-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
5 Year Old Prodigy Aelita Andre
- Thread starter ajim
- Start date
- Status
SnakeswithLasers
Member
Picasso was an amazing artist who was well accomplished in realism, and co-invented cubism, which wasn't nonsense fingerpainting, but abstractions of objects rendered in multiple angles at once. It was mind blowing and moved painting forward into a new era. He was a literally a master of the art. This kid, while perhaps talented, is CERTAINLY not that. The sleazy marketing is disgusting.
Really, that is your beef? That the media labels her the next piccaso?
That's like being mad when they label some basketball prodigy as the "next" Michael Jordan. It's silly, sure, but not really a reason to be upset, because everyone knows the chances of that kid ACTUALLY being the next Michael Jordan are about 0.
That's like being mad when they label some basketball prodigy as the "next" Michael Jordan. It's silly, sure, but not really a reason to be upset, because everyone knows the chances of that kid ACTUALLY being the next Michael Jordan are about 0.
Yeah it is, check your local listings!
Basically, yeah. Did the parents do anything of note?
NinjaBoiX
Member
Seriously, I like this! How much for a print?That's crap. Now this is art.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
Cute kid + weird artsy/hipsterish name + throw paint around = fine art.
CrookedRain
Member
That's crap. Now this is art.
Looks like the 2012 Olympics logo.
Not a Jellyfish
but I am a sheep
ITT people forget that art is subjective.
SouthernDragon
Member
I agree with this fully. When there's real training behind it, I can respect abstract modern art.
There's no training behind this. Maybe she has an eye for color, but that doesn't merit the word "prodigy".
That's crap. Now this is art.
I fuckin' cracked up in the office.
SnakeswithLasers
Member
At least 'the next Michael Jordan' has some objective markers to measure up against. This is merely subject to interpretation and hype, and this 'peewee picasso' already has that shit built in around them by her parents. It's disgusting to all of the people who are out there actually doing things and creating.
But hey, personally, I don't believe that a five year old has the relevant life experience and training to actually make art that would be pleasing and groundbreaking to a thinking adult because they've experienced nothing in their life beyond shitting in their pants and pissing the bed. So I'm admittedly biased.
It's pretty disappointing that so many on GAF, which I think is very open to new concepts, likes new technology, is mostly liberal etc. shit on modern art on every occasion possible.
DIsappointing really. Shows you that not enough people have had (good) art classes in high school...Or should visit some exhibitons more often...
DIsappointing really. Shows you that not enough people have had (good) art classes in high school...Or should visit some exhibitons more often...
She shows signs of being a great painter some day. I see an instinct for composition and color theory that baffles and excites at the same time.
There are some that are hit or miss, but she's fucking 5. I just hope she's allowed to grow as an artist away from all the media scrutiny.
There are some that are hit or miss, but she's fucking 5. I just hope she's allowed to grow as an artist away from all the media scrutiny.
How is opening up the caps on a bunch of paints and dumping them art? How is putting a dinosaur on a painting art? It's fine if a kid wants to express themselves, but people are being suckered into this because of the media.
Rygar 8 Bit
Jaguar 64-bit
this is like when my friend used to sell pottery on ebay and claim he was a up and coming artist and people actually bought the stuff
SnakeswithLasers
Member
I took enough art classes in college to know that most masters of art got there through years of tutelage/experimentation/experience and have a base knowledge in art that allows them to grow and experiment with the medium. Labeling a finger painting kid a phenomenon prodigy only undermines true artists who are moving the medium forward and says, "Hey, anybody can do it!"
She's five. She doesn't know what she wants. Her ARTIST parents are forcing her to do something and are making shitloads of money on it. How is this any different than Lindsay Lohan's parents forcing her into acting because they want to live vicariously?
It may be a completely different situation, but you are in no position to know one way or the other, so don't shit on people who are skeptical and cynical.
SnakeswithLasers
Member
What five year old isn't vulnerable to operant conditioning?
NinjaBoiX
Member
I've just watched the video, she's having a whale of a time! So cute to watch.
But I still maintain, I don't see the aptitude for art, she's literally just picking up some paint, emptying it onto the canvas, walking round, empty some more paint, stick a few fur balls on there, smear some paint on the edges, she's just playing. And that's great, it really is. Hopefully it'll manifest in some actual talent. But at the minute, she's just a kid who likes to paint. I don't want to be dismissive, but calling her a genius? There seems to be little evidence of any rhyme or reason, it's just random paint splats in the name of fun. Why label it as more?
Spout some stupid pretentious bullshit to go along with it.I went to the modern art exhibit at my city's museum this past weekend... terrible. I think time will take care of it though, 40 years from now an exhibit with art from 2000 to 2010 will be more interesting as the crap gets forgotten and the handful of good pieces are remembered.
