Marla Olmstead: is she the real deal?
Contributor
- 2
- 25
0
We posted a while back about the debate surrounding the legitimacy of the artwork of child prodigy Marla Olmstead. The furor, in particular, centered around her performance in a controversial documentary, My Child Could Paint That, which looked at the then four-year old, who was already exhibiting regularly, despite her age, and the questions that were raised about the influence of her ambitious father. We’ve since received a long but mixed bag of comments about her work, from statements blaming the media (‘I watched the movie, and I do believe that the MEDIA has the ability to make ANYTHING look different than reality’), to disbelievers (‘not convinced one bit that the paintings she was filmed painting and the others were painted alone by Marla’), to those who think Marla is the greatest thing since, well, sliced bread (‘this child is amazing, her work speaks for itself’). Check out the comment thread and let us know your thoughts.
29 comments
Lieze Thursday 18 March 2010
First of all, I think it’ll be really interesting for someone to make a current movie about her life, and see if she is still camera shy, and actually makes a good painting, while the camera is in her face. Really any artist can protest that we all like to work alone, because you can think clearly and don’t feel pressured.
On the other hand… I don’t really see what the fuss is about her work. I don’t think its really that great. What everyday people (who don’t study art) don’t realize is, that even abstract art is only abstract in the sense that most imagery understandable to the naked eye, has been reconstructed to shapes and forms only understandable to the artist alone. Yet, it is a clear structured and well thought out process that the art is created. For example: Pollock had a structured rhythm and arm movement that made his splashes fall in such a lyrical fall. Why so many people have failed trying to recreate his art.
Marla is only a child, so it is evident that her work lacks all of these ideas. Her work is simply the innocence we long for as adults. Her work is supplied with lots of paint, brushes, and other tools for her to have fun with. If you were to study a child, you would notice, just like any artist, the more that child draws and listens, the better her work gets. There’s no doubt in my mind that her parents give her advice or suggestions. I definitely don’t think they paint it for her. But as she listens, her work progresses and grows.
Point to my story then I guess, it that I feel that her work isn’t a master piece of abstract art at ALL. That is nearly a HUGE insult to our master’s from the 1950′s and on. Her work is nearly the innocence of a child. And If I were to give so much paint and huge canvases to a child that has any imagination and understanding of color, I bet they would make the exact same paintings she does. I have watch many 4 year olds paint and draw, with similar results to her. She simply has parents that were told, “you’re child is a star”, and they took it to hard and went running with it. Lets wait till she is 18, and see if she still paints the same abstract pieces, or even paints at all. I can guarantee she won’t be.
I think rich people need to stop being stupid, and spend their money with the millions of extremely talented and hard working artists trying to make an honest living, that unfortunately isn’t 4.
Gale Franey Wednesday 24 March 2010
Can you say “The Emperor’s New Clothes”, boys and girls? Can you say “Balloon Boy”?
I just watched the movie. It is obvious that not only did she not paint the first paintings that sold, but she had very little input whatsoever, possibly none at all. In fact, at one point during the film she clearly states that she didn’t paint any part of one of the paintings that was attributed to her. Darn, kids are just too honest at that age! Her father tried to gloss over this statement.
Most likely the mom was initially innocent, hence did not hesitate to offer to take a polygraph … but I believe that afterwards she also became enamoured by the potential profit of her husband’s ruse. And even with the husband it likely began as an innocent ruse, what’s the harm if so called art experts are stupid enough not to know what is “great abstract art”, or even whether abstract art is art at all, which I’ve always wondered myself.
The parent’s body language oozed deception … and by the way, what became of their offer to have a polygraph. Did anyone else notice the seeming panic in the dad’s eyes when she suggested this? Have the polygraph’s been taken? If not, why not?
But 3 cheers for their daring to reveal the true finery of the emperor’s new clothes. I think it is an open and shut case on the status of abstract art. Please note that these are merely my opinions …. the actual truth is known only to the child and her father. When she is old enough to tell it from her perspective, I look forward to seeing the sequel documentary.
Kamal Wednesday 31 March 2010
I saw the documentary and was pretty annoyed at all the adults in it.
She likes painting and making shapes with colours that please her. It so happens that those shapes and colours please some other people – and they want to pay thousands for the paintings. Isn’t that all “Art” is nowadays?
As for other abstract artists, each can only be evaluated personally. For example, I like Kandinsky but I don’t like Pollock. I wouldn’t pay thousands for either. I’ve paid £10 for a nice Kandinsky print.
-Kamal.
