Marla Olmstead: is she the real deal?

Lieze said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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 said | 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.