Six-year-old artist.
August 2, 2009 1:46 AM Subscribe
Six-year-old artist. Extraordinary understanding of perspective and shading. Side by side comparisons. Local coverage.
I'll make the connection to that film before you do because as result I was initially very sceptical. But having watched the boy paint so freely on camera and in front of witnesses and clearly creating the lines (he was also seen painting on BBC Breakfast this morning), I'm convinced. This is amazing.
I'll make the connection to that film before you do because as result I was initially very sceptical. But having watched the boy paint so freely on camera and in front of witnesses and clearly creating the lines (he was also seen painting on BBC Breakfast this morning), I'm convinced. This is amazing.
Well is father is an art dealer and he says that the boy has been around artists and auction houses all of his life. That was in the BBC Breakfast interview. The father in that interview seemed very shy and wondering what all the fuss was about. He even said he was embarrassed that his son was having an exhibition. They also had pictures of his neighbours dogs and they were very good also.
posted by feelinglistless at 2:16 AM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by feelinglistless at 2:16 AM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
As for drawing -- as he says in the ITN report he sometimes draws them out first then puts in the colours, but that's not unusual for an artist. But generally we've just seen him working freehand.
posted by feelinglistless at 2:18 AM on August 2, 2009
posted by feelinglistless at 2:18 AM on August 2, 2009
So the kid doesn't fantasize about his work hanging in the Tate or MOMA, he fantasizes about which auction house is going to sell his stuff?
For modern artists, Sotheby's is probably like getting exhibited in MOMA. You get to cash in while you're still alive, and if your work is being traded around at that level, people will probably be enjoying your work in museums after you die. It's win-win.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:27 AM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
For modern artists, Sotheby's is probably like getting exhibited in MOMA. You get to cash in while you're still alive, and if your work is being traded around at that level, people will probably be enjoying your work in museums after you die. It's win-win.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:27 AM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Can I just say that UGH that Mum seems annoyingly middle class?
And the shot of the kid where he's sitting AND RIGHT BEHIND HIM ARE ALL OF HIS PAINTINGS? I hope that that's ITV's crew being imaginative, not his mum deciding that such a shot would just be so precious.
posted by litleozy at 2:54 AM on August 2, 2009
And the shot of the kid where he's sitting AND RIGHT BEHIND HIM ARE ALL OF HIS PAINTINGS? I hope that that's ITV's crew being imaginative, not his mum deciding that such a shot would just be so precious.
posted by litleozy at 2:54 AM on August 2, 2009
Can I just say that UGH that Mum seems annoyingly middle class?
What's annoying about being middle class? And how can you tell from that brief interview?
posted by Oriole Adams at 3:27 AM on August 2, 2009 [13 favorites]
What's annoying about being middle class? And how can you tell from that brief interview?
posted by Oriole Adams at 3:27 AM on August 2, 2009 [13 favorites]
You chose quite a link to mention My Kid Could Paint That, wherein the critic gleefully points out that everybody, from the people in the film to the filmmakers to any audiences that have seen it and liked the film, are deluded morons unable to see the real film that could have been made. With a bonus withering assault of abstract expressionism to boot.
I saw that film, with the filmmaker in attendance, and it just breaks my heart in two to say that I liked the 'good' paintings more than the 'unassisted' ones. I really did see a difference. But apparently that makes me a moron too.
Luckily the reviewer has gone on to monumental success within this stunning microcosm of a cut-and-paste blog. I can't wait for his next review, where he calls anyone who doesn't see the obvious mistakes by the filmmakers an idiot.
posted by jscott at 3:31 AM on August 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
I saw that film, with the filmmaker in attendance, and it just breaks my heart in two to say that I liked the 'good' paintings more than the 'unassisted' ones. I really did see a difference. But apparently that makes me a moron too.
Luckily the reviewer has gone on to monumental success within this stunning microcosm of a cut-and-paste blog. I can't wait for his next review, where he calls anyone who doesn't see the obvious mistakes by the filmmakers an idiot.
posted by jscott at 3:31 AM on August 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Norfolk, Virginia. Ignoring the blighted parts, good on him.
posted by Mblue at 3:42 AM on August 2, 2009
posted by Mblue at 3:42 AM on August 2, 2009
For modern artists, Sotheby's is probably like getting exhibited in MOMA.
Sure -- I just expect my six year old kids to be a bit more idealistic than that. I mean, if you aren't idealistic when you're six, when will you ever be?
Well is father is an art dealer and he says that the boy has been around artists and auction houses all of his life.
I suppose if his father was really working the kid, he'd pick something more interesting than the twee, chocolate box watercolours that he's got this kid churning out. Maybe have him bisect the family cat and dunk it in formaldehyde?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 3:46 AM on August 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
Sure -- I just expect my six year old kids to be a bit more idealistic than that. I mean, if you aren't idealistic when you're six, when will you ever be?
Well is father is an art dealer and he says that the boy has been around artists and auction houses all of his life.
I suppose if his father was really working the kid, he'd pick something more interesting than the twee, chocolate box watercolours that he's got this kid churning out. Maybe have him bisect the family cat and dunk it in formaldehyde?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 3:46 AM on August 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
Uh, not knocking the kid, prodigy or not (who really cares?), but are side-by-side comparisons now our judgment of how art works? Bloody engineers.
posted by converge at 3:47 AM on August 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
posted by converge at 3:47 AM on August 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
jscott: gosh you're right. Though he isn't wrong about the film -- it does pull its punches at a vital moment.
posted by feelinglistless at 4:32 AM on August 2, 2009
posted by feelinglistless at 4:32 AM on August 2, 2009
I'd like to see Keiron move away from the boring harbor scenes and start painting the imaginative scenes of the six year old mind.
posted by orme at 5:28 AM on August 2, 2009 [9 favorites]
posted by orme at 5:28 AM on August 2, 2009 [9 favorites]
Torso's too long; looks like an achondroplasiac dwarf to me.
posted by johnny novak at 5:36 AM on August 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by johnny novak at 5:36 AM on August 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
I think they're very good for a six year old, but hardly very good paintings. There's potential there, sure, but they like like another variation on the type of stuff that sells well to tourists.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:45 AM on August 2, 2009
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:45 AM on August 2, 2009
The paintings are very good - especially the ones of the landscape. I've been in that region, and he captures the feeling of it in a way that photos rarely do. He has a real gift with the delicacy of watercolours - and his work is better than a professional watercolourist whose paintings I know.
Of course, he's not going to be as good as a master who spent decades as an apprentice to learn to work in oils. He's 6. But people who have that kind of eye at 6 can then train to paint really, really well.
posted by jb at 5:57 AM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Of course, he's not going to be as good as a master who spent decades as an apprentice to learn to work in oils. He's 6. But people who have that kind of eye at 6 can then train to paint really, really well.
posted by jb at 5:57 AM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
MBlue: no, the original Norfolk...
posted by gene_machine at 6:03 AM on August 2, 2009
posted by gene_machine at 6:03 AM on August 2, 2009
I'd like to see Keiron move away from the boring harbor scenes and start painting the imaginative scenes of the six year old mind.
So, you're saying you want to see paintings of Super Mario, then.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:42 AM on August 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
So, you're saying you want to see paintings of Super Mario, then.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:42 AM on August 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
Can I just say that UGH that Mum seems annoyingly middle class?
You either have been reading too much Edith Wharton, or not enough.
posted by hermitosis at 6:44 AM on August 2, 2009 [7 favorites]
You either have been reading too much Edith Wharton, or not enough.
posted by hermitosis at 6:44 AM on August 2, 2009 [7 favorites]
Did the film show him drawing or just painting, feelinglistless? Because there's a confidence in the lines that he draws that doesn't seem present when he writes his own name.
And as he's probably been writing his name longer than he's been drawing, that seems somewhat peculiar.
I don't know, PeterMcDermott. If you look at a lot of the still pictures in the second link, particularly the one with the windmill, the lines are not particularly 'confident' and they have a wavering nature that I think is very much in line with the way his signature is written-- kind of squiggly and not entirely controlled.