P.S. I think I’ll give my 4 and 8 year olds some canvases and lots of acrylic paints the next time we have a sunny weekend and see what they come up with…
layla Friday 9 April 2010
You know what? I do think that she painted those paintings. And you know what else? I also think that most four-year-olds can do the same thing just as well, if not better.
The term “child prodigy” is used way too loosely nowadays. It’s as if any kid who has the opportunity to pick up a brush with some paint on it is dubbed a “genius”. These paintings lack skill and in my opinion are not aesthetically pleasing in any way whatsoever.
For this girl to be labeled an “art genius” or “art prodigy” is just ridiculous.
Janelle Mosey Tuesday 3 August 2010
I think she painted them. No artist paints a masterpiece every time. In response to a comment above- if she paints the same way at 18 as she did at 3 then there would be no growth.
Jenny Thursday 26 August 2010
How many kids have access to such great quantities of paint, high quality brushes and large canvasses? Most parents could never afford to have their child use paint so liberally. Art supplies are so costly, most kids end up with some plain paper and a simple water based paint set (which includes a useless brush that sheds bristles with each stroke).
If we could supply our children with the right art tools as the Olmsteads have done for their precious daughter, there would be many more “prodigies” out there.
Frankly though, “abstract” art is overrated and overpriced for what it is.
Hey! Elephants and monkeys have been churning out these type of paintings for years and selling them.
I just can’t help but feel this child is more of a trained circus act than a little girl who loves to paint.
I hope I’m wrong and time will tell.
LD Diamond Wednesday 15 September 2010
Just saw the documentary after seeing the Directors’ new movie on Pat Tillman. The comments on here amaze me. Are any of these people painters, or artists? I think not. Picasso said it took him 4 years to paint like Raphael………and a lifetime to paint like a child. He also said all children are artists. It’s just a matter of time as to how long it takes to eradicate it out of them. If anyone was a painter on this website, they would know that they could never duplicate what these paintings look like. Funny, the lady critic on 60 minutes called some of the paintings, “sophisticated.” What a joke. Abstract art is NOT sophisticated…..that’;s why its abstract ! There should be no contrivance………none of the identifiable “rules” of impressionism, cubism, pointillism, or any other academic structure visible in the work. So how in the world could this be sophisticated??? I love how people who don’t paint, and have no idea what they are talking about are such studied critics. THAT is what “the Emperor’s New Clothes” is all about. If you remember, in the story, only the CHILD knows the truth. While the adults ooooh and ahhhh over the Emperor’s invisible robe…. the child is the only one who recognizes the truth……..and proclaims it ….loudly !! So, how is it that there are people on here who “know” that the “first” paintings are the work of the dad? I saw his work in the movie. It was in a pile in the basement. He could never produce these. People love to be experts at things they know nothing about.
Neil Friday 1 October 2010
First I would like to say, what is the difference? If people bought the paintings for the art then, what does it matter who painted them? If the father came out and said “hey I painted them, I’m sorry for the rouse” would the art not be just as good, to those who bought them? Do people buy art for just the story? I have seen many paintings that I have liked, without knowing who painted them, hell not even care who painted them (the art should speak for itself). I have also seen a lot of bad art in my opinion, that sell for way to much, just because of who painted it.
If the father did paint them, good for you, sorry that people, wouldn’t have taken the art as seriously if it was you. Besides, what artist wouldn’t hate, not being able to say “I painted that, glad you like it” you know admiration.
As for Pollock, he painted for years in many different styles, before doing the abstract, no one took him seriously as an artist till he did those, (and became a reclusive drunk)
Van Gough painted for years, then went crazy from drinking absinthe and paint thinner, didn’t become “Famous” till he died, then boom one of the greatest painters of all time.
Warhol is a joke, and I blame him for a stagnant art world, where good artists can’t make money, no matter how good there work is.
Bring back the Renaissance, when artist actually had to work hard, and become masters. Oh and surrealism, I miss Dali.
ann Friday 5 November 2010
I am so sick of “Art experts” trying to foist their values on on. From a TECHNICAL standpoint she did not paint the pictures because the make use of a dominant colour ot use techniques that we have no evidence that she masters. i think they’re aestethically pleasing and NOT abstract expressionism or any -ism. Pretty pictures who make good use of colour are pleasing to me and I like them. But she didn’t paint them imo.
Heidi Quayle Monday 20 December 2010
I believe that Marla painted the pictures but that yes, dad did give input sometimes (eg. reminding her to keep working on the painting, deciding when it is finished, sometimes telling her it might need another color, etc.)
