by Simon 46 Replies latest social current
I worked as an art gallery owner, an art rep, a painter, an etching studio manager, an art salesman and such from 1974 until this past year. You might say I have a pretty good eye for art.
The work represented in the link is gorgeous! I don't care if a monkey with a paintball gun did it.
To my eyes there is more than happenstance here. I suspect there is more to the story.
HS,
There has been several TV shows showing this four year old doing her finger paintings, one of late was the Today Show, just this morning who had this little girl and her parents on. I cringe every time I see her on a TV show. Her use of color is simple, she uses every color she can get her stubby little fingers on, then does a few swirls on it and people go nuts.
You are right about abstract art and how people like Pollock and Picasso paid their dues. But, at four years old, all this kid can do is swirl paint. Picasso was looking to do something different and began with cubism that he saw the French painters playing with. Once he built his name he took his work in what ever direction he wanted and still sold paintings and drawings. When he got to the stage he did his famous "Woman Peeing" it was nothing but a joke to him. He knew all he had to do was sign a piece of shit and people would line up to buy it. He worked hard to get to the point of passing off shit as art so he deserved what ever the art world gave him. The gallery owners and art brokers went right along with the game and laughed as they filled their bank accounts.
Pollock also was looking to do something different and in-between his drunken stoopers he created his unique style. I have seen several of his works in person as well as Leroy Neiman's work and just like I felt about Neiman's work, I didn't like Pollock's at first. The more I studied each mans work, the more I began to appreciate them and see the THOUGHT behind them. I met Neiman at a nation art materials convention in Chicago and listening to him describe his thought process in doing the work, it made me gain even more appertain for it and for him.
I do not appreciate this little four year olds work and see her scribbling as nothing more than a fluke of color mixing. She is the product of marketing hype and slow news days. The more exposure she gets, the more she proves guys like Mark Kostabi right. You can sell a fool any piece of shit with the right story behind it. I have not owned or ran a gallery before but have had my work in several of them. I have sold work all over the world and one of the things that's stops me dead and makes me quit painting for years is the bullshit hype behind the fine art world. I also have lectured and did seminars at some of the most well now art schools in this country and am still amazed with the low level of quality art coming out of most of the schools. Barbara Rogers who is now teaching at Pratt and was one time the dean of The Art Institute of San Francisco was a good friend of mine. I went to a showing at the art institute and just stood there looking at the rows of crap hanging on the walls. She was embarrassed because as the young artists walked around with their florescent green fish net stocking on and spiked hair telling how the piece of shit they did was inspired by their latest alien abduction, all Barbara could do is apologize for not having any real good instructors that could teach the students how to draw or paint.
A kid does a scribble on a piece of paper and his parents end up convincing him he's an artist, sends him to art school to study under some no talent instructor and the next thing you know, you have gallery owners having to sell the hype instead of the art. All the while talented artist are left to selling their work on street corners because they do not have the piece of paper that says they went to a big name art school and taught by a big name no talent instructor or are not creative enough at writing to slap on a hype story to print on a gallery flyer. The hype has taken over the need for talent and it pisses me off.
The last time I went through the SOHO art scene I was amazed with the sharp contrast of great art and total shit hanging in the same gallery. I lived in Laguna Beach for two years and watched the same thing happen on the walls of Laguna's 70 art galleries.
The gallery owners and sales staff have had to switch from recognizing real art to trying to appreciate the fact that one color looks good slapped on a canvas because it just happens to be a color that works with it's complementary color on the color wheel. They then mix in the incredible story about a four year old from the suburbs doing the paint slapping and you have all the work that guys like Picasso and Pollock who paid their dues to get where they got, laid in the lap of a clueless little girl who has gallery owners and her parents not being able to see the shit through the dollar signs. Just because a person worked or ran an art gallery does not mean they know art. Just look at the idiot who had several of vanGogh's paintings stuffed away because he did not see the genius of his work and didn't think he could make a dime on it until he croaked.
