[RobotChant]

Here is a kid not doing abstract art, dubbed mini monet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCdaoGWbdyE

[Xun]

Talk a load of bullshit and it'll be regarded as "art".

I had a lot more artistic talent at 5 than this pretentious little kid.

[Lebron]

So this is what passes as art these days, eh? A child going ham on a canvas with paint? Neat I guess.



Figure this kid is the next Rembrandt

[godelsmetric]

She definitely looks like she has a pretty good grasp of colour and composition.

[Jay Sosa]

Talk a load of bullshit and it'll be regarded as "art". I had a lot more artistic talent at 5 than this pretentious little kid.

Really? You surely can post some of your old drawings so we can compare.

[godelsmetric]

Nonsense. It's a painting, it's purely visual. A sculpture? Yes. An art installation? Absolutely. But a painting? Yeah, not so much.

I disagree. I loved Rothko from images I'd seen, but nothing really compares with being face to face with a 6 metre tall canvas.

[XMonkey]

I disagree. I loved Rothko from images I'd seen, but nothing really compares with being face to face with a 6 metre tall canvas.

Ya, a Rothko really can be quite something in person. I find Pollock's work similarly impressive as well.

[Xun]

Really? You surely can post some of your old drawings so we can compare.

There really isn't anything special with what she's doing.

[GuitarAtomik]

Further proof that "Fine Art" is more accurately the art of bullshitting. Jesus.

[stilgar]

GENISU

[Bboy AJ]

These paintings are actually really beautiful to look at. I wouldn't pay five figures for them but there's no way any other five year old is putting out stuff like this consistently.

Nice work, kid. Worth all the attention you've been getting? Maybe, maybe not. I wonder who her parents are and how well connected they are.

[Fusebox]

There really isn't anything special with what she's doing.

C'mon son, back your claim by posting up that art you were talking about.

[DoctorWho]

Speaking of child prodigies, this guy was four when he took a physics class at a university. He was also doing calculus at age 5. At 12 when he began doing research for NASA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Ung-yong

After 8 months he learned concepts of algebra and could understand concepts of differential calculus.

What? We need to clone him.

[Takao]

Here is a kid not doing abstract art, dubbed mini monet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCdaoGWbdyE

This kid's got skills. I wish I could do art a quarter as nice :(

[3pheMeraLmiX]

Nonsense. It's a painting, it's purely visual. A sculpture? Yes. An art installation? Absolutely. But a painting? Yeah, not so much.

I don't understand this position. How do you define "painting"?

Some may find the idea of referring to Pollock's "chaos theory" technique as pseudo-technical nonsense for the sake of justifying random splashes of paint, but it was very specific and produced to particular effect. Testament to this is the fact that his paintings can be analyzed mathematically and differentiated from attempted fakes. So detailed, in fact, that his work can be identified to the year it was produced due the progressive complexity of each iteration.

Unless you disciplined your hand enough, you couldn't replicate the detail, save for a computer that was programmed to. This is not to dissimilar from 15th Century linear perspective drawings:



And now to the reason why it's not just visual: Pollock's fractal-based pattern painting is only "visual" at a very superficial level. But you can appreciate the work because of the hidden complexity involved. Same for iconography in Renaissance paintings (or other styles), or Victorian floriography, where you could communicate simple phrases via the combination of flowers, colors, and methods of distribution.

Just because you primarily interpret it by seeing it doesn't mean you can't actually think about what language is hidden underneath.

[Monocle]

Now ask her to paint a cat.

[FStop7]

Art students can tell which one is a known painting and which one was just some kid? Wow! Seriously, that's a terrible study. Why specifically art students and psychology students? Why not ordinary people? Probably because it would have turned out differently. The first link actually says that the results go against a previous study in which people found pictures to be more aesthetically pleasing simply because they believed they were from an art gallery as opposed to computer generated.

Did you read the articles? There were also 40 psychology students with no art education who participated in the study, with similar results.

[MadraptorMan]

What a load of shit.

[Monocle]

Really? You surely can post some of your old drawings so we can compare.

You don't have to be a master of what you're criticizing to make a valid point about it. Chefs aren't the only ones who can tell if something tastes good. Film directors aren't the only ones who can evaluate the merits of a movie. And I don't have to be Aristotle to know when I'm reading a terrible argument.

[McLovin]

Abstract Art: A 5 year old could do it. Seriously she's only hurting the practice.

She's doing what most abstract artists do though. Don't get me wrong I actually think her art is nice, but abstract art selling for millions of dollars is just ridiculous.

[McLovin]

Here is a kid not doing abstract art, dubbed mini monet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCdaoGWbdyE

Now that's talent, imagine what he'll do when he's older.
Edit-sorry for the double post

[FStop7]

How about you post some good modern art? I bet you cant because all modern art is shit.

These art threads are always interesting because Hillbilly-GAF materializes from nowhere.

[Enco]

sucks.

:lol

/thread

[hwalker84]

This shit is silly. She's just making a mess.

My thoughts exactly. I guess its just my tastes in art are so different.

[Antiwhippy]

Now ask her to paint a cat.

She actually does draw animals.

Actually, I might shit talk on her earlier but she can actually draw a subject pretty well in some of her art.

Take this drawing of a chinese lion dance. She calls it dragon dance but eh, I don't expect them to know at that age. Incredibly expressive and she captures enough detail in the eye and mouth to make it recognizable.



What the subject is supposed to look like.



Right now art critics buy into it way too much I agree, but at her age she could develope into a pretty promising artist.

[Moppet13]

My thoughts exactly. I guess its just my tastes in art are so different.

No, I'm pretty sure if this makes her a prodigy then every child has the potential to be an artistic prodigy. It just depends on if their parents care that they ruin an entire fucking room throwing paint all over the place.

[CrazyDude]

She actually does draw animals. Actually, I might shit talk on her earlier but she can actually draw a subject pretty well in some of her art. Take this drawing of a chinese lion dance. She calls it dragon dance but eh, I don't expect them to know at that age. Incredibly expressive and she captures enough detail in the eye and mouth to make it recognizable. What the subject is supposed to look like. Right now art critics buy into it way too much I agree, but at her age she could develope into a pretty promising artist.

I don't see anything, but blob of colors. It looks nothing like a Chinese dragon. People are letting what they read influence what they see. How about looking at the painting with reading the title? You'll notice how everything is a blob.

[Des0lar]

I'm going to presume you're serious. In which case, how, in all that is holy, is that "impressive"? You may find it beautiful, or whatever, but how is it impressive? It's just paint thrown at a canvas. I mean, I don't want to be reductive here, but it is literally just paint thrown at a canvas. Absolutely anyone with arms, and probably some without, could do that. That's the thing, I get that art is subjective, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that, but just because an arrangement of colours and patterns is pleasing toto the eye, doesn't automatically make it impressive. An impressive talent is one that shows particular aptitude for something, the ability to perform a task well in advance of your peers. This kid for example:

no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no

This isn't just paint on a canvas. It's a about composition, about the realtions between the colours, the volume of the colour.

Good artists understand these relations, they know why a "splash of paint" looks good and why another doesn't. And yes a 5 year old can be a "prodigy" in arts. What if this kid understands how these colour relations work on a subconcious level?

But people will continue to post "just a splash of paint", "everyone can do it"....

[Monocle]

These art threads are always interesting because Hillbilly-GAF materializes from nowhere. http://www.brooklynstreetart.com/the...ime-rojo-1.JPG http://civilclothing.com/blog/wp-con.../05/swoon2.jpg

Maybe by "modern art" that poster meant the embarrassing farce of abstract expressionism. Obviously there are plenty of great representational artists currently active.

She actually does draw animals. Actually, I might shit talk on her earlier but she can actually draw a subject pretty well in some of her art. Take this drawing of a chinese lion dance. She calls it dragon dance but eh, I don't expect them to know at that age. Incredibly expressive and she captures enough detail in the eye and mouth to make it recognizable. http://www.worleygig.com/wp-content/...gon-Dance1.jpg What the subject is supposed to look like. http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworl...lion-dance.jpg Right now art critics buy into it way too much I agree, but at her age she could develope into a pretty promising artist.

That piece shows modest potential and has a certain charm, but it's basically a Rorschach inkblot until you know what it's supposed to be.

[CrazyDude]

no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no This isn't just paint on a canvas. It's a about composition, about the realtions between the colours, the volume of the colour. Good artists understand these relations, they know why a "splash of paint" looks good and why another doesn't. And yes a 5 year old can be a "prodigy" in arts. What if this kid understands how these colour relations work on a subconcious level? But people will continue to post "just a splash of paint", everyone can do it....

Maybe because the colors don't look together. They are ugly paintings. Seriously anyone can do it.

[FanTomasas]

I am pretty sure once she grows up, nobody will care about her works. The only reason there is an article about her is because she is 5.

And about that lion painting, there is a tube of paint in the upper left corner.

[CrankyJay]

I'm going to have my kid splatter paint across a canvas so I can make money off of him/her.

[Takao]

These art threads are always interesting because Hillbilly-GAF materializes from nowhere.

I think it's clear he meant abstract art to the degree where someone can confuse it of being just random paint splashes. You'd have to be incredibly narrow minded to think there's no quality works of art being produced in the present day.

[Xun]

C'mon son, back your claim by posting up that art you were talking about.

I think most people here when they were 5 would be able to produce something better than a few paint blobs on canvas.

[Antiwhippy]

I don't see anything, but blob of colors. It looks nothing like a Chinese dragon. People are letting what they read influence what they see.

Really? It's not that hard to see, especially compared to some of her other works. Probably the most impressive thing I've seen in her gallery.

Example. Excuse my hasty and shit brush writing.



