Tuesday, 19 August 2008

We've all been there

'I never let schooling interfere with my education'

- Mark Twain

We've all been to school and I think that it would be a good idea to see what todays kids are up to in school, how important or unimportant art based subjects are treated. What does creativity mean to kids? Do they know what it is?

I spoke to my mum today and she had heard a talk on radio by a Swedish guy who's pretty clever and he said that creativity depends on family and parents heritage. Something I can agree on.

For example, if a kid aged 7 or younger is asked to make some x-mas decorations they will probably make them as they want them to look like, whereas a kid aged 8 and older would start being aware of how they look and try to imitate that. This is where parents and other older role-models play an important role. If someone is telling you how things should look or be written, then there is a limit to the creativity. It becomes square and boxed.

I saw an interesting documentary about a 'child prodigy' called Marla Olderstadt, she was aged 4 at the time and had then sold 24 painting to a gathered value of $40.000. It started with her father Mark painting and he gave her a canvas to paint on the living room table. The paintings was exhibited at a local friends coffee shop and the first one was sold for $250. The parents claimed not knowing anything about art, the dad seemed more optimistic to his kids new won fame as it became world wide news rapidly. The mum however seemed more concerned with preserving her daughters innocence and let her paint when lust kicked in.

The art community debated the question, what is art? If a four year old can paint modern/abstract art that is sold for thousands of dollars, then what? As it seems the fine art market is just as it were a market with supply and demand regulating prices. Little Marla couldn't meet the demand and people were asking themselves how she later could produce many paintings in a short period of time, however not when a camera was around. The father told the documentary maker and other media that she was very shy and that she sometimes would get into a zone and paint on lust.

The story was the picked up by CBS 60 minutes and a hidden birds eye-perspective camera of a canvas was installed for a period of about three months. The footage showed Marla paint barely two paintings and her father would give her instructions on how to do it, telling her 'not like that, you make me crazy' 'paint the red'. It made her clearly rebel and not wanting to paint, at one point she also asked her dad to help her paint as he had done before... this was in front of the camera and it was a cringing moment of embarrassment. She did though supposedly paint several more paintings off camera. It started to smell of a hoax! The parents claimed being portrayed falsely and tried fighting the mass-medial war by releasing a 90 minute tape of Marla painting. . . though many of the paintings look suspiciously different from one another. The art buyers in the local town and from other parts, (Marla fans) got angry and didn't perhaps trust the father. . . 

The documentary had a unique perspective as the film maker was a student aged guy and the parents trusted him as he followed them since the start in the local newspapers. At one point (on camera) the family was going to exhibit Marla's work when Marla herself said: 'I didn't do that one, Max did (or what ever her little brothers name was).

The dad and the local art dealer obviously saw their chance in making extra money and the documentary maker had swayed his opinions of the parents and does confront them in the end of the film. The only time he speaks into the camera is in the end when he says that he is very disappointed with them. 

I believe that Marla was painting some nice paintings, but what kid doesn't? It got hyped and the dad saw an opportunity to make some serious $$$, I wonder if they ever got sued?

Want to check out Marla's art yourself? You be the judge:::

www.marlaolmstead.com 
 
http://enwikipedia.org/wiki/marla_olmstead

I think it had a sentimental value cuz it meant that art appreciators could believe that she had a special gift, creating their own meanings in her art, often existentialist, deep.

Anyhow the market was there as she stirred debate and caused publicity.

No comments: