• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

5 Year Old Prodigy Aelita Andre

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sklorenz said:
Nah, there are videos of her creating pieces from start to end. While the girl has no ability when it comes to drawing and rendering (but she has the talent to develop it), she has a fantastic eye for composition, color, and contrast (in geometric form, color, visual spacing), and her paintings have a natural flow to them. People can hate on abstract art all they like (heck, there are famous abstract painters of whom I am not a fan, and the same goes for other styles as well). She does have loads of natural ability though, and she's going to be an absolutely incredible and accomplished artist as she continues to expand her abilities.
Click to expand...

I don't mean that she didn't pick the colors for the paint, but what about the idea of using the spray bottle the get the look/illusion that the spray bottle gives or arranging the color of the 4 or 5 different canvases? I don't believe the videos every shows that.

If you put tools, material and paint in front of a child that child is going to use and experiment with as many of them as they can. The majority of the time (if the child doesn't get bored) you are going to get something that looks pretty because of all the colors, tools and material used. That is the case with her painting.

The is some very good abstract/modern art out there but it seems the majority is not so much about skill as it is about having pre-existing fame, money and/or knowing the right person/people. Just look at paintings that Mikey Teutul paints and how much some of his paintings sale for.

I am also not sure she can become an incredible artist. Not that she doesn't have potential, but because she is going to grow up with the belief that what she is painting now is great art and will likely continue painting the same way. I didn't say accomplished because apparently skill (at least skill alone) has nothing to do with becoming an accomplished artist.


Seventh said:
http://youtu.be/JHoS4W0leuQ?t=2m47s
Click to expand...


Makes me think of the episode of Doug. The one where his painting gets first place but was actually something his dog did completely on accident(his real painting actually being on the other side of the canvas).
 
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
 
Remember: the important part of expressionism is expression. I'm sure the child has had an interesting life, but she ain't expressin' shit. Best comment on the site was, "nice, but I'd put it over there close to what those elephants are doing."

Hell, those elephants might actually be more expressive.
 
shadowsdarknes said:
aka5d7a8bc_2b9b_4d25_9f1c_4b4a9d42c5cc.jpg


This is pretty impressive.
Click to expand...

Looks good, I like the gradients.
 
DarkhawkX said:
Universe? I'm afraid you're simply seeing what you want to see.

Do you really think she's naming these herself? Now, that may qualify as prodigal based on vocabulary, visual connection/representation, and subject matter. I'm highly dubious.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if she named the pieces herself. After all, the article did label her a prodigy.
 
shadowsdarknes said:
I wouldn't be surprised if she named the pieces herself. After all, the article did label her a prodigy.
Click to expand...

Well I think they were referring more to her ability than her vocabulary (not that she doesn't name some, most, or all of her pieces). I'd be surprised if she named her "Chinese New Year" piece that three years ago when she did it. I find her "self portrait" piece more interesting, in that I'm curious what it meant to her. I don't doubt that most of her works do have some meaning to her, despite what some may say due to her age
 
Sklorenz said:
Well I think they were referring more to her ability than her vocabulary (not that she doesn't name some, most, or all of her pieces). I'd be surprised if she named her "Chinese New Year" piece that three years ago when she did it.
Click to expand...

Word play is a form of art and expression. She is a prodigy artist. Therefore, the article is referring to her skills with the febreeze technique as well as word smithing alike.
 
shadowsdarknes said:
Word play is a form of art and expression. She is a prodigy artist. Therefore, the article is referring to her skills with the febreeze technique as well as word smithing alike.
Click to expand...

I'm not contesting it, just stating that I'm impressed that she could name a piece "Chinese New Year" in 2009 when she was born in 2007 if it was actually the case. :P Chinese New Year was actually one of my favorites, but I don't think she named it. Not that it matters at such a young age.


SouthernDragon said:
This... this is a prodigy.

She is not a prodigy.
Click to expand...

For her medium, they can be likened. Beyond that, feel free to criticize her I guess, but I'm curious as to who your premiere choice would be for artistic prodigy (there have been others) since you seem to think this girl doesn't impress.
 
Sklorenz said:
For her medium, they can be likened.
Click to expand...
God, no. That is stretching the word "prodigy" way too far. Does she have talent? Maybe, maybe not. In the end it's what people get out of her works that defines their quality more than anything else.

Ung-yon, on the other hand, was accomplishing objective measurable feats most well-educated adults struggle to do/learn. An artistic equivalent would be some child exceptionally skilled in perspective, lighting, figures, distortion, etc. Techniques that show logical thought processes and clear intent, not instinctive use of randomization. You can reinterpret abstract art to suit yourself, but you cannot reinterpret realism.
 
J.W.Crazy said:
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.
Click to expand...

This just in: people trained in a particular field can deconstruct it!

Your "argument" works for any laymen interpreting a field which contains its very own specific identifying vocabulary.

That article also mentioned that psychologists also recognized certain attributes as more likely to have been constructed with purpose and structure, but were less able to explain why (lacking the language) of the art student.

Art may obviously be more ambiguous when it comes to certain aspects of the field, but let's not pretend that somehow the assessment of an average-going citizen undermines centuries of study.
 
Haly said:
God, no. That is stretching the word "prodigy" way too far. Does she have talent? Maybe, maybe not. In the end it's what people get out of her works that defines their quality more than anything else.

Ung-yon, on the other hand, was accomplishing objective measurable feats most well-educated adults struggle to do/learn. An artistic equivalent would be some child exceptionally skilled in perspective, lighting, figures, distortion, etc. Techniques that show logical thought processes and clear intent, not instinctive use of randomization. You can reinterpret abstract art to suit your own tastes, but you cannot reinterpret realism.
Click to expand...

I'll just say that given her age, I was blown away by her pieces done between the age of 2 - 5 years old and I've never seen anything like it (therefore: artistic prodigy). There artists a few years older than her that can do some really incredible things as well (pieces that GAF would appreciate more, in that they are not abstract, and perhaps you would consider them prodigies). Not worth arguing about, really. I do agree that realism can be more concretely measured in more ways, so in that case I agree that you've got a point, certainly. I'm still impressed and would not hesitate to describe her as a prodigy for even a second though, because her abstract art displays a lot of amazing natural talent, and amazing natural talent is what a prodigy has.
 
in the end you can always easily dismiss ANY kind of art with statements like "pfff that's not art, my 5 year old could do this"

might as well say "pfff Picasso sucked, i can draw a cube" or "Shakespeare was no great writer, i can write little stories as well" or whatever

but there IS a certain objectivity in artistic skill as well underneath the albeit subjective nature of the eye of the art's beholder and this girl obviously expresses this in the way she combines colors and patterns.

I agree though that there is nothing much more to these paintings and that all "meaning" and depth here is obviously being attributed by the viewers imagination, but then that is normal as the girl is only 5 and can not express much more than this since she has yet to experience the majority of her life.
 
cluxdeluxe said:
I'm pretty sure picasso could actually draw. This girl doesn't know anything about color or drawing and is just throwing lots of paint around.
Click to expand...

Picasso had fantastic drawings and well-rendered paintings before he pioneered cubism. I've already given my thoughts on the second sentence in above posts. I'll say it's impossible for one to just be able to render fantastic images at such a young age in the same way that people probably said it was impossible for Ung-yon to do what he did with mathematics at a young age until he did it. I say it can't be done. And once that eventually happens via incredible circumstances, there'll be a new bar for what a prodigy is, sure :P I do believe she has a fairly secure grasp on color, even if she couldn't teach it. I think it's fairly apparent, as I've studied it. And therefore I don't think she's purely just "throwing lots of paint around" and waiting for it to land in just the right way so that everybody heralds her. That's not to say that abstract art is devoid of randomness (of course it isn't).
 
Winnie the Pimp said:
in the end you can always easily dismiss ANY kind of art with statements like "pfff that's not art, my 5 year old could do this"

might as well say "pfff Picasso sucked, i can draw a cube" or "Shakespeare was no great writer, i can write little stories as well" or whatever

but there IS a certain objectivity in artistic skill as well underneath the albeit subjective nature of the eye of the art's beholder and this girl obviously expresses this in the way she combines colors and patterns.

I agree though that there is nothing much more to these paintings and that all "meaning" and depth here is obviously being attributed by the viewers imagination, but then that is normal as the girl is only 5 and can not express much more than this since she has yet to experience the majority of her life.
Click to expand...


