:28 +0000

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!!!

By: Yoram

Yoram — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 03:09:18 +0000

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!