You also have the galleries who raved about Kostabi's work and how his colors did this and the image did that because it was selling off the walls. The whole time Kostabi was standing behind them, telling them he did not even do the art, he hired college students do it and paid them minimum wage and that he only signed the painting and people like Sylvester Stalone and his Hollywood buddies were morons for buying it. I went to one of his shows just to watch the man make fun of people for buying the crap and admitting the fact that he never once touched the painting until it was time to sign it. It was marketing hype selling shitty art at it's finest and the gallery owners and sales staff couldn't care less, after all they knew good art when they saw the price tag.
When the art world takes a few steps back and learns to separate talent from hype, real artists may once again be seen as professionals instead of finger painters with a story behind them. I'm sure as a person who ran a gallery you can appreciate the Bob Ross and William Alexander wet on wet painters from those who really have talent. At four years old, this kid may be good at slapping color down on a canvas but without the marketing hype of "everything is art" and "do your own thing" and "art is in the eye of the beholder" and any other new advertising catch phrase that goes along with her finger painting, this kid would be no more than princess of her preschool art class.
Dave
Seven,
I am still unconvinced that this young child actually did these paintings. Mirror flip the images. They all show that some sort of reason has been put into the compositions, especially with regard to the left to right reading, which as you know is the natural way that the eye 'reads' a picture. Given that her father is a professional artist, I just smell a bit of rat over the whole thing. Of course I may be wrong.
Pollock also was looking to do something different and in-between his drunken stoopers he created his unique style. I have seen several of his works in person as well as Leroy Neiman's work and just like I felt about Neiman's work, I didn't like Pollock's at first. The more I studied each mans work, the more I began to appreciate them and see the THOUGHT behind them. I met Neiman at a nation art materials convention in Chicago and listening to him describe his thought process in doing the work, it made me gain even more appertain for it and for him.
Yes, this is what I mean about learning the language of art, you summed it up very well. For example, I am terribly impressed with the work of Pierre Soulages, I was instantaneously mesmerised by it as it is very immediate, but it took hearing him explain it in a lecture that I attended that helped me learn the language.
God, isn't it good to talk about something useful like art, instead of politics....lol
Best regards - HS
Pierre Soulages :
HS,
Even though I have seen the story about this little girl a few times on TV, this is the first time I have heard that her dad was a professional artist (that's what I get for having my TV on in the background while I work) Now it's starting to make sense. This morning as I glanced over to see Ann Curie interviewing the little girl, the kid just sat in her dads arms and buried her head in his shoulder not wanting anything to do with the interview. Her dad kept trying to get her to say hello and the kid kept burring her face. The whole thing stinks of bullshit. I looked at the web site and did not see any of the paintings she was playing with (working on) the other two times I saw little spots about her.
My son who is now 25 did a painting in water color when he was six years old. I just gave him the paper and paint and then left the room for him to play. When I came back, he had painted a drink glass, an apple and a banana. For a six year old, it was incredible work I still have it framed and on my wall. I looked up on the wall after seeing the painting and there was an airbrush painting I did of a drink glass and a bowl of cherries. The banana was perfect but was his idea. Kids do seem to copy their parents.
Given the little girl didn't want anything to do with the interview and the fact that her dad is an artist, this whole thing is starting to stink. Add the hype I was talking about and you have the next slow news day scandal.
Poor kid, someone should shove a number 12 round sable brush up her dads butt.
Dave
The saying that was attributed to PT Barnum comes to mind, "There?s a sucker born every minute" applies here. People these days will buy any crap and that includes, TV shows, Movies, Music etc. Makes one wonder if the average IQ level is going into the toilet also.
Will
realist says:99% of modern art is a joke.
some pictures have nice color combinations or intersting combination of shapes....but PLEASE... 99% of the stuff can be done by an ape.
I'm always puzzled by such comments.
I'm not certain what it means unless the "degree of difficulty" is known. How difficult is it for somebody who has ability to do a thing which is not easy for others and how is that relevent?
Isn't it a bit like the joke about the tap dancing giraffe? It isn't the fact that the giraffe dances well; but, that it dances at all.
Art is little understood by non-artists as a means of self-expression and as an instrument of non-utility.