Also in the video, the sort of diagonal hatchings he works on underneath the boat are a stroke that you see in a good deal of the other paintings as well. And with the brush in his hand I noticed that his lines were much more confident. I'd recommend watching the video again. I was impressed.
I'm not horribly skeptical of the kid's ability anymore but I of course could be wrong. Mostly I hope that, if he does truly like art (and he seems to), he doesn't let himself get pinned in by all of this into a small corner of painting villages and boats. If it's what he likes, fine and good, but I'd like to see his art improve and branch out; I'd be rather disappointed if his work started to look like what is featured in every art gallery within 20 miles of the great lakes.
posted by six-or-six-thirty at 6:46 AM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
And as he's probably been writing his name longer than he's been drawing, that seems somewhat peculiar.
I don't know, PeterMcDermott. If you look at a lot of the still pictures in the second link, particularly the one with the windmill, the lines are not particularly 'confident' and they have a wavering nature that I think is very much in line with the way his signature is written-- kind of squiggly and not entirely controlled.
Also in the video, the sort of diagonal hatchings he works on underneath the boat are a stroke that you see in a good deal of the other paintings as well. And with the brush in his hand I noticed that his lines were much more confident. I'd recommend watching the video again. I was impressed.
I'm not horribly skeptical of the kid's ability anymore but I of course could be wrong. Mostly I hope that, if he does truly like art (and he seems to), he doesn't let himself get pinned in by all of this into a small corner of painting villages and boats. If it's what he likes, fine and good, but I'd like to see his art improve and branch out; I'd be rather disappointed if his work started to look like what is featured in every art gallery within 20 miles of the great lakes.
posted by six-or-six-thirty at 6:46 AM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Metafilter: UGH annoyingly middle class.
posted by billysumday at 6:51 AM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by billysumday at 6:51 AM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
If this kid doesn't burn out he could be pretty damn good down the line! I mean, shit, he's got a damn fine grasp of casual perspective. At six.
Will this be what he draws his whole life? Probably not. Will he even be "an artist" his whole life? Maybe, maybe not.
As to parents pushing - well. I can't tell from this one clip. But I can say from my own experience growing up that, well, if your family has a little money to spend, it's pretty normal to have your interests encouraged. There was a bookshelf in my home full of every art material I could want to try because I showed an interest in the stuff and my parents funded my exploration, getting me tutors and sending me to art school later on. There were also guitar lessons for a while, dropped when my interest in that turned out to be less powerful than the art. Part of being a good parent is knowing to get the hell out of the way when your kid latches onto something, and just feed them what they need - raw materials, time with experts, space to practice.
I wish this kid luck. Maybe he'll get bored with it, maybe he'll find new challenges.
posted by egypturnash at 6:55 AM on August 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
Will this be what he draws his whole life? Probably not. Will he even be "an artist" his whole life? Maybe, maybe not.
As to parents pushing - well. I can't tell from this one clip. But I can say from my own experience growing up that, well, if your family has a little money to spend, it's pretty normal to have your interests encouraged. There was a bookshelf in my home full of every art material I could want to try because I showed an interest in the stuff and my parents funded my exploration, getting me tutors and sending me to art school later on. There were also guitar lessons for a while, dropped when my interest in that turned out to be less powerful than the art. Part of being a good parent is knowing to get the hell out of the way when your kid latches onto something, and just feed them what they need - raw materials, time with experts, space to practice.
I wish this kid luck. Maybe he'll get bored with it, maybe he'll find new challenges.
posted by egypturnash at 6:55 AM on August 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
I meant to also say that I think the medium he's using really suits his ability, being six years old as he is. I can't work with watercolors for anything, but the style he's 'chosen' allows for some slop and allows for some mistakes without ruining the picture as a whole. Not only can the lines be wobbly, but the paint itself can be splashed and layered, within reason, and can even help create a more aesthetic piece.
But the thing that struck me most was the kid himself is the idea that on more difficult paintings he makes a sketch first, sometimes two, and then goes to painting. It's possibly just personal experience biasing me, but I can't help but worry that it might turn out that something is wrong. Meticulousness and focus aren't things one typically thinks of in a six year old, or at least not for the hours it takes him to do his paintings.
I have a cousin, for example, who at about six years old decided he was interested in the architecture of 19th-century churches. He was six. He collected postcards, visited as many as he could, and drew sketches. He moved on to a variety of things which I believe included bug and stamp collecting, and now he is on World War II. He can tell you quite literally about any event or person, with exact detail. He is fifteen, now, and he's been diagnosed with mild autism. It's worked out for him very well, and he doesn't seem to have any severe social issues. But it does make me wonder.
posted by six-or-six-thirty at 6:59 AM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
But the thing that struck me most was the kid himself is the idea that on more difficult paintings he makes a sketch first, sometimes two, and then goes to painting. It's possibly just personal experience biasing me, but I can't help but worry that it might turn out that something is wrong. Meticulousness and focus aren't things one typically thinks of in a six year old, or at least not for the hours it takes him to do his paintings.
I have a cousin, for example, who at about six years old decided he was interested in the architecture of 19th-century churches. He was six. He collected postcards, visited as many as he could, and drew sketches. He moved on to a variety of things which I believe included bug and stamp collecting, and now he is on World War II. He can tell you quite literally about any event or person, with exact detail. He is fifteen, now, and he's been diagnosed with mild autism. It's worked out for him very well, and he doesn't seem to have any severe social issues. But it does make me wonder.
posted by six-or-six-thirty at 6:59 AM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I love the movie "F For Fake".
It brings up so many great questions about art.
posted by rageagainsttherobots at 7:40 AM on August 2, 2009
It brings up so many great questions about art.
posted by rageagainsttherobots at 7:40 AM on August 2, 2009
basic perspective + watercolor = not bad, especially for his age. It's good to see the parents encouraging these 'chocolate box' reproductions of actual things, still life and perspectives. Later on he can muster all of his teenage angst in an abstract expressionist rage. Good for him if he can make a few pounds off the brief fame.
posted by limited slip at 7:40 AM on August 2, 2009
posted by limited slip at 7:40 AM on August 2, 2009
I won a coloring contest once when I was about nine. It did not end well. I feel for this kid and hope he gets his Bonham's.
posted by iamkimiam at 7:46 AM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by iamkimiam at 7:46 AM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Well is father is an art dealer and he says that the boy has been around artists and auction houses all of his life.
I've been around movies all my life; doesn't mean I can make one--and I'm 40, not six.
Six-year-olds rarely have the fine motor skills necessary for the kind of brushstrokes and perspective he's achieved. Good on him.
posted by tzikeh at 7:56 AM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I've been around movies all my life; doesn't mean I can make one--and I'm 40, not six.
Six-year-olds rarely have the fine motor skills necessary for the kind of brushstrokes and perspective he's achieved. Good on him.
posted by tzikeh at 7:56 AM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
he's probably been writing his name longer than he's been drawing
I come from a huge family where most people breed like crazy and I'm one of the older ones. I can tell you truly that I've never once met a kid who wrote before they took up drawing. When they're tiny, you give them those fat stubby non-toxic crayons until they get that putting it to paper makes a mark, then upgrade. We're talking preschool tots, here. Art comes first.
posted by Never teh Bride at 7:57 AM on August 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
I come from a huge family where most people breed like crazy and I'm one of the older ones. I can tell you truly that I've never once met a kid who wrote before they took up drawing. When they're tiny, you give them those fat stubby non-toxic crayons until they get that putting it to paper makes a mark, then upgrade. We're talking preschool tots, here. Art comes first.
posted by Never teh Bride at 7:57 AM on August 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
He is fifteen, now, and he's been diagnosed with mild autism. It's worked out for him very well, and he doesn't seem to have any severe social issues. But it does make me wonder.
