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.

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

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.

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.

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.

My best to Marla, I’m looking forward to see if she becomes the Lindsay Lohan of abstract art