A craft has usefulness in itself as a practical item (be it a vase, a piece of furniture or a march). Fine art is FINished Art which has no utility per se other than to provoke response personal to each viewer or appreciator.
How difficult it is for an accomplished person of great talent to do something is rather beside the point. A brute animal can often do things a human cannot.
Horses run faster. Oxen pull more weight. Turtles live longer. So what?
If a weight lifter can clean and jerk five hundred pounds, should we point out how easy it is for an elephant?
I don't get it.
Forgive me, Dave, but I think you are jealous. While she is only four and not much more than a chimp metnally perhaps, her use of color is far advanced from a chimp and/or a four-year-old. I suspect it is also your arrogance talking there, Dave, again. Don't get me wrong; I love your work and I respect you tremendously as an artist. Your Old Kentucky Bottle serves as my desktop background.
Only time will tell what that little girl will be able to do, but I have never viewed art from such a young child that displays such a grasp on the adult versions of abstract crap that sells for the big bucks. If nothing else, she is a genius for being able to duplicate and capitalize on artistic garbage. And I think I see some hidden penises in her work too, what do you think, Dave? (jk)
Corvin
Forgive me, Dave, but I think you are jealous. While she is only four and not much more than a chimp metnally perhaps, her use of color is far advanced from a chimp and/or a four-year-old. I suspect it is also your arrogance talking there, Dave, again.
You know you're in trouble when someone starts a sentence "forgive me [but]"..
If you stand and listen to Chinese people talk to each other it has the aspects of unintelligible jabber to it. It is off-putting. This is the fault of the listener who does not know the language. It has simply nothing to do with the Chinese language or the conversation!
Something is required of a viewer of art. Few people are "born with" the natural eyes of an artist nor the expertise to execute the vision. However, some people are natural appreciators because they "get it" automatically. It is IN THEM to see and understand.
Incidentally, Mozart's father was accused of writing the young man's music for him. So too was Erich Wolfgang Korngold's father. Korngold was an amazing prodigy whose father was a MUSIC CRITIC!! The very fact his father had named him Wolfgang darkened everything with suspicion. However, Erich Korngold was the rarest of all rare birds in the music world; he was a prodigy in everything: piano playing, composition, opera, orchestration, harmony, improvisation, etc
http://www.korngold-society.org/bio.html
Seems to me there is an awful lot of elitism going on here. Assuming you know the "value" of something is rather silly when the valuation is determined by what is spent on the art in question.
If an artist sells their work it is quite an accomplishment. The amount the artist can fetch indicates the value placed on it by the buyer. To criticize a buyer for the money spent is an act of hubris. It is setting yourself up as the sole arbiter of __actual__value. That can't be done except when under the delusion that you simply "know".
I spent many many years talking to artists of all styles and persuasions. Many are quite inarticulate. However, once you observe the artist at work you begin to absorb a commonality among the best of them. As Hillary_step pointed out quite accurately, in my opinion, art has a language to it that must be learned. It is not something that can be taught, however, beyond a certain level. You can attend lectures and read books and visit museums to attain a level of exposure; but, I don't think you can go beyond a certain "something" inside yourself which is esthetic in a way that requires a talent for observation.
It requires almost as much talent as a viewer; an audience--to accurately appreciate art. If this is not understood a major factor has been ignored.
There is an American artist called Thomas Kinkaide. He is one of the best selling artists of the decade. I personally find his work impossible to like. I think he is a talented hack. But, thousands of people disagree with me. Does my opinion make Kinkaide a hack? No. But, neither does the money being spent by the thousands who collect his work.
There is more to this than meets the eye.
It is what it is... and if you like it, you like it.
I see no reason to suspect the child is not doing the work, even if the work shows evidence of thought and intent in the placement of elements. She's a 4 year old *human* after all, the placement of stuff on a canvas can be thought about and done by rules with crafted intent sure, but born artist never need to learn the rules in the first place, they just "get" it. No reason a 4 year old wouldn't just "get" it.
A Savant? Or just a child with above average artistic impulse and the fearlessness of youth? Time will tell I suppose.