Every artistic soul is fucked up to a greater or lesser extent. It is just that we now have fancier ways of describing and attempting to normalize these people.
posted by Meatbomb at 8:09 AM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Every artistic soul is fucked up to a greater or lesser extent. It is just that we now have fancier ways of describing and attempting to normalize these people.
posted by Meatbomb at 8:09 AM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I've been around movies all my life; doesn't mean I can make one--and I'm 40, not six.
But you could probably pick up a guitar and, within an hour, do a passable version of Louie, Louie. Assuming this kid's art is his own, it's passably good for a first-year art student. He has a solid sense of perspective, a good sense of light, and a nicely muted color sense, which is pretty darn good for a six year old, but isn't exactly Guernica. I suspect art seems hard because so many people do it so amateurishly and so badly that it seems shocking to our eyes that somebody so young can demonstrate a rudimentary competence. I find it shocking that so few adults can do something artistic with even that bare level of competence.
It will be interesting to see if he develops as an artist. Sometimes prodigies just freeze at whatever level they were when people noticed them, and others, who are later bloomers, pass them pretty quickly. It would be a pity, as these are the sorts of painting you find at starving artists sales -- again, nothing to be ashamed of when you're six -- but not the sort of thing that sells at auctions.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:28 AM on August 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
But you could probably pick up a guitar and, within an hour, do a passable version of Louie, Louie. Assuming this kid's art is his own, it's passably good for a first-year art student. He has a solid sense of perspective, a good sense of light, and a nicely muted color sense, which is pretty darn good for a six year old, but isn't exactly Guernica. I suspect art seems hard because so many people do it so amateurishly and so badly that it seems shocking to our eyes that somebody so young can demonstrate a rudimentary competence. I find it shocking that so few adults can do something artistic with even that bare level of competence.
It will be interesting to see if he develops as an artist. Sometimes prodigies just freeze at whatever level they were when people noticed them, and others, who are later bloomers, pass them pretty quickly. It would be a pity, as these are the sorts of painting you find at starving artists sales -- again, nothing to be ashamed of when you're six -- but not the sort of thing that sells at auctions.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:28 AM on August 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
I feel he captures emotion as well as images. And he seems to know about light. It would be real interesting to see what if anything he is painting in 10-20 years.
As to the signature, I often marveled that my ex's signature looked so crude compared to her excellent paintings. I thought her paintings reflected the world without a focus on herself, while her sig was a reflection of how she felt about herself.
posted by pointilist at 8:57 AM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
As to the signature, I often marveled that my ex's signature looked so crude compared to her excellent paintings. I thought her paintings reflected the world without a focus on herself, while her sig was a reflection of how she felt about herself.
posted by pointilist at 8:57 AM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
If the work is actually his, it's way advanced for a six year old. I wish him nothing but the best.
At least he's not doing abstracts and being feted as a genius. That always fries my bacon.
posted by Hickeystudio at 8:58 AM on August 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
At least he's not doing abstracts and being feted as a genius. That always fries my bacon.
posted by Hickeystudio at 8:58 AM on August 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Well is father is an art dealer and he says that the boy has been around artists and auction houses all of his life.
I've been around movies all my life; doesn't mean I can make one--and I'm 40, not six.
I think that feelinglistless was just replying to PeterMcDermott's comment about the kid's dream of having his work sold at Bonham's.
posted by orme at 9:02 AM on August 2, 2009
I've been around movies all my life; doesn't mean I can make one--and I'm 40, not six.
I think that feelinglistless was just replying to PeterMcDermott's comment about the kid's dream of having his work sold at Bonham's.
posted by orme at 9:02 AM on August 2, 2009
I was way better than him when I was six. I was just too clumsy to hold a brush.
Will this be what he draws his whole life? Probably not. Will he even be "an artist" his whole life? Maybe, maybe not.
I'm thinking, if he genuinely is an "artist" (and not just a skilled painter of pictures), by the time he's twelve he'll be sticking toilets at prestigious Bonham's (and calling them art) then standing at the back and laughing at the bidders.
posted by philip-random at 9:14 AM on August 2, 2009
Will this be what he draws his whole life? Probably not. Will he even be "an artist" his whole life? Maybe, maybe not.
I'm thinking, if he genuinely is an "artist" (and not just a skilled painter of pictures), by the time he's twelve he'll be sticking toilets at prestigious Bonham's (and calling them art) then standing at the back and laughing at the bidders.
posted by philip-random at 9:14 AM on August 2, 2009
Boy, Metafilter sure loathes talented children.
I wonder who would win in the Great Metafilter Hate-Off?
Talented children v. Crocs?
Microsoft v. RIAA?
hipsters v. Your Favorite Band?
Imagine a post about a talented croc-wearing hipster child who had formed Your Favorite Band to do an ad campaign for Microsoft and was suing people for illegal downloading. There would be a hate-singularity-event in which the hatred was so dense it would tear the very fabric of our universe.
posted by yoink at 9:19 AM on August 2, 2009 [21 favorites]
I wonder who would win in the Great Metafilter Hate-Off?
Talented children v. Crocs?
Microsoft v. RIAA?
hipsters v. Your Favorite Band?
Imagine a post about a talented croc-wearing hipster child who had formed Your Favorite Band to do an ad campaign for Microsoft and was suing people for illegal downloading. There would be a hate-singularity-event in which the hatred was so dense it would tear the very fabric of our universe.
posted by yoink at 9:19 AM on August 2, 2009 [21 favorites]
Imagine a post about a talented croc-wearing hipster child who had formed Your Favorite Band to do an ad campaign for Microsoft and was suing people for illegal downloading. There would be a hate-singularity-event in which the hatred was so dense it would tear the very fabric of our universe.
And that kid opposed single payor... ;>
posted by njbradburn at 9:23 AM on August 2, 2009
And that kid opposed single payor... ;>
posted by njbradburn at 9:23 AM on August 2, 2009
This kid paints fucking awesome for a 6 year old. Have you seen how most 6 year olds draw? Damn, MetaFilter loves to get its hate on.
posted by chunking express at 9:35 AM on August 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by chunking express at 9:35 AM on August 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
this reminds me of egon schiele's drawings of trains and houses when he was like, 5 or something. like him, the subject matter might seem a bit mundane to the current standards for art, the talent is there for sure.
posted by fuzzypantalones at 9:42 AM on August 2, 2009
posted by fuzzypantalones at 9:42 AM on August 2, 2009
Damn, MetaFilter loves to get its hate on.
Wait, let me say it...
Look at this fucking six-year-old.
posted by orme at 9:49 AM on August 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
Wait, let me say it...
Look at this fucking six-year-old.
posted by orme at 9:49 AM on August 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
1) Obviously the paintings are not that good. Oh they're good for a kid of his age, if my kid showed that level of talent I would definitely encourage him what I wouldn't do is expect the outside world to give a fuck. Maybe some family friends and uncles or something, but not strangers. I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to pay money for this.
2) There's a big element of impatience here, we can't wait and see if the kid becomes a legitimately good painter eventually, we've got to crown him king for painting like a talented middle schooler at six. That's legitimately impressive for a kid. But it's particularly not impressive for a painting. Get the difference? The kid is a bad painter for a painter. He's also a great painter for a six year old. But the story doesn't ask us to appreciate him as a six year old. It asks us to appreciate him as a painter. Fuck that. His parents giving a fuck about him is good and appropriate his parents asking the world to give a fuck about him is stupid. Wait until he's actually good before you do that. Maybe he won't be. He probably won't be. That's ok.
3) I said the same thing over and over again. I know that. On the other hand I wrote as well as a 15 year old when I was 9.
posted by I Foody at 10:16 AM on August 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
2) There's a big element of impatience here, we can't wait and see if the kid becomes a legitimately good painter eventually, we've got to crown him king for painting like a talented middle schooler at six. That's legitimately impressive for a kid. But it's particularly not impressive for a painting. Get the difference? The kid is a bad painter for a painter. He's also a great painter for a six year old. But the story doesn't ask us to appreciate him as a six year old. It asks us to appreciate him as a painter. Fuck that. His parents giving a fuck about him is good and appropriate his parents asking the world to give a fuck about him is stupid. Wait until he's actually good before you do that. Maybe he won't be. He probably won't be. That's ok.