I almost felt sorry for the modern art after walking though the rest of the exhibit... or maybe sorry for the old artists being featured in the same building as the modern stuff
One of the peices I saw in the exhibit was dirty laundry... no really, dirty laundry. I create that every day, I just don't know how to sell it
Fake Edit: Anyone ever watch the Dilbert cartoon? The modern art episode was one of my favorites
cheststrongwell
my cake, fuck off
I think the colonial nature of these works is fantastic. Aelita obviously has an eye for color density while staying true to the age old use of "wave form" semantics.
The girl is at home painting because she wants to. She paints what she does today because the parents probably noticed she had a proclivity for it and encouraged her. When she says she's going to paint for 24 hours it's probably because she wants to paint for a long time, not because the parents are going to lock her in a dungeon in order to have five more paintings for the exhibition.
Moreover, kids will always need parents to push them if they have a natural talent. A five-year-old is not going to be able to purchase his own piano, or drive himself to a baseball match, or whatever. Not all parents are rotten.
If you guys want to pass off this type of judgment, dig up some interview with the parents to see how they're acting about it. Everything here so far is just based on personal bias.
The study took paintings by children (and for some reason animals) that they thought looked like the work of well known abstract painters and compared them to the real thing. Do you not see the flaw in that?
They weren't noticing tried and true methods of art in general, they were seeing the telltale signs of specific artists. Because the children and animal paintings were completely unknown to them there was no familiarity with the style or even the picture as a whole. It's not just about identifying specific vocabulary, art students are more likely to identify specific paintings. More than just recognizing something they remember seeing they're a group of people actively absorbing the world of art.
Notice that the psychology students faired worse. If they had taken people who had no familiarity with the specific artists and their style the results may have been completely different.
There are many flaws in this study if you actually look at it.
Did you read my post? I mentioned the psychology students. If you actually read the article you'd notice they had a lower rate of choosing known artists over children and animals.
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.
She didn't name the painting. You can be sure of that. Some of them were named before she could speak. Others were named when she could barely speak using words well outside her vocabulary. Her parents are naming them based on what they see.
This. She's not using Crayola water paints on cheap paper.
Take her to the store, let her pick out her own supplies and equipment and you'll likely see a huge drop in quality. Everything from the colors she uses to the canvas and style is being predetermined by her parents when the stock her supplies.
I have nothing against her. I hope she enjoys painting for the rest of her life if that's what she wants but labeling your child a prodigy, especially when they are clearly not, is almost never a good thing. Eventually the other children will catch up and then your child will be completely average with the ego of a genius.
Metalmurphy
Member
This says more on what people consider to be art then it does about the girls "talent".
There's a good deal of luck involved in making it big like this girl did, just like in music and hollywood. Somoene could create paintings virtually identical to this girl's and no one would care because of lacking the narrative and connections afforded to this girl.
This is why all these "well, why don't YOU do it, mr. smartypants" posts are absurd.
I love posting on GAF, it enriches my life.
indigo-cyclops
Member
We've seen it with Pollock, and it was actually relevant and he was cogent in his reasonings behind it. I am weary of these young children who paint like this, it comes up a bit in the modern art world. My home city had a gallery years back with a child artist that did the same stuff.
Give me some theory behind your work, from your own mouth that can be analyzed and correlated to the world she lives in. A lot of this is just the parents coaching her I bet.
Give me some theory behind your work, from your own mouth that can be analyzed and correlated to the world she lives in. A lot of this is just the parents coaching her I bet.
Did you even read the quote to the post of the person you're responding to?
"I had a lot more artistic talent at 5 than this pretentious little kid."
No, that is absolutely a case where the person needs to put up or shut the hell up.
indigo-cyclops
Member
So formalism or not? Formalism is more the critique of the formal elements of the physical work. For me a lot of the criticism I have against post-modern is the belief that all that matters is the formal elements. Regardless, even movements like Abstract Expressionism, which this would categorically fall under, saw the formalism as something that reinforced their ideas. There is no successful art that doesn't have a deeper motivation behind it.
I don't really care about someone that can splash paint around unless they can give me some good reasons why. This is most definitely the result of the parents obsessive coaching and THEIR interpretation. In the future though, I think she has the capacity to be a very intriguing artist if she can break free and rely only on how she sees and interprets the world.
I wasn't challenging you really, by the way.
Messypandas
Member
looks like Pollocks
les papillons sexuels
Banned
picasso at age 14 had mastered classical style painting.
until she can do more then make a mess on a canvas with poor compositions and no real exploration into aesthetics, her stuff is just an insult to art.
To me it looks like mommy and daddy have a lot of money and are paying to put her in a gallery.
Just look at this: http://bevshots.com/all.html
The artist is a master of composition and color theory...nope just pictures of alcoholic drinks under a microscope.
To put it simply, humans like colors so this type of painting is naturally appealing to the eyes a lot of the time. People will naturally add meaning to this type of thing as well, just the same as people see shapes in the clouds or an ink blot.
The artist is a master of composition and color theory...nope just pictures of alcoholic drinks under a microscope.
To put it simply, humans like colors so this type of painting is naturally appealing to the eyes a lot of the time. People will naturally add meaning to this type of thing as well, just the same as people see shapes in the clouds or an ink blot.
- Status