If all Piscasso was know for was drawing a cube and all Shakespeare was known for was writing little stories than perhaps, but that is not the case and is not what made them famous. This is not the case with this girl and many other modern artists. It is basically them becoming famous due to drawing a cube or writing little stories.
 
Key2001 said:
If all Piscasso was know for was drawing a cube and all Shakespeare was known for was writing little stories than perhaps, but that is not the case and is not what made them famous. This is not the case with this girl and many other modern artists. It is basically them becoming famous due to drawing a cube or writing little stories.
Click to expand...

She's also not a grown, well-trained and experienced woman. God damn give her some time, already writing her off for not being as talented as Picasso. If she never advances her skill, then so be it, she never does. The topic of discussion is her current level skill, which is impressive I think. Comparing her to modern artists who are adults and never learned how to properly draw or render is a bit ridiculous. The point is that she has a lot of skill already, and therefore she's got a whole ton of potential to go a long way.

Edit: Might as well mention that I'm off to bed for the night GAF :D I actually had a lot of fun getting to talk about art for a change on here, as I usually just lurk in the OT save for a few threads. I'll give this topic a re-visit tomorrow I'm sure.
 
Sklorenz said:
She's also not a grown, well-trained and experienced woman. God damn give her some time, already writing her off for not being as talented as Picasso.
Click to expand...

No one is writing her off. No one would have any problem at all giving her all the credit she would deserve if she does become a great artist. However, at the moment she is not but she is being given credit as such.

My problem and probably everyone else is not with the girl, but with the media and those involved with making "art" what it is today.
 
Oh god I should never enter threads about art on GAF...

I will not say that I "understand" anything more than the average Gaffer, but all this "I could do that", "that's just splashes of paint", ... makes me weep inside.
 
I don't claim to know a lot about art, but some of these look pretty damn good to me.

Check out a lot of minimalist works that sold for 10s of millions of dollars that are nothing more than 2 colored lines on a white canvas, or one square. That's bullshit art IMO. This girl is better at splashing paint around than Jackson Pollock.
 
Grinchy said:
This girl is better at splashing paint around than Jackson Pollock.
Click to expand...


http://discovermagazine.com/2001/nov/featpollock

No, you could not do what Jackson Pollock did. His paintings can be mathematically distinguished from lesser works by their fractal dimension, and could take months to achieve that complexity.

That's not the only thing that makes them good, as a computer could also be programmed to use high fractal complexity, and such complexity alone is not automatically attractive. But in any case, it is far from "random paint splashing."
 
Most of the big name classic artists spent years and years studying and perfecting and creating the "rules" of painting, in a very realistic and analytical way. They learnt the skills and rules to an extremely high level and then broke the rules to create their more abstract works. So there's meaning, knowledge and method behind even the most simple of their work. Whether the actual art is better/worse in your opinion, at least you can respect the artist.

A lot of modern artists now days skip learning anything and just shit all over a canvas and call it art.
 
I like how most of the people in the thread complaining about her art have drawn avatars from a video game, children's show, or some animu bullshit.
 
Sullen said:
I like how most of the people in the thread complaining about her art have drawn avatars from a video game, children's show, or some animu bullshit.
Click to expand...
Nobody claims that those things are art though, so your point is?

not psycho said:
http://discovermagazine.com/2001/nov/featpollock

No, you could not do what Jackson Pollock did. His paintings can be mathematically distinguished from lesser works by their fractal dimension, and could take months to achieve that complexity.

That's not the only thing that makes them good, as a computer could also be programmed to use high fractal complexity, and such complexity alone is not automatically attractive. But in any case, it is far from "random paint splashing."
Click to expand...
Math doesnt make it good art. In fact, it sucks and is terrible, no matter how many ways people try to find meaning in it.
 
Sullen said:
I like how most of the people in the thread complaining about her art have drawn avatars from a video game, children's show, or some animu bullshit.
Click to expand...
I would proudly display an Orioto picture in my home but I have no interest in this girl's art or anything similar.
 
Sullen said:
I like how most of the people in the thread complaining about her art have drawn avatars from a video game, children's show, or some animu bullshit.
Click to expand...

Where are they or someone else trying to sale these drawing as works by a "pee-wee Picasso" for thousands of dollars? Video games, children shows and anime can also have great art in them.
 
I thought they were beautiful. I don't care how much effort was put in, that does not take away how I as a viewer react, and to me, reaction is what art is about.
 