3) I said the same thing over and over again. I know that. On the other hand I wrote as well as a 15 year old when I was 9.
posted by I Foody at 10:16 AM on August 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
he has a good eye.
his technique will tighten up, not loosen up.
access to tools will ruin him (unless he throws them away).
he is already over-exposed.
my guess is he'll gravitate to digital illustration/animation.
designer yes, artist no.
will we agree that Picasso worked hard at going backwards?
posted by wallstreet1929 at 10:17 AM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
his technique will tighten up, not loosen up.
access to tools will ruin him (unless he throws them away).
he is already over-exposed.
my guess is he'll gravitate to digital illustration/animation.
designer yes, artist no.
will we agree that Picasso worked hard at going backwards?
posted by wallstreet1929 at 10:17 AM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
you know who else painted great landscapes in early life don'tcha?
posted by HyperBlue at 10:28 AM on August 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by HyperBlue at 10:28 AM on August 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
The kid's pretty good but he's no hitler.
posted by I Foody at 10:30 AM on August 2, 2009 [18 favorites]
posted by I Foody at 10:30 AM on August 2, 2009 [18 favorites]
This one and this one, I would put on my wall. Something about the marshiness of the water and grass in the first one, and the birds in the second one, really makes me happy. I just hope this kid doesn't totally burn out and start to dislike painting. Hope he can keep it up in a way that's fun and rewarding.
But...the gushy tone in the blog post about how phenomenal he is is weird and off-putting. Hmm.
posted by Neofelis at 10:43 AM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
But...the gushy tone in the blog post about how phenomenal he is is weird and off-putting. Hmm.
posted by Neofelis at 10:43 AM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
The kid's pretty good but he's no hitler.
Actually you're right:
http://www.snyderstreasures.com/pages/hartworks.htm
Give him time - He's young yet. He could still be as good as Hitler
posted by deliquescent at 10:43 AM on August 2, 2009
Actually you're right:
http://www.snyderstreasures.com/pages/hartworks.htm
Give him time - He's young yet. He could still be as good as Hitler
posted by deliquescent at 10:43 AM on August 2, 2009
How is it I see the comment, but missed the original link two up. I have to stop drinking from the blue bottle below the sink.
posted by deliquescent at 11:23 AM on August 2, 2009
posted by deliquescent at 11:23 AM on August 2, 2009
Metafilter: Overthinking a painting of a plate of beans.
posted by Ron Thanagar at 12:20 PM on August 2, 2009
posted by Ron Thanagar at 12:20 PM on August 2, 2009
These are actually pretty basic watercolor paintings. It's very difficult not to get these kinds of effects with watercolor. His ability to convincingly copy what he sees is solidly autism-spectrum.
Wake me up when he's capable of experimentation.
posted by cmoj at 1:44 PM on August 2, 2009
Wake me up when he's capable of experimentation.
posted by cmoj at 1:44 PM on August 2, 2009
And no one apprentices for years to be an oil painter anymore except the intentionally anachronistic.
My comment was intentionally anachronistic - but I think it is still the stars of the early modern period (eg Rembrandt) that many think of when they think of "great painters".
posted by jb at 2:00 PM on August 2, 2009
My comment was intentionally anachronistic - but I think it is still the stars of the early modern period (eg Rembrandt) that many think of when they think of "great painters".
posted by jb at 2:00 PM on August 2, 2009
They are very basic, chocolate box watercolours, and they would be unremarkable if done by someone who'd been doing watercolour for, oh, five years or so. As an adult.
Done by a kid? They're very impressive.
That said, I was sent to the local art school (Vancouver School of Art, long before it moved out of the Downtown East Side and became Emily Carr) to a kid's drawing and painting course -- I was about 9 or 10. All the kids in the class were 'little kids' and it was boring, so I wandered out and down the hall where there was a class of adults drawing a (clothed) model. I asked the woman running the class if I could take it instead of the kids class, and she (a little startled) said yes -- and I spent the summer drawing naked people, painting fish and flowers and shrimps, and doing self-portraits. A couple of the watercolour fish and shrimp I did I kept in my portfolio well into adulthood. It's much easier to do good stuff when you're not selfconscious and you don't know how hard what you're doing is.
And the review of the movie? That's someone with major issues with any and all art that's been made in the last 60 years. He's a pinheaded twerp.
posted by jrochest at 2:51 PM on August 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Done by a kid? They're very impressive.
That said, I was sent to the local art school (Vancouver School of Art, long before it moved out of the Downtown East Side and became Emily Carr) to a kid's drawing and painting course -- I was about 9 or 10. All the kids in the class were 'little kids' and it was boring, so I wandered out and down the hall where there was a class of adults drawing a (clothed) model. I asked the woman running the class if I could take it instead of the kids class, and she (a little startled) said yes -- and I spent the summer drawing naked people, painting fish and flowers and shrimps, and doing self-portraits. A couple of the watercolour fish and shrimp I did I kept in my portfolio well into adulthood. It's much easier to do good stuff when you're not selfconscious and you don't know how hard what you're doing is.
And the review of the movie? That's someone with major issues with any and all art that's been made in the last 60 years. He's a pinheaded twerp.
posted by jrochest at 2:51 PM on August 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
These are actually pretty basic watercolor paintings. It's very difficult not to get these kinds of effects with watercolor. His ability to convincingly copy what he sees is solidly autism-spectrum.
Wake me up when he's capable of experimentation.
This thread reminds me of an old joke. A man is walking in the park one day when he sees an old man who appears to be playing chess with his dog. The old man is on one side of the board and the dog is on the other. He stands watching for a while thinking that it must be simply that the old man is playing against himself and the dog is sitting opposite watching, but he slowly realizes that the dog is actually moving the pieces around. Not just moving them, but clearly playing within the rules and with an evident sense of strategy. The man watching is more and more amazed by this astonishing display. Eventually he can contain himself no longer and he says to the old man "Sir, this is truly the most astonishing thing I've ever seen! A dog who can play chess!" And the old man says, "I don't see what's so astonishing about it. I've beaten him four games out of five."
posted by yoink at 2:53 PM on August 2, 2009 [10 favorites]
Wake me up when he's capable of experimentation.
This thread reminds me of an old joke. A man is walking in the park one day when he sees an old man who appears to be playing chess with his dog. The old man is on one side of the board and the dog is on the other. He stands watching for a while thinking that it must be simply that the old man is playing against himself and the dog is sitting opposite watching, but he slowly realizes that the dog is actually moving the pieces around. Not just moving them, but clearly playing within the rules and with an evident sense of strategy. The man watching is more and more amazed by this astonishing display. Eventually he can contain himself no longer and he says to the old man "Sir, this is truly the most astonishing thing I've ever seen! A dog who can play chess!" And the old man says, "I don't see what's so astonishing about it. I've beaten him four games out of five."
posted by yoink at 2:53 PM on August 2, 2009 [10 favorites]
Well, I think they're lovely. I hope the attention doesn't stop him from exploring different things and stretching his skill and desire to create art. Go kid!
posted by dejah420 at 3:01 PM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by dejah420 at 3:01 PM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Boy, Metafilter sure loathes talented children.
That and it provides and opportunity to produce the old "Well, it's not really art!" wankfest, another metafilter passtime.
posted by deanc at 3:05 PM on August 2, 2009
That and it provides and opportunity to produce the old "Well, it's not really art!" wankfest, another metafilter passtime.
posted by deanc at 3:05 PM on August 2, 2009
Since they're British, I guess the parents' eyes turned into little € symbols instead of dollar signs when they saw their kid painting.
posted by Nomiconic at 3:29 PM on August 2, 2009
posted by Nomiconic at 3:29 PM on August 2, 2009
Wake me up when he's capable of experimentation.