I have bought fairly good paint and canvas for my daughter (before seeing this documentary) and there were flashes of brilliance but never to the scale of Marla’s layer upon layer and abstract way of visually depicting thoughts, ideas, and her family or friends. I agree that anyone who is given opportunity and has interest, will improve – whether it be sport, art, or music. Marla stands above that average though. They found her niche early and don’t pull her into many other directions. Her environment is not one that has her going from ballet to daycare to soccer practice and then kumon math tutoring. She goes to school and hangs out at home, and paints when she wants to. Most don’t capture their child’s talent and interest so quickly and committ so fully.
I felt the worst for Marla’s mom. She just wants her kids to be happy and felt so betrayed and hurt by the negative depictions of their family.
john greene Friday 25 February 2011
Alright here is the bottomline to all this non-sence. The question that needs to be asked is not what was her level of involvement but is this art. Painting by it’s very nature is a combination of mark making and decision making. To make a decision one has to have a question (Is this the right color? Is this the value right? Along with questions about spacial relationship and size preportions. Humans are the only ones who can contemplate this types of abstract questioning therefore an elephant with a brush can make marks on a canvass but it is not art because it does not contain the element of decision making required. This child is making marks on a canvass coached or not she is not creating art and shame to the fools who are buying it.
lukec Thursday 14 April 2011
Are the works special – no.
If you want to pay that sort of money – more money than sense.
Great marketing – poor parenting – they should talk to their children, not about them. Seems Zane was ignored big time!
Is it art? – of course – isn’t everything.
Did Marla paint them – who cares.
Nicole Thursday 14 April 2011
I recently visited Tate Modern in London… I spent about five minutes in there, I especially felt like leaving after seeing a Picasso “Pencil and Crayon on Paper”… I definitely drew things exactly like that when I was younger. I just didn’t get any of it. I’ll admit it, I am quite a pretentious person, sitting in Starbucks with my Macbook, reading sophisticated novels, talking about my degree. And yet, most abstract art just makes me sick… the most sickening part of that documentary was the couple of minutes of auction footage… I don’t know who painted them, but either way, how could they go for that much money? And I totally understand the symbolism of abstract art, and the symbolism in some of the pieces… but what fools are spending this kind of money? Surely it could be put to better use! I like how the girl above went on about how Marla’s painting’s were “nothing special”, that “they have no skill.” It seems so ironic. One could argue that if the father did paint them, then saying that they were painted by Marla is art itself, he is inferring the brilliance that could supposedly come from an innocent child – you abstract artists are big on this stuff, aren’t you?
Nicole Thursday 14 April 2011
Oh, also wanted to say that the realist artist in the film looked like he had great talent, and I love how he said that he used Marla to prove a point about abstract art. Hilarious.
Jo Friday 15 April 2011
I think the parents should be investigated for child cruelty. Marla seemed to have little choice whether she painted from the time she got up in the morning. Yes of course little ones enjoy painting but not every minute of their day.
If she had not made a fortune before her fifth birthday would she still be ”encouraged” to paint ?
Molly Friday 15 April 2011
The comparison of some of her early works to the newer ones is remarkable. What I think it must be remembered (I have no opinion on the credibility of the work) is that the way a 4 year old paints and sees the world is much different from a 6 year old. A four year old begins to see shapes, patterns, regularities, a six year old sees most of them. A 4 year old is practically brand new, seeing the world from an uninterrupted perspective but a six year old can almost read, see shapes and numbers. Her paintings will change and she will want to become more mainstream, no kid wants to stick out.
Jamie Friday 15 April 2011
Having just watched the film, there is nothing that makes me believe that the first paintings were done by the girl that did the two featured in either the 60 Minutes documentary or the dvd they showed clips from. Of course I might be wrong but I have got eyes in my head and they work quite well.
Ryan K Friday 28 October 2011
The paintings are MARLA and DAD. She throws down a crazy abstract base and he adds professional brush strokes to it. I just got done watching “my kid could paint that” and the Dad looked like a kid with his hand caught in a cookie jar, at the end of the movie. Marla not only tells her dad your turn she also tries to hand him the brush. Why would a bright kid like Marla tell her dad “its your turn” and hand him the brush if he NEVER helps. So basically either that was the first time she’s ever asked him to help(what are the odds of that) or painting is a Marla and Dad joint effort. Its a shame because their work together is good stuff, its the Dads lying that is annoying.
boho_andu Saturday 5 November 2011
I watched this movie a while ago and I felt extremely proud to read the comments on this website about all the details that caught my eye. Firstly, I feel that this is a powerful essay about modern art and makes people question themselves about the exorbitant prices that dumb rich guys offer for blank canvases with an important signature on it. What I don’t understand is why a guy that cherished so much a Rodin would so easily got caught up with the Marla nonsense. Secondly, there is a huge statement against media coverage and objective journalism (if there’s such a thing) that shows that, whether the little girl actually painted by herself or not, the media knew how to plant the seed of doubt worldwide.
My best to Marla, I’m looking forward to see if she becomes the Lindsay Lohan of abstract art
john kovacich Friday 18 November 2011
I dont think for a moment marla had much to do with the paintings,her dad I think is actually painting them and he looks about as honest as a used car dealer.She seems completely uninterested in painting or even talking about it.I dont believe her art is very good but then again most contemporary art is pretty bad,so it fits right in. The 60 minutes piece was very good but I dont think the artworld wants to know its been taken so its quickly forgotten about it.Its sad how much her art sells for.P.T. barnum was right–there’s a sucker born every minute!!
Nancy Hastings-Trew Friday 16 December 2011
If anyone had a motive for “faking” this work and was capable of doing it, it was the gallery owner, not the father. While I do think the paintings were (mostly) Marla’s work I can see that it’s possible the dealer touched them up a bit or more than a bit after the fact. The father is simply not that talented – his own paintings which are shown stacked in the basement in one scene are stiff and derivative. The Gallery owner IS an artist with some talent and he states pretty clearly in one scene that this work gave him an golden opportunity to give the finger to the art world the finger for valuing abstract work, which he claims not to understand, above the realism that he slaves over.
I’m a painter myself though not very active these days. I loved the paintings shown as Marla’s work and I do believe that (substantially at least) they were painted by her. I also believe that many children, given the opportunity and the freedom to create what they want, could do as well. Marla may not be a “prodigy” in the strictest sense of the word but she has a child’s gift of innocence in freedom from preconceptions and expectations in her work. I wish I were still as free in my work. I don’t know what it would take for me to get back to that childlike state. Drugs? Alcohol? A lobotomy?
Paradoxically if there is manipulation here and the dealer is the one behind the ruse, he’s better as an abstract painter than a realist.
Elena Friday 17 February 2012
It is evident by the comments here that there is a lack of understanding of the difficulties in composing a work of art and yes even an abstract work of art. The clarity and deep color choices require knowledge and control. This child did not compose this art work. Everything she touched in the movie became mud and that is exactly what happens when you do know know how to use color properly. Even an experience artist has difficulty achieving perfect color tones and color intensity. But there are people out there who still like to believe in Santa.
Mark Tuesday 6 March 2012
Here’s how I see what transpired after watching the aforementioned film:
Mark Tuesday 6 March 2012
Marla’s father, an aspiring amateur painter, walks into the art dealer’s shop with some of his work and asks how much the dealer thinks they could sell for. The dealer, a realist painter himself, says they are worth virtually nothing as he, himself, has problems selling most of his own work. He explains that the reason they don’t fetch a good price is that the rich are only into abstract work as realist artwork is too passe, so “last 5 minutes”.
The dealer shows his disdain for the fact that abstract art could easily be done by someone with no talent. Marla’s father then says, “Say, my daughter likes to paint. Want to show these idiots up? Give them the proverbial finger, so to speak?”. He then shows the dealer some of Marla’s work. The dealer thinks that they aren’t anything special, BUT with some touch-ups and additional painting over-top, they could easily pass. With the fact that they were painted by a 4-year-old, plus a local news story, this thing could take off!
With the fact that the mother and father both work opposite shifts, mommy in the daytime and daddy in the evening, daddy thinks this is a great idea because the less mommy knows about him touching the paintings up (or doing them himself), the better – the less people who know about a lie, the less chance of getting caught. Mommy was probably a bad liar (and probably a better person morally/ethically than the father as can be seen in the video) so if she was aware, there might be problems convincing her to lie to the public.
So, on goes the show until the “60 Minutes” episode where the mask suddenly seems to come off. In the film, you can clearly see the reaction of the 2 parents – mommy’s face seems to express utter disbelief and you could almost hear her heart sink and hit the couch with a resounding “thud”, whereas the father looks as if he wants to say, “Damn it! We’ve been found out! I’m going to have to say things tonight to mommy to convince her that this charade was entirely untrue.”. That night she expresses her concern and has doubts in her mind, but he manages to pull off more convincing lies. The mother will still have her doubts although won’t express them.
