Four Year Old Calgary Girl's Scribbles Praised By Some Critics As High Art

lunavixen

New member
Jan 2, 2012
841
0
0
I wonder if I smooshed my paint board into a canvas it would work out the same? On a serious note, this is sort of cute and all with the whole selling them for charity thing, but that girl is being set up for failure later in life.
 

Kontarek

New member
Nov 25, 2020
79
0
0
Country
USA
Hehe. I went in expecting to think it was crap, but I actually kind of like it. I mean, it's obviously nothing that deserves obscene amounts of money and praise thrown at it, but it's kind of alright at the very least.
 

CpT_x_Killsteal

New member
Jun 21, 2012
1,519
0
0
So long as rich fools are being parted with their money and an innocent child is getting it, I don't see a problem. Yes it's just nonsense smears of paint, but hey, no harm no foul.
 

likalaruku

New member
Nov 29, 2008
4,291
0
0
I prefer art people put their heart & souls into & sweat over for weeks or months. Expressionist art does nothing for me, except aggravate my OCD.

CpT_x_Killsteal said:
So long as rich fools are being parted with their money and an innocent child is getting it, I don't see a problem. Yes it's just nonsense smears of paint, but hey, no harm no foul.
What he said.
 

BeeGeenie

New member
May 30, 2012
726
0
0
First thought: They named her Cosette. I suppose we should just be grateful she's not on "Toddlers and Tiaras"... yet.

Second thought: Yeah. I can really feel the pathos in those random splotches of paint. /sarcasm.
 

Spushkin

New member
Nov 2, 2011
75
0
0
I'm still holding on to paintings my grandma did when she was a kid. That was 70 years ago. I'm sure they'll be worth millions soon.
 

Biran53

New member
Apr 21, 2013
64
0
0
Hey, If someone finds it aesthetically pleasing or meaningful, then it's art.

Not everyone has to see it the same way. I wouldn't personally place that much value in such an abstract painting, but then again one could think that all the movie posters I buy are essentially worthless. Such is the subjective beauty of art.
 

HardkorSB

New member
Mar 18, 2010
1,477
0
0
Story said:
The first part of your answer is understandable, but what is skill exactly? Do you mean recreating images exactly as they are in real life on canvas?
That's only one aspect of skill.
Look at these, for example:




They don't have much to do with real life yet it would take years of practice to create these kinds of work.

In color field painting the idea is to use large plains of solid color to show an artists' constancy and form.
That to me sounds like an exercise to train consistency and form, not something you should present as an actual art piece.
It reminds me of when vocalists train to be able to hold a single note for as long as they can.

Also I remember that painting. It's by Newman another color field painter like Rothko. I do remember the news stories criticizing the purchase of that painting in particular so obviously you are not alone on that one. Plus, I have to say that piece sold so high not because of its perceived "prettiness" or because of how complicated it is, but mostly because Newman, like Rothko is such an historic name in the art world
And that is my biggest problem.
It was bought because of the name and not the work itself.

Not too long ago (sometime last year, I believe), Kanye West "designed" a t-shirt.
It was a white t-shirt with nothing on it and yet he was selling it for $120.
It sold out within days.
Just like with that painting, not because of the thing itself but because of who made it.

I also remember reading about some famous artist who took a shit and put it in jars for several years.
After a while he sold it for about $250000.
That's not art, that's literally selling crap to people.
 

Eclipse Dragon

Lusty Argonian Maid
Legacy
Jul 7, 2020
4,259
12
43
Country
United States
Story said:
It's a Mark Rothko field color painting. It's not that surprising in hindsight that it sold for so much considering he is one of the most popular post-world war artists along with De Kooning and Pollock, who I mentioned above.

Eh, I'm an Art History minor in college and honestly it is difficult to explain modern art to people. Heck, I didn't appreciate it until I started taking classes about it. All I'll say is we are in a period (and have been for a long time) where artwork is measured less by classical talent and more about uniqueness and historical significance. In this way, what is considered art is difficult to describe in this day and age and I think for many modern artists, that's kinda the point.
My art history teacher, who did a wonderful job explaining Jackson Pollock and why his work is significant shook her head when Rothko came into the subject and went "Sorry I can't sell you that guy!"
 

Story

Note to self: Prooof reed posts
Sep 4, 2013
905
0
0
HardkorSB said:
Hmmm, fair enough but, again, when it came to modern art it was is more about what was considered new at that time. This, unfortunately wasn't really based off of skill at least not all of the time. I also think its a little close minded to feel only highly skilled works or works that take a long time to make are worth looking at or presenting in a museum. Sometimes what the artist wanted to expresses could be done in a few strokes, sometimes without using contemporary imagery, sometimes using only a few colors or no color. If color field painting was any more complicated it would arguably miss the point of what the artist and artists of that movement were trying to convey. For example this is one of my favorite pieces of all time. It is not the prettiest image, but I think it saids a lot more to me about what we can do with art than the two (certainly very cool) Wildstyle contemporary pieces you posted:

Reads: This is not a pipe.


To reiterate, when it came to color field painting, just as lot of modern artwork, it was really the ideas that expanded the perception of what art is, not simply skill. You said earlier (paraphrasing admittedly) that art that pushes boundaries should be displayed right? Again the ideas of only showing color on canvas and geometric shapes without any objective imagery were exciting and new in a time when, as I said, artists wanted to distance themselves from traditional art academies and institutions. Admittedly this seems completely archaic today because we are exposed to different types of art that explore new ideas more than any other generation. However, much of the modern art seen in museums were among the very first professionally presented paintings to show new concepts.

As far as name brands are concerned in your T-shirt comparison, art is not quite the same, at least not for a professional museum perspective. What art historians and often critics look for, is whether or not a piece of work represented the artist movements of that time. These paintings have historical value, which is why they are often in museums. If they were created by the artists that pioneered the movement, like Newman or Rothko for color field painting, of course they are going to sell more. This of course, this idea does not include private collections which is a lot more like your Kanye West comparison especially in the contemporary art world.

Also your poo example...that is what people call Transgressive art. Heck I just posted the Piss Christ on this thread. The whole point of art like that is to disgust you. And you know what? I'll even say you are right and that is not art it's actually an example of what is called Anti-Art.


Honestly my points are all kinda moot as you'll have your opinions and I'll have mine regarding what is art. The categorical places we put art in and motivations behind collecting art for historical purposes are at least somewhat understandable but not much else. I enjoy explaining art history to anyone who is interested as I really do feel to have an appreciation for anything it is helpful to know the history about it before hand. But I agree with the poster who said the real problem with art is that it is so subjective. That's so very true, to the point where it is self defeating.

Wow, talk about derailing the thread!
 

Story

Note to self: Prooof reed posts
Sep 4, 2013
905
0
0
Eclipse Dragon said:
My art history teacher, who did a wonderful job explaining Jackson Pollock and why his work is significant shook her head when Rothko came into the subject and went "Sorry I can't sell you that guy!"
Yeah you know I'm not a fan of Rothko really, he's too meta emotional for me. Even among color field painting my favorite is Frank Stella, but he wasn't the first to do things so he gets skipped out a lot. I'm acting like I love color field painting and all modern art but that's really not true at all. I like Cubism, Environmental art, and Surrealism among the modern artists and frankly everything relating to American Romanticism and Rococo the most eh.

To get on topic a bit I think that little girl's paintings look a lot like Pollock paints at least they have same ideas to them.