You fancy yourself an artist, yes? Any chance of a link to some of your work to see how it stands up?
posted by Justinian at 3:29 PM on August 2, 2009
You fancy yourself an artist, yes? Any chance of a link to some of your work to see how it stands up?
posted by Justinian at 3:29 PM on August 2, 2009
Boy, Metafilter sure loathes talented children.
I wonder who would win in the Great Metafilter Hate-Off?
Wait, how do we know he's circumcised?
posted by The Bellman at 3:33 PM on August 2, 2009
I wonder who would win in the Great Metafilter Hate-Off?
Wait, how do we know he's circumcised?
posted by The Bellman at 3:33 PM on August 2, 2009
Imagine a post about a talented croc-wearing hipster child who had formed Your Favorite Band to do an ad campaign for Microsoft and was suing people for illegal downloading. There would be a hate-singularity-event in which the hatred was so dense it would tear the very fabric of our universe.bout a talented croc-wearing hipster child who had formed Your Favorite Band to do an ad campaign for Microsoft and was suing people for illegal downloading. There would be a hate-singularity-event in which the hatred was so dense it would tear the very fabric of our universe.
Only if it's via Boing-Boing, being flogged by Cory and that Xardin woman for its steampunk sensibilities.
posted by orthogonality at 4:04 PM on August 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Only if it's via Boing-Boing, being flogged by Cory and that Xardin woman for its steampunk sensibilities.
posted by orthogonality at 4:04 PM on August 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
ps - Artists don't get a percentage of auction sales unless they own the work. (Bands don't get royalties from used CD shops.)
Actually, in many places, they do. California has a 5% royalty charge on the re-selling of a work that must be paid back to the original artist. Europe has a similar fee requirement (I know that the UK opted out of that a few years back, but I think it is now in place). It's called Droit de suite and is yet another weirdness in the wacky world of copyright and related rights.
posted by ntk at 4:05 PM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Actually, in many places, they do. California has a 5% royalty charge on the re-selling of a work that must be paid back to the original artist. Europe has a similar fee requirement (I know that the UK opted out of that a few years back, but I think it is now in place). It's called Droit de suite and is yet another weirdness in the wacky world of copyright and related rights.
posted by ntk at 4:05 PM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Since they're British, I guess the parents' eyes turned into little € symbols instead of dollar signs when they saw their kid painting.
Britain uses the euro now?
posted by effbot at 4:05 PM on August 2, 2009
Britain uses the euro now?
posted by effbot at 4:05 PM on August 2, 2009
Oh wow am I uninformed. I will never make another currency based pun without prior research.
posted by Nomiconic at 4:28 PM on August 2, 2009
posted by Nomiconic at 4:28 PM on August 2, 2009
I remember a very interesting book which came out I think in the seventies about a child artist who had uncanny draftsmanship. The hitch was this six year old had no language (because of...autism? I don't really recall). She was taught language through intensive therapy and her drawings became age appropriate as she learned.
Does this ring a bell for anyone?
posted by shothotbot at 4:33 PM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Does this ring a bell for anyone?
posted by shothotbot at 4:33 PM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
less and less, i ask myself "is this art?".
more and more, i ask myself "will this sell?".
posted by the aloha at 4:43 PM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
more and more, i ask myself "will this sell?".
posted by the aloha at 4:43 PM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Did you see the shot of his signature? He has the handwriting of a friggin' six-year old!!
posted by jeremy b at 4:59 PM on August 2, 2009
posted by jeremy b at 4:59 PM on August 2, 2009
I've been around movies all my life; doesn't mean I can make one--and I'm 40, not six.
I may have missed if someone's already said this, but once upon a time in the not-too-distant past (like, less than 100 years), many or most children in a middle class or higher family (in Europe, at least) were taught sketching as a matter of course. If this kid's been around artists all his life, it isn't surprising that's he's picked up the basics.
And you certainly could go out and make a movie. You need an idea and a camera. Will it be a good movie? Probably not. But people spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year to make (and watch!) terribly movies, so it's not like you'd be special.
posted by rtha at 5:29 PM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I may have missed if someone's already said this, but once upon a time in the not-too-distant past (like, less than 100 years), many or most children in a middle class or higher family (in Europe, at least) were taught sketching as a matter of course. If this kid's been around artists all his life, it isn't surprising that's he's picked up the basics.
And you certainly could go out and make a movie. You need an idea and a camera. Will it be a good movie? Probably not. But people spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year to make (and watch!) terribly movies, so it's not like you'd be special.
posted by rtha at 5:29 PM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Oh wow am I uninformed. I will never make another currency based pun without prior research.
Good idea. While you're at it, you could also research the definition of "pun".
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:01 PM on August 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Good idea. While you're at it, you could also research the definition of "pun".
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:01 PM on August 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Wake me up when he's capable of experimentation.
Now, why would we bother waking you up? You think we got nothing better to do? Nah, you just stay asleep. But try to keep the snoring down to a minimum, OK?
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:05 PM on August 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Now, why would we bother waking you up? You think we got nothing better to do? Nah, you just stay asleep. But try to keep the snoring down to a minimum, OK?
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:05 PM on August 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
I remember a very interesting book which came out I think in the seventies about a child artist who had uncanny draftsmanship. The hitch was this six year old had no language (because of...autism? I don't really recall). She was taught language through intensive therapy and her drawings became age appropriate as she learned.
That sounds like the story of Nadia. This article discusses her in a broader context, comparing her work to cave art and discussing the role of language and conceptualization in both.
On topic: Kieron does a very fine job with watercolour, which is a damn tricky medium to handle lightly and deftly. No middle schooler I've ever met could produce anything this technically adept. I hope he continues to have fun painting, that he gets more out of it than just external validation, and that he has the chance to become a more complex and interesting artist, if that's what he wants.
posted by maudlin at 8:58 PM on August 2, 2009
That sounds like the story of Nadia. This article discusses her in a broader context, comparing her work to cave art and discussing the role of language and conceptualization in both.
On topic: Kieron does a very fine job with watercolour, which is a damn tricky medium to handle lightly and deftly. No middle schooler I've ever met could produce anything this technically adept. I hope he continues to have fun painting, that he gets more out of it than just external validation, and that he has the chance to become a more complex and interesting artist, if that's what he wants.
posted by maudlin at 8:58 PM on August 2, 2009
Just out of interest, what exactly is the method he's using? I think he says he draws it out in pencil, then "pens" it, at one point in the ITN video. Can you do inks, then watercolours over the top? Wouldn't the ink run?
And adding to the strangeness of the good painting/poor penmanship question, he's done some lettering along the side of the boat very well, compared to the joined-up scrawl in his signature.
posted by AmbroseChapel at 10:53 PM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
And adding to the strangeness of the good painting/poor penmanship question, he's done some lettering along the side of the boat very well, compared to the joined-up scrawl in his signature.
posted by AmbroseChapel at 10:53 PM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
That sounds like the story of Nadia.
That was it, thanks maudlin.
posted by shothotbot at 6:19 AM on August 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
That was it, thanks maudlin.
posted by shothotbot at 6:19 AM on August 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
I think he says he draws it out in pencil, then "pens" it
He said he did that for more difficult compositions.
Can you do inks, then watercolours over the top? Wouldn't the ink run?
Not if it's waterproof ink. I think it's fairly common to do a light pencil sketch on the actual paper before going over that with water colors.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:36 AM on August 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
He said he did that for more difficult compositions.
Can you do inks, then watercolours over the top? Wouldn't the ink run?
Not if it's waterproof ink. I think it's fairly common to do a light pencil sketch on the actual paper before going over that with water colors.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:36 AM on August 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
I really wonder how many of you sneering at these boring middlebrow "chocolate box" watercolors have every tried to paint one yourselves? Because it's freaking hard. I'm impressed with this kid, if it's real.
posted by CunningLinguist at 12:43 PM on August 3, 2009
posted by CunningLinguist at 12:43 PM on August 3, 2009
I really wonder how many of you sneering at these boring middlebrow "chocolate box" watercolors have every tried to paint one yourselves?