Now it’s time to “save face” and try to come up with something that will “prove” that Marla is in fact the sole artist of these paintings. They proceed to make a video showing Marla actually painting a complete painting that is only slightly similar to the previous ones. The dealer tells the couple that ended up purchasing “Ocean” that Marla’s style has since changed even before they had a chance to really view it. There was additional slick marketing to have the video and its display right beside the painting. The wife was hesitant to buy it as she even stated that it didn’t look like any of the other works: it appears to have been painted by another person. They buy it anyway because they have mountains of cash at their disposal and her friends will be completely envious that she has the original from the video. Then, crowds come in like sheep to buy up the rest.
In the final segment, the parents are on the couch. The mother wants a polygraph done so that the family can save face (again, she is the morally sound one of the two; caring more about the family than fame and fortune). She is still partially ignorant of the deceit as she has her doubts still – thus the emotional overload.
I say that there is a lot of shame to be had by many here;
Shame on the father for the lies and deceit causing much grief to the family, especially Marla.
Shame on the dealer, whom I’m sure played a big role in the facade.
Shame on the people who eat this stuff up and pay large amounts of money before researching of having questions/doubts (when I’m about to lay big money down on a car, I make sure I’ve done a LOT of research before I buy and that is nothing compared to what they spend on a painting)
Shame on those in the artworld who determine what constitutes “ART”
As a note, the paintings are rather nice to look at. I have some space on my walls that need to be painted and have some leftover paint (rich, vibrant colours). I’m going to let my 14-year-old son have a go at it and see what he can come up with.
Angela Friday 16 March 2012
That last comment just told the story that the media is hoping you’ll perceive from their manipulation. What I think is missing in all of this is the range of development a 4 year old has. Children so young do not yet have the capacity to think abstractly. It is obvious that Marla did not “plan” her paintings, and shame on anyone who expects that of her. Perhaps her dad gave her certain colors to use because he knew they’d go together or compliment each other well. The whole basis of abstract art is that the viewer takes away what they want from it. Just because an artist has one particular purpose does not mean that a viewer will get the same thing out of it. As for the differences in her paintings, it should be considered that growing from 4 years old to 6 years old is a huge develop in all skills – cognitive, fine motor, gross motor, etc. Even from 2 years old, it is constantly changing how she can hold a paint brush in her hand, learning how to control it, and training those muscles and constantly developing those fine motors. Her paintings are going to look different as she develops.
Joseph Kemp Wednesday 21 March 2012
There little doubt that Marla’s paintings are fakes. They were likely painted by her father. Or, as Ellen Winner said on Sixty Minutes, perhaps Marla painted SOME of them and her father added some details.
I have been researching gifted children for years. And gifted children are very different from Marla. They’re focused. They’re filled with intensely directed energy. And they know exactly how they go about shaping their work. They’re bright and aware. Artistic prodigies reason out how they want their art to look. And they’re often willing and able to talk about it. They know exactly what they’re doing.
None of these qualities apply to Marla at all. She seems remarkably slow and dull (by comparison, that is). Not a prodigy at all. There is absolutely nothing in her manner or aspect that suggests unusual intelligence or ability. And she tries to avoid talking about her paintings whenever she is asked to. They just don’t seem to interest her. This is NOT prodigy behavior. Actual prodigies are VERY interested and focused on what they do. They wouldn’t bother with it otherwise.
The paintings that Marla completed on camera are SHOCKINGLY different from her others. Her camera-recorded paintings are blobby and preschool-y. Grimy. All dull colors smudged together like trash.
See the top painting here:
My Kid Could Paint That: http://www.basisdesign.com/2010/06/marla-olmstead-paintings-my-kid-could-paint-that/
Her other paintings, however, show a high degree of organization. Elegant swirls and carefully separated colors. Tints that are blended so that the eye has trouble settling on any one place. This is something that Van Gogh also used in his paintings. A lot of color-focused artists do this.
Her other paintings also evidence of color theory. A red is placed next to yellow. Or an orange is placed next to a blue. The resulting juxtaposition makes both colors stand out far stronger than when alone.
For example, see here:
Marla’s Paintings: http://stylestuffinfo.blogspot.ca/2011/10/marla-olmstead.html
And also here:
Color Theory: http://www.colormatters.com/color-and-design/basic-color-theory
Such painting require training and knowledge of some very specific artistic methods. Exactly the kind of training that Marla’s Dad might have. I can’t see any way a child Marla might just “evolve” these techniques on her own. They are just too specific and abstract. Too cerebral. Even other prodigies NEVER paint with this level of abstract conceptualism.