Looking through her gallery and seeing what subjects they are I can sorta see how she would compose them in such a way. Problem is that she could only really do it in incoherent brush strokes and splatters because I'm guessing her technical skills at that edge is limited to that, though in a way she's still able to convey part of her subject. Sometimes.

Not saying she's brilliant but at that edge she actually has a pretty good understanding of composition and also how to draw a subject other than just little scribbles that kids that age usually do when you tell them "draw a monkey!" If they continue to develop her technical skills she could be a pretty good.

[.GqueB.]

Modern art is quite hilarious. Its pretty much all horrible, but because a bunch of rich people decide it's 'art' it gets a hefty pricetag, while another piece which is almost the same is not even worth the price of the materials used. :lol

Just go here and have a look around:

http://www.thisiscolossal.com/

Plenty of abstract art there to see (look at the visual archive).

[Arcteryx]

A "prodigy"? hahahhaahahaha

[CrazyDude]

Really? It's not that hard to see, especially compared to some of her other works. Probably the most impressive thing I've seen in her gallery. Example. Excuse my hasty and shit brush writing. Looking through her gallery and seeing what subject they are I can sorta see how she would compose them in such a way. Problem is that she could only really do it in incoherent brush strokes and splatters because I'm guessing her technical skills at that edge is limited to that, though in a way she's still able to convey part of her subject. Sometimes. Not saying she's brilliant but at that edge she actually has a pretty good understanding of composition and also how to draw a subject other than just little scribbles that kids that age usually do when you tell them "draw a monkey!" If they continue to develop her technical skills she could be a pretty good.

Really? So now where calling any dot an eye. The blue smudge looks nothing like a mouth. It looks like all she did was add an eye to her randomly splashed painting and said it was something. There is no head to thing. You are really reaching.

[BGBW]

This is just fashionable art. Let them waste their money now because unlike Picasso this stuff will be worthless when the hoard move on to the next big thing. We can all cry foul if they are still showing this stuff off in ten years time.

[Mango Positive]

I like it. Good use of color and contrast. I agree that the very detailed painters are better craftsmen, but art is subjective. Nirvana was very popular, even though all but Grohl were playing at a fairly low level of skill.

[Antiwhippy]

I am not reaching anything. I'm not talking about the blue dot at the eye. Look at the surroundings. The feathering around the yellow and blue area represents the fur that usually surrounds the eye of the lions (they are called lion dances, not dragon dances) fairly well. Also the blue area I'd agree really is just a representation of where the mouth area is rather than a recreation of the mouth, but look at the red swirls shaped around it, and see the coloured mustaches those lions usually have. You say you can't see even the barest hint of the dancing lion when you piece it together?

Her most impressive piece honestly. The only one where the subject matter is really immediately apparent, but maybe that's because I have seen alot of chinese lion dances.

[WarMacheen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCdaoGWbdyE

skill, he has it

the op "artist"...lol...does not.

[Alpha_eX]

What is this shit, the kid is just making a mess.

The video is more 'artistic' than this kid.

[.JayZii]

Now i want people to start posting their paintings from when they were 5. I'll critique them and let you know exactly why your arguments that she has no special talent at all aren't very convincing.

[Xun]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCdaoGWbdyE skill, he has it the op "artist"...lol...does not.

It was posted earlier, but yeah, this kid is great.

I should've kept doing watercolour painting, because the first piece I did when I was about 9/10 wasn't actually that bad for my first time using watercolours.

I should continue again.

[CrazyDude]

I am not reaching anything. I'm not talking about the blue dot at the eye. Look at the surroundings. The feathering around the yellow and blue area represents the fur that usually surrounds the eye of the lions (they are called lion dances, not dragon dances) fairly well. Also the blue area I'd agree really is just a representation of where the mouth area is rather than a recreation of the mouth, but look at the red swirls shaped around it, and see the coloured mustaches those lions usually have. You say you can't see even the barest hint of the dancing lion when you piece it together? Her most impressive piece honestly. The only one where the subject matter is really immediately apparent, but maybe that's because I have seen alot of chinese lion dances.

I don't see at all. All I see is a bunch of color splashed together with a carved out dot at the top. There needs to be shape, not just color.

There is also no one set of colors for lion dancers. It's not difficult to have colors similar to a lion dancer when there is such a large variety.

[qcf x2]

Here is a kid not doing abstract art, dubbed mini monet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCdaoGWbdyE

Legitimately impressive.

5 yr old girl splashing obscene amounts of paint randomly on canvas (and then having her parents try to find a theme and name the piece accordingly), creating "abstract art" without meaning or significance? Absolute nonsense.

Good for her that she's messing with paint, but no credit is due; it's just a sham.

ffs, the very notion of rearing a child on abstract art. It's like teaching a kid to handstand before they can walk. The real Picasso, child prodigy that he was, was classically trained.

[Vulcano's assistant]

I see a lo of potential, but I don't like any of her work, it's just messy. I'll wait until she has a little bit more of hand eye coordination, maybe when she is 8 or 9-yo.

[jett]

Stupid.

[Lord Ghirahim]

Reminded me of this.