Memememememe.
No doubt watercolors are hard and no doubt the kid has some talent. But the subject looks like just about every other touristy like painting I've seen in a town full of tourists.
There's a difference between being able to copy reality and imbuing reality, via art, with deeper meaning or feeling. I get more of the former than the later from the kid.
Still, best of luck to him and I hope everyone leaves him alone so he can develop on his own.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:47 PM on August 3, 2009
Memememememe.
No doubt watercolors are hard and no doubt the kid has some talent. But the subject looks like just about every other touristy like painting I've seen in a town full of tourists.
There's a difference between being able to copy reality and imbuing reality, via art, with deeper meaning or feeling. I get more of the former than the later from the kid.
Still, best of luck to him and I hope everyone leaves him alone so he can develop on his own.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:47 PM on August 3, 2009
they develop in stages, and usually the remarkable children are the ones that are at the top of their stage.
That's misleading - plenty of kids just develop faster so that they're at the top of a stage at an earlier time, but then other people "catch up" and they're no longer remarkable. Prodigies are not actually particularly more likely be special as adults in their field - some of them just achieve a basic adult level capacity much faster than average.
These are actually pretty basic watercolor paintings. It's very difficult not to get these kinds of effects with watercolor.
Well, they may be pretty basic paintings, but to claim anyone can do it is unfair. Any skilled or talented artist can do it. But it is perfectly easy not to be able to get these kind of effects with watercolors if you aren't good at working with watercolors.
From what's shown here, he undoubtedly has a career as some kind of illustrator or art teacher if he wants one, which is pretty cool. Whether he'll be expressing something original enough for the art world to pay for directly is a question that will depend on the development of his ideas / worldview / ?etc, and will just have to wait.
posted by mdn at 12:59 PM on August 3, 2009
That's misleading - plenty of kids just develop faster so that they're at the top of a stage at an earlier time, but then other people "catch up" and they're no longer remarkable. Prodigies are not actually particularly more likely be special as adults in their field - some of them just achieve a basic adult level capacity much faster than average.
These are actually pretty basic watercolor paintings. It's very difficult not to get these kinds of effects with watercolor.
Well, they may be pretty basic paintings, but to claim anyone can do it is unfair. Any skilled or talented artist can do it. But it is perfectly easy not to be able to get these kind of effects with watercolors if you aren't good at working with watercolors.
From what's shown here, he undoubtedly has a career as some kind of illustrator or art teacher if he wants one, which is pretty cool. Whether he'll be expressing something original enough for the art world to pay for directly is a question that will depend on the development of his ideas / worldview / ?etc, and will just have to wait.
posted by mdn at 12:59 PM on August 3, 2009
I wasn't a brilliant artist at six. I was, however, the only kid in my first grade class who insisted on making the sky blue all the way down to the ground, when all the other kids colored a blue stripe at the very top of the page and left the rest white. It drove me crazy, because that totally wasn't the way the sky looked at all, and anyone who'd ever been outside on a sunny day could see that, like, DUH. I also turned up my nose at anyone who still drew stick people or occasionally wrote a backwards S or E. What kind of idiots did they let into first grade, anyway?
So it cracks me up to think of Kieron looking at his classmates' developmentally-appropriate scribblings tacked up on the bulletin board in class, and thinking "wow, these other kids suck."
posted by Metroid Baby at 1:55 PM on August 3, 2009
So it cracks me up to think of Kieron looking at his classmates' developmentally-appropriate scribblings tacked up on the bulletin board in class, and thinking "wow, these other kids suck."
posted by Metroid Baby at 1:55 PM on August 3, 2009
Ehh, my little niece could paint that well at 6; it wasn't til she started snarking other artists (adults!) that I began to take her seriously, as an Artist AND a prodigy; she was only 8! Better bitter sooner…
posted by dpcoffin at 3:30 PM on August 3, 2009
posted by dpcoffin at 3:30 PM on August 3, 2009
The fact that the child is technically adept doesn't mitigate the fact that this work is artistically trite.
posted by DarlingBri at 3:41 PM on August 3, 2009
posted by DarlingBri at 3:41 PM on August 3, 2009
But the subject looks like just about every other touristy like painting I've seen in a town full of tourists.
He's fucking 6.
Maybe when he's 10 he'll move on to something with more layers to it.
posted by chunking express at 4:04 PM on August 3, 2009
He's fucking 6.
Maybe when he's 10 he'll move on to something with more layers to it.
posted by chunking express at 4:04 PM on August 3, 2009
He's fucking 6.
Again, he certainly has natural talent and more power to'em if he's doing something he enjoys. But at times, his color sense and use of paint seem awkward and it distracts from the finished piece. I know, I know he's 6, he's clearly talented, who can you say such thing about such talented, adorable six year old boy?!
Because in art it doesn't matter if you're six or sixty, highly educated or never made it pass sixth grade, what matter is the final piece and whether it works and for me they don't. The talent is still raw and obviously guided by undeveloped mind and that's distracting.
For instance, in this piece, the marsh at the bottom is quite good and invokes the quiet, mystical feeling you can get when you're out on the marshes. Contrast that with the sky, which I get is violent looking, but his use of paint is disorganized and jumbled almost like he was trying to figure out how to convey what he saw and missed the mark. Nothing wrong with that and as an art teacher was said, "You gotta do about 3,000 or 4,000 paintings before you get good," so clearly he's learning. But strip away the fact that he's a six year old and someone just shows it to you and I'm betting most people would be "Eh".
I do hope that someone around him is having gentle critical talks with him, where they suggest using different colors or techniques, not in a 'REAL ARTISTS DON'T WORK LIKE THAT, YOU WORTHLESS HACK' but more "Oh, hey that's pretty good, I like would you did in this part, but that part over there doesn't seem to working as well, what do you think? Oh you like it as it is? Ok, great." I think it's really important that child artists get some age appropriate criticism rather than wall-to-wall fawning and being told how awesome they are.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:52 PM on August 3, 2009
Again, he certainly has natural talent and more power to'em if he's doing something he enjoys. But at times, his color sense and use of paint seem awkward and it distracts from the finished piece. I know, I know he's 6, he's clearly talented, who can you say such thing about such talented, adorable six year old boy?!
Because in art it doesn't matter if you're six or sixty, highly educated or never made it pass sixth grade, what matter is the final piece and whether it works and for me they don't. The talent is still raw and obviously guided by undeveloped mind and that's distracting.
For instance, in this piece, the marsh at the bottom is quite good and invokes the quiet, mystical feeling you can get when you're out on the marshes. Contrast that with the sky, which I get is violent looking, but his use of paint is disorganized and jumbled almost like he was trying to figure out how to convey what he saw and missed the mark. Nothing wrong with that and as an art teacher was said, "You gotta do about 3,000 or 4,000 paintings before you get good," so clearly he's learning. But strip away the fact that he's a six year old and someone just shows it to you and I'm betting most people would be "Eh".
I do hope that someone around him is having gentle critical talks with him, where they suggest using different colors or techniques, not in a 'REAL ARTISTS DON'T WORK LIKE THAT, YOU WORTHLESS HACK' but more "Oh, hey that's pretty good, I like would you did in this part, but that part over there doesn't seem to working as well, what do you think? Oh you like it as it is? Ok, great." I think it's really important that child artists get some age appropriate criticism rather than wall-to-wall fawning and being told how awesome they are.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:52 PM on August 3, 2009
The fact that the child is technically adept doesn't mitigate the fact that this work is artistically trite.
No, it's the fact that the child is a child that mitigates the fact that this work is artistically trite.
posted by yoink at 6:23 PM on August 3, 2009
No, it's the fact that the child is a child that mitigates the fact that this work is artistically trite.
posted by yoink at 6:23 PM on August 3, 2009
yoink: No, it's the fact that the child is a child that mitigates the fact that this work is artistically trite.
