Mood:
irritatedTopic: people who need help
Let me ask you this: when you give a pencil/pen/crayon/paintbrush etc to a 2 year old...what do you assume they'll "draw"...something that resembles real life images/objects, or squiggly lines and odd shapes?
Most would answer that they would be mostly squiggly lines and odd shapes. Those who might even vote in favor of "real life images/objects" would most likely agree, at least, that the objects would not be very life-like. And if they were, than the 2 year old (we should all be able to agree) is a DAMN good artist.
Anyway, back to my point. Most children aren't painters; most lack the skill to be a real painter. Yet those children who do draw either professionally or for the fun of it (except those few true talents) could only succeed in one category of art: abstract art. Enter...well...whatever the name of the 4 year old's name was on "60 Minutes." She is a successful abstract artist. Some call her a "prodigy." Others prefer "genius."
Side note: you may wonder why I asked about a 2 year old to begin with. Answer: the 4 year old started painting when she was 2.
Further side note: She has drawn 50 abstract paintings, sold her first for $250, her highest selling one was $25,000 and so far (in just two years' time) she has sold $300,000+ worth of paintings.
Now, in case you didn't know, I think abstract art is the most ridiculous thing in the world. I mean ANYONE could paint what she does (and far too many people could paint much BETTER than her). I don't say these things to put her down. I mean I have better things to do than point to a 4 year old and say "I know someone better than you." My point is, not only do I think that abstract art is ridiculous (and a waste of money) but I think it's ridiculous that people should even be discussing whether a 4 year old literally just making a mess on a canvas is a "genius" or a "fake."
Obviously these people on the show disagree with me about abstract art. They think that there is such a thing as "good" and "bad" abstract art. And many people compared this little girl to Pablo Picasso (no doubt the most popular abstract artist) and a few others (who were obviously less popular).
Then there was the psychologist they interviewed. This is what irritated me the most. First they showed the psychologist the paintings. "Beautiful" and "amazing" were the words I remember her using. She said that this 4 yr old was like no other because children tend to try to draw things they know/see (i.e. houses, trees, flowers, etc) rather than just squiggly lines.
I agree with her on that to a point. Very young children start with squiggly lines but eventually, I'd guess between ages 3 and 5 they start to attempt to draw things they see. Obviously most don't have the talent to professionally draw a perfect flower or animal...many could probably do better than me though. So I can see where she is coming from there. What she didn't realize, I think, is that this 4 year old's dad is also a painter. Combine that with the fact that she was 2 when her first abstract painting sold, I think it only makes sense that her parents would encourage her to do more of the same.
However, right after saying what the psychologist did, they showed her video of the 4 yr old actually painting and *suddenly* the psychologist exclaims how she's not a "prodigy" and that the 4 yr old doesn't paint like abstract artists do. The 4 yr old "wouldn't focus" she said...whereas other abstract artists (she claims) would be focused on just their work and their work alone.
She is a freakin' 4 year old! Is anyone surprised that it takes her days or months to finish a painting; her quickest painting she ever did (black canvas with white paint slopped on it) took hours? It would take you or I 20 minutes at most. Took her hours. Why? She's 4! And, not surprisingly, she has the attention span of a 4 year old. She starts painting, gets bored, and moves onto something else. Give me a break!