As far as I’m concerned, the case is closed.
Also, many of “Marla’s” other paintings tend to have a highly-organized sixty/forty proportioning favored by advanced artists (otherwise known as the Golden Ratio). A large central section of color (sixty percent) fills most of her paintings. A slightly smaller area of some other color or shape fills the rest of them (forty percent).
See the two top paintings here:
Marla Olmstead: http://www.coochicoos.com/art/post_24.html
This kind of proportioning is traditionally thought to make paintings more pleasing to the eye. The “Golden Ratio” is a very specific artistic method indeed. I don’t see any way a child would know it by him/herself. See here:
Math and Art of the Face: From Da Vinci to Picasso: http://www.share2learn.com/Asilomar09Goularte.pdf
I am shocked that Marla’s parents would think that a professional child psychologist like Ellen Winner, who works with gifted children, couldn’t figure out their little ruse. But then most people are generally easy to fool. They are often not professionals in much of anything. They lack artistic knowledge. They lack precision. It is astonishing how easy it is to trick people. And if anyone objects, the parents could always just retreat into the murkiness of abstract art: “It’s all subjective. How can you say for sure that some of Marla’s paintings are different than others?”
But you can say for sure. There are some very specific reasons why: color theory, the Golden Ratio, and the subtle blending of color shades so that the eye has a hard time settling on them. Not qualties you see in the painting of prodigies.
I am glad Ellen Winner said something. I’ve read her books for years, and she did not disappoint. My respect for her would have been diminished if had not commented on the oddness of what was going on with Marla.
Marla paints like a preschooler on camera. They story is no longer about her so-called “talent.” It’s just about her father painting her pictures for her. That’s the sign of a non-talent if ever I saw one.
As for the Marla’s parents…
They talk too much. They’re always talking. Always trying to justify themselves. Always trying to give just enough details to make their story believable. This is a very good sign they are lying.
I once heard an ex-cop who specialized in interrogating criminal suspects talk about behavior like this. Usually, if a person is not guilty of something, and you ask them if they are, they’ll just say “No.” Simple.
But if a person IS guilty of something, and you ask them if they are, they often lie, saying things like, “Oh, how could you ever think me capable of that? I am so offended. How dare you accuse me of something like this? I’m a fine, upstanding citizen in this community. Everybody knows it. Ask anyone you like. People here have known me for years, and nobody would ever say I could do something like this, because of this and that, and blah, blah, blah blah…” And on and on forever.
Guilty people talk forever. They never just say “No, I didn’t do it.” Just like Marla’s parents. There’s just a little too much detail in their extravagant defense of themselves. Methinks the lady doth protest too much, indeed. And it goes on and on throughout the entire documentary.
Not good.
George Friday 20 April 2012
It amazes me how many people miss the point. A four year old paints something the art intelligentsia declares a work of genius – and then when they find out the artist is four, they declare the four year old is a fraud. Wow.
Oil Company climate change deniers, tobacco company cancer researchers, “it is a part of the game” hockey experts, and art experts – all fellow travellers – all self-serving, self-dellusionists
George Harris Wednesday 25 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.
Desre Franco Saturday 28 July 2012
The hidden camera as well as the permitted footage of Marla painting supposedly by herself, shows clearly that her dad is guiding her constantly. She even tells him “now it’s your turn, now you do it, tell me what to do” and seems a bit lost when he refuses (because he is being filmed with his knowledge). Especially the parts where it’s clear she’s just enjoying the tactile experience and the movement, he stops her when she starts making “muddy” colors. Every art teacher does this – guides the student. But then the student is supposed to internalize this knowledge and come up with ways of interpreting and applying that knowledge independently, without help from the teacher. I used to teach pre-schoolers (4 – 5 yr olds), and never guided them, as it wasn’t a formal art class. The work some of them created were truly beautiful. How long will Marla’s work stay light fast? In some parts of the movie it seemed as if she were using student acrylics. Any child who is given a large gallery-wrap canvas and enough paints to play with can create similar works. In my opinion Marla is nothing more than a child with access to a large canvas, loads of paint and a very hands-on art teacher.. THE DAD SHOULD BE TAKING THE LIE DETECTOR TEST. He kept very silent when his wife volunteered to do so – not that she’ll know anything (unless he’s confessed to her) because she’s at work all day!