Oh whatever. When we listen to an early Mozart symphony, we do not say "Well, it's a bit rubbish but then, he was only ten."
posted by DarlingBri at 7:26 PM on August 3, 2009
Oh whatever. When we listen to an early Mozart symphony, we do not say "Well, it's a bit rubbish but then, he was only ten."
posted by DarlingBri at 7:26 PM on August 3, 2009
nímwunnan - I'm sorry that I flippantly posted that as I read through the other posts. Let's see if I can clarify, but bear with me as I'm not much of a writer.
My own children seemed to become cognizant of their self and their surroundings, as well of a sense of time and place after about 3-4 years of age. So along comes a 6-year-old whose sum total remembered life experiences have been chugging along for all of maybe three years, and there are folks here on the Blue who are judging his artwork on technical aspects and perceived merit rather than on the amazing fact that a child this young is producing fairly passable (if prosaic) watercolor artwork... and chiding us to come back after he becomes more experimental and less trite. Yeah, I suppose I should be holding this kid up against every single other artist in the world on an equal footing, but I'm pleasantly amazed by his current abilities at six years old, and that's enough for me.
I guess that's what my "overthinking a painting" comment meant. Folks, this six-year-old kid paints pretty well! It's a neat story!
posted by Ron Thanagar at 7:32 PM on August 3, 2009
My own children seemed to become cognizant of their self and their surroundings, as well of a sense of time and place after about 3-4 years of age. So along comes a 6-year-old whose sum total remembered life experiences have been chugging along for all of maybe three years, and there are folks here on the Blue who are judging his artwork on technical aspects and perceived merit rather than on the amazing fact that a child this young is producing fairly passable (if prosaic) watercolor artwork... and chiding us to come back after he becomes more experimental and less trite. Yeah, I suppose I should be holding this kid up against every single other artist in the world on an equal footing, but I'm pleasantly amazed by his current abilities at six years old, and that's enough for me.
I guess that's what my "overthinking a painting" comment meant. Folks, this six-year-old kid paints pretty well! It's a neat story!
posted by Ron Thanagar at 7:32 PM on August 3, 2009
I know I hate it when people treat 6 year olds like 6 year olds. Those punk asses have it so easy. We were out with my friends 2 year old today. He was doing this weird dance thing. I wanted to be all, "kid, that's barely dancing," but I let it slide.
posted by chunking express at 7:35 PM on August 3, 2009
posted by chunking express at 7:35 PM on August 3, 2009
I wanted to be all, "kid, that's barely dancing," but I let it slide.
posted by chunking express
You should've seen my boy's sonogram... VERY expressive!
posted by Ron Thanagar at 8:26 PM on August 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by chunking express
You should've seen my boy's sonogram... VERY expressive!
posted by Ron Thanagar at 8:26 PM on August 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
A wider selection of his paintings can be viewed elsewhere online.
Generally, I like these a lot better, though the quality feels uneven. I get the impression that sometimes, someone is directing him about what to paint (i.e. this would sell) or he's painting subjects he thinks others would be happy with him painting.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:40 PM on August 3, 2009
Generally, I like these a lot better, though the quality feels uneven. I get the impression that sometimes, someone is directing him about what to paint (i.e. this would sell) or he's painting subjects he thinks others would be happy with him painting.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:40 PM on August 3, 2009
Oh whatever. When we listen to an early Mozart symphony, we do not say "Well, it's a bit rubbish but then, he was only ten."
Actually, we do. There's not a single piece of Mozart's that is regularly performed that was composed before he was in his late teens. The pieces he composed as a child are remarkable solely for being precocious works by a child. So, yes, you are in exactly the position of someone at the Viennese court in 1764 saying "pfft, that's at best technically competent but there's obviously nothing original there."
posted by yoink at 9:13 PM on August 3, 2009
Actually, we do. There's not a single piece of Mozart's that is regularly performed that was composed before he was in his late teens. The pieces he composed as a child are remarkable solely for being precocious works by a child. So, yes, you are in exactly the position of someone at the Viennese court in 1764 saying "pfft, that's at best technically competent but there's obviously nothing original there."
posted by yoink at 9:13 PM on August 3, 2009
The kid is half the story, though, how we look at and talk about art is the other half.
posted by nímwunnan at 10:00 PM
Again, sorry about the poor analogy. I'll stick to the "kid side" of the story and let other much more talented people work out the "art side" of this story.
The discussion is why I like to come here, by the way. Thanks!
posted by Ron Thanagar at 10:45 PM on August 3, 2009
posted by nímwunnan at 10:00 PM
Again, sorry about the poor analogy. I'll stick to the "kid side" of the story and let other much more talented people work out the "art side" of this story.
The discussion is why I like to come here, by the way. Thanks!
posted by Ron Thanagar at 10:45 PM on August 3, 2009
Why are so many here concerned about the conceptual or emotional quality of this kid's work, or lack of it? The interesting thing is his motor skills and his apparently intuitive grasp of a not-easy-to-handle medium and of not-unsophisticated conventions of picturemaking (no matter how banal they may seem) at his age. That much is obvious and remarkable in itself. So he's not yet freaking Peter Doig or Gerhard Richter; big surprise! You're not interested unless he is? Know a kid who is? When has there ever been such a prodigy? Not even Mozart…
"A dog who can play chess!" And the old man says, "I don't see what's so astonishing about it. I've beaten him four games out of five."
Indeed!
So what if his images are trivial as art now, or if he turns out to be just another anonymous candy-box hack when he gets older (more power to him; may he enjoy his gifts!), his skills now are still an interesting phenomenon, if not neurologically, developmentally or even metaphysically (all of which areas seem more involved in this to me than any cultural questions about exactly HOW good he is as an "artist"), then at least they're interesting in exactly how they further illuminate the differences between physical skill and artistic merit we're all so apparently committed to. Aren't they?
posted by dpcoffin at 12:32 AM on August 4, 2009
"A dog who can play chess!" And the old man says, "I don't see what's so astonishing about it. I've beaten him four games out of five."
Indeed!
So what if his images are trivial as art now, or if he turns out to be just another anonymous candy-box hack when he gets older (more power to him; may he enjoy his gifts!), his skills now are still an interesting phenomenon, if not neurologically, developmentally or even metaphysically (all of which areas seem more involved in this to me than any cultural questions about exactly HOW good he is as an "artist"), then at least they're interesting in exactly how they further illuminate the differences between physical skill and artistic merit we're all so apparently committed to. Aren't they?
posted by dpcoffin at 12:32 AM on August 4, 2009
Why are so many here concerned about the conceptual or emotional quality of this kid's work, or lack of it?
Why are so many here not? They seem astounded that kids can be especially talented and that they might be judged by that talent, or lack there of. Weird.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:06 AM on August 4, 2009
Why are so many here not? They seem astounded that kids can be especially talented and that they might be judged by that talent, or lack there of. Weird.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:06 AM on August 4, 2009
Why are so many here not? They seem astounded that kids can be especially talented and that they might be judged by that talent, or lack there of. Weird.
BB, can you point to a single original work of art in any medium in the entire history of humanity which was produced by a six year old and is widely regarded as either conceptually challenging or in any way a profound and lasting work of art?
I can't think of a single example, although there may be one. I think it's pretty clear, though, that asking someone to measure up to a standard which has never been met in the entire history of the species is, well, a trifle exigent.
posted by yoink at 7:42 AM on August 4, 2009
BB, can you point to a single original work of art in any medium in the entire history of humanity which was produced by a six year old and is widely regarded as either conceptually challenging or in any way a profound and lasting work of art?
I can't think of a single example, although there may be one. I think it's pretty clear, though, that asking someone to measure up to a standard which has never been met in the entire history of the species is, well, a trifle exigent.
posted by yoink at 7:42 AM on August 4, 2009
We're talking about two different thing. I'm asking "Do the paintings work, regardless of the age?" and my answer was "no" based on the links in the post. Some of the other stuff I found looks pretty good though.