SHE JUST OPENED UP ALL THE CAPS ON THE PAINT THING AND DUMPED IT ON! HAHAHAHAHA!

That's amazing. People love to either be suckered, or a trained monkey could make modern art. No offense to the girl, but she was just in the right place at the right time.

No wonder nobody gives a fuck about modern "art" anymore, it all sucks. I wonder how this happened? What happened to the artists? I'm not going to say that I know anything about painting, but there's a difference between the Mona Lisa and throwing a dinosaur figure on a paint splattered canvas. In fact I'd throw away all this garbage to get just 1 more masterpiece movie, book, and game. Seems like a fair trade.
 
She's made some pretty neat stuff, but then again, I'm no art critic. I hope her passion lives on and she continues to develop her artistic abilities.

In the meantime I'm going to get a canvas, some paint, get naked, and roll around in paint all over the canvas. Do you guys think anyone will buy it?
 
Tomat said:
She's made some pretty neat stuff, but then again, I'm no art critic. I hope her passion lives on and she continues to develop her artistic abilities.

In the meantime I'm going to get a canvas, some paint, get naked, and roll around in paint all over the canvas. Do you guys think anyone will buy it?
Click to expand...

Depends on how fancy your camera is when you film it.
 
When/if I have kids I'm going to give them some paint and tell them to throw it at each other, next thing you know I'm set for life.
 
How about you post some good modern art? I bet you cant because all modern art is shit.
Click to expand...

Err, sure.


HGjRt.jpg

dd2JC.jpg

Ku84j.jpg

P2bxt.jpg


Though this are just stuff that I've recently like that I can bring up quickly.

Check out this guy as far as technical skills go.

http://www.kid-zoom.com/

Also this group.

http://theblackheartgang.com/the-household/the-tale-of-how/

And I don't have that deep of a grasp in the art culture seeing that I'm mostly a design kid, but saying all modern art is shit is just plain dumb. I haven't even gone into the whole digital painting/concept art culture, modern animation, anything to do with graphic design at all, or design at all in general, which is becoming even more diverse and eclectic.

So fuck people who say current art is shit without trying to look further than some random bullshit people link to them.
 
HarryHengst said:
In fact, it sucks and is terrible, no matter how many ways people try to find meaning in it.
Click to expand...

Regardless of good or bad, it isn't just paint thrown on canvas. You can try it and you will not get the fractal dimension of a Jackson Pollock painting.

And how do you really judge something like this on a computer monitor? You need to see it in person.

VjK3K.jpg
 
shadowsdarknes said:
aka5d7a8bc_2b9b_4d25_9f1c_4b4a9d42c5cc.jpg


This is pretty impressive.
Click to expand...
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:

CrazyDude said:
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.

Kim-Ung-yong.jpg
Click to expand...
 
not psycho said:
Regardless of good or bad, it isn't just paint thrown on canvas. You can try it and you will not get the fractal dimension of a Jackson Pollock painting.

And how do you really judge something like this on a computer monitor? You need to see it in person.

VjK3K.jpg
Click to expand...
Nonsense. It's a painting, it's purely visual. A sculpture? Yes. An art installation? Absolutely. But a painting? Yeah, not so much.
 
not psycho said:
Regardless of good or bad, it isn't just paint thrown on canvas. You can try it and you will not get the fractal dimension of a Jackson Pollock painting.

And how do you really judge something like this on a computer monitor? You need to see it in person.

VjK3K.jpg
Click to expand...

Hmmm... I have an idea... take one of these pieces as the base... then render graphics and images on top in a manner similar to how we see shapes in clouds. Then take the concepts off that drawing and expand upon them in a third painting. Make it a triptych.
 
That's some scary looking 5 year old.

Paintings are absolutely phenomenal though, and I'm usually not too fond of modern art.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Top 5 things you bought this year.
14
595
analog_future replied
  • Poll
Blu-ray turns 20 years old - Feeling old yet?
News  2
68
1K
jason10mm replied
19 year old male mauled to death by lioness after climbing into zoo enclosure
2
81
1K
TheChumpNation replied
Man throws girl from 4th floor window, gets 5 years in prison (British justice)
16
283
Fbh replied
Corpse found in d4vd’s (singer) car positively as missing 15 year old girl
2 3
134
3K
reinking replied
Top Bottom