The Economics of Reality

[philmosophy]

Definitions of reality frequently reflect underlying economic interests. Consider, for instance, the story of a very successful contemporary painter named Marla Olmstead. Marla's paintings have been compared in style and spirit to the work of Jackson Pollock and currently sell for about $6,000 a piece, though one gallery owner thinks they could

Comments

[iaaphoto]

Back to the direct topic, I have very little interest in her art except as a discussion point. I may come back to examining why later, but in terms of the actual paintings I just don't care.

[iaaphoto]

Ok, I'm back. I feel the real art here has not been done by her. The paintings aren't really anything that special. Her understanding of color is not better than Kandinsky and her rythm is not more interesting than Pollock. The only thing new she has brought to the scene is her age, and that isn't her introduction... it's been introduced by others. To me, "they," probably her parents, possibly publicist, etc, are the artist. The build up and publicity machine behind this is quite impressive. Her website is designed to force how special she is to an extreme amount. I sound bitter, but I'm really not upset about this, it does create interesting discussion, which I think is one of the main goals of good art.

[c4us4_su1]

Other than generating interesting discussion, what merit has her art? I would hope there is something authentically artistic about it, because her young age can't be the only reason she's gaining fame and recognition. I mean, when I was 4 I was making paintings, and while they were impressive for my age I certainly wouldn't have been able to sell them for thousands (or hundreds or even tens) of dollars. Do you think that there must be something "good" about her art, or do you think she just got swept up in good marketing hype?

[iaaphoto]

The idea is that she made a painting and someone had the idea to try and sell it or put it in a gallery. I highly doubt this was her idea at age two.

For a long long time, the artist has been defined as one who creates work and then shows it and/or sells it.

Just the act of creating has not been the only part, since every person creates

[c4us4_su1]

That's roughly what I was thinking -- someone saw her paintings and decided to start showing them, in large part because she does have a good sense of color (and therefore her paintings aren't entirely crap) and she's 4 years old. I'm completely willing to accept that somewhere there is a toddler that can create phenomenal paintings somehow, but I agree with you that "shoving him/her too early into the artist box" is a risk. Also, this young "artist" probably enjoys painting, and when an otherwise pleasing task comes under the power of a reward such tasks tend not to remain pleasing. She probably will not paint for the rest of her life, whereas she might have otherwise if left to develop at her own pace.

It's kind of sad for her, isn't it? It's almost as if early fame ruins all her future chances at being a good artist.

[iaaphoto]

well, it's probably too early to say that she's ruined, I suppose we'll see eventually.

I just think that the person who saw her paintings and decided they were good art is not someone who is really adapt at recognizing good art... because they probably think it's a primarily retinal thing, whereas almost all art that ends up being important over time has a large conceptual component, even if it has something to do with religious documentation or the artist them selves says it's only about color (which was quite an edgy idea when they started such work).

[c4us4_su1]

well, it's probably too early to say that she's ruined, I suppose we'll see eventually.

Haha, yeah... I guess I doomed the poor kid a bit prematurely. Oops! We'll see. :-)