Meanwhile you seem to be thinking that I'm demanding he measure up against every other artist in the world, living or dead.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:55 AM on August 4, 2009
Meanwhile you seem to be thinking that I'm demanding he measure up against every other artist in the world, living or dead.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:55 AM on August 4, 2009
Oh yeah, Victoire Thivisol did pretty good as a four year old actor in Ponette. I remember seeing some childhood paintings Frank Frazetta did when he was about 3 or 4 and they were pretty good, can't find any links though.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:03 AM on August 4, 2009
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:03 AM on August 4, 2009
We're talking about two different thing. I'm asking "Do the paintings work, regardless of the age?" and my answer was "no" based on the links in the post.
And I'm saying that this entirely misses the point. What is remarkable here is that a six year old is capable of producing works of this degree of technical sophistication. The question of whether they "work" as finished works of art is as pointless as asking if Mozart's six year old compositions are worthy of comparison with his mature works; of course they are not and no one has ever tried to claim that they are. They are remarkable, however, because they were produced by a child.
As for Victoire Thivisol, she was great in Ponette, but that a four year old girl should, with the aid of an experienced and brilliant director, be able to convincingly play a four year old girl hardly qualifies as "producing a work of art" that is "conceptually challenging" and "profound." The work of art, in this case, was produced by Doillon. If your argument is that Thivisol was, in fact, fully in control of her art and had the capacity even at age four to consciously understand everything that she was doing in that film, you have the problem of explaining her entirely undistinguished career subsequent to Ponette.
posted by yoink at 8:55 AM on August 4, 2009
And I'm saying that this entirely misses the point. What is remarkable here is that a six year old is capable of producing works of this degree of technical sophistication. The question of whether they "work" as finished works of art is as pointless as asking if Mozart's six year old compositions are worthy of comparison with his mature works; of course they are not and no one has ever tried to claim that they are. They are remarkable, however, because they were produced by a child.
As for Victoire Thivisol, she was great in Ponette, but that a four year old girl should, with the aid of an experienced and brilliant director, be able to convincingly play a four year old girl hardly qualifies as "producing a work of art" that is "conceptually challenging" and "profound." The work of art, in this case, was produced by Doillon. If your argument is that Thivisol was, in fact, fully in control of her art and had the capacity even at age four to consciously understand everything that she was doing in that film, you have the problem of explaining her entirely undistinguished career subsequent to Ponette.
posted by yoink at 8:55 AM on August 4, 2009
It's not unreasonable to ask how this art measures up to any other art; it just seems the less-interesting question to me. Regardless, it is a very different question, and not a trivial one: Why do people value art? But I'd already concluded that the answers to that are totally weird, and often have nothing at all to do with what I consider valuable, i.e., "good" art, that ever-subjective and ever-debatable thing… Surely that's well established?
I guess it's inevitable that the quality question comes up here again. But I still think it obscures the real interest: How's the kid do it (make the things; regardless of their "value")?
posted by dpcoffin at 9:38 AM on August 4, 2009
I guess it's inevitable that the quality question comes up here again. But I still think it obscures the real interest: How's the kid do it (make the things; regardless of their "value")?
posted by dpcoffin at 9:38 AM on August 4, 2009
What is remarkable here is that a six year old is capable of producing works of this degree of technical sophistication.
Yeah, I agreed with that in my first comment in the thread.
but that a four year old girl should, with the aid of an experienced and brilliant director, be able to convincingly play a four year old girl hardly qualifies as "producing a work of art" that is "conceptually challenging" and "profound." The work of art, in this case, was produced by Doillon
1. Convincing play a four year old girl who lacked the life experience of the subject is pretty good.
2. Keiron had lessons
3. "conceptually challenging" and "profound" are rather high standards, eh?
If your argument is that Thivisol was, in fact, fully in control of her art and had the capacity even at age four to consciously understand everything that she was doing in that film
1. It's not.
2. Many artists aren't conscious of exactly how or why they what they do, it just feels right?
How's the kid do it (make the things; regardless of their "value")
How do some people have perfect pitch or perfect aim? Accident of genetics. What matters, IMO, is what they do with those talents.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:03 PM on August 4, 2009
Yeah, I agreed with that in my first comment in the thread.
but that a four year old girl should, with the aid of an experienced and brilliant director, be able to convincingly play a four year old girl hardly qualifies as "producing a work of art" that is "conceptually challenging" and "profound." The work of art, in this case, was produced by Doillon
1. Convincing play a four year old girl who lacked the life experience of the subject is pretty good.
2. Keiron had lessons
3. "conceptually challenging" and "profound" are rather high standards, eh?
If your argument is that Thivisol was, in fact, fully in control of her art and had the capacity even at age four to consciously understand everything that she was doing in that film
1. It's not.
2. Many artists aren't conscious of exactly how or why they what they do, it just feels right?
How's the kid do it (make the things; regardless of their "value")
How do some people have perfect pitch or perfect aim? Accident of genetics. What matters, IMO, is what they do with those talents.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:03 PM on August 4, 2009
How do some people have perfect pitch or perfect aim? Accident of genetics. What matters, IMO, is what they do with those talents.
Sounds good, and I'm sure I've thought the same thing myself many times—but always about adults.
So in this case, it's not working. I'm not at all satisfied to simply dismiss K as an accident of genetics; that's not commensurate with how interesting I find him. Thanks for the link to his other work, btw; even more interesting, and mixed. His gift is clearly for landscapes, space, light and distance, not dogs, which makes the whole thing even more complex, I think.
His capacity slightly but memorably adds to my world view—as a painter, watercolorist, art teacher, muller on "talents" and what we come in with vs. what we can develop, etc., etc. I'll remember him and think about what he can do, for years to come, I'm sure.
I regret that I can't say that about many of the thousands of folks I've seen who have done good, and now completely forgotten, things with their gifts. So, how could I agree that what they did was "what mattered" in this context?
K intrigues in a different way, and is a more singular phenomenon, than armies of impressive adult toilers in the field. What he'll do with his gifts once he joins that army, if he does, is similarly less interesting (to me) than what he can do now.
posted by dpcoffin at 3:57 PM on August 4, 2009
Sounds good, and I'm sure I've thought the same thing myself many times—but always about adults.
So in this case, it's not working. I'm not at all satisfied to simply dismiss K as an accident of genetics; that's not commensurate with how interesting I find him. Thanks for the link to his other work, btw; even more interesting, and mixed. His gift is clearly for landscapes, space, light and distance, not dogs, which makes the whole thing even more complex, I think.
His capacity slightly but memorably adds to my world view—as a painter, watercolorist, art teacher, muller on "talents" and what we come in with vs. what we can develop, etc., etc. I'll remember him and think about what he can do, for years to come, I'm sure.
I regret that I can't say that about many of the thousands of folks I've seen who have done good, and now completely forgotten, things with their gifts. So, how could I agree that what they did was "what mattered" in this context?
K intrigues in a different way, and is a more singular phenomenon, than armies of impressive adult toilers in the field. What he'll do with his gifts once he joins that army, if he does, is similarly less interesting (to me) than what he can do now.
posted by dpcoffin at 3:57 PM on August 4, 2009
@deanc - do your posts actually mean anything? what do they communicate?
yes, they do. If you can't see it, that's not my problem. Please take your patronizing tone elsewhere.
posted by deanc at 8:51 AM on August 5, 2009
yes, they do. If you can't see it, that's not my problem. Please take your patronizing tone elsewhere.
posted by deanc at 8:51 AM on August 5, 2009
« Older Just me, and my books ... and my sheep | Kocham Reksio! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
"However, he has big plans for the future and says his dream would be to see his work on sale at prestigious London auction house Bonham's."
So the kid doesn't fantasize about his work hanging in the Tate or MOMA, he fantasizes about which auction house is going to sell his stuff?
Did the film show him drawing or just painting, feelinglistless? Because there's a confidence in the lines that he draws that doesn't seem present when he writes his own name.
And as he's probably been writing his name longer than he's been drawing, that seems somewhat peculiar.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 2:07 AM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]