As for the value of art school, it depends on the school and the student. I’d say that your friend’s statement is false as a general statement. I’ve seen many people become exposed to new things and make giant leaps under the mentorship of good teachers. If a student isn’t self-motivated and does not take advantage of all of the opportunities for extra study and extra help, it is very likely that this student will benefit very little from school.

The fact of the matter is that there is not a lot of room for people to make money in art. This is not the fault of art schools. Whether a person attends school or not, that person will likely have a difficult time making money as an artist. By your friend’s logic, we could say to the person who does not attend art school, “Don’t bother practicing art on your own, that’ll only help you learn to make art.”

I’m not interested in identifying my school here, but it has produced numerous, successful working artists, some quite well known, some dead, some old, and some very young. The teachers take the advancement of the students very seriously. Every effort is made to expose the students to as much art, and as much of the craft involved, as possible, and that includes trips, overseas study, and so on. Sometimes class work involves doing real paying jobs. There is a system set up to counsel all graduates, for life, and help them find work. Several people in this graduating class have earned valuable grants.

So again, it depends on the school and it depends on the student.

As for the girl in the video, I don’t find most of what she makes to be especially interesting. I find the music in the video to be grating and manipulative. I think that the whole production has been designed to convince the world that she is some kind of prodigy, whereas she may just be a lucky kid enjoying the art-making process.

That being said, it’s seems the only reason she’s getting all this attention is because her parents are rich and could provide her with the resources to paint and be exhibited. There are wonderful artists out there without the resources to show their work, so I object to the class privilege involved in this showcasing, not the little girl herself – she’s adorable and very creative.

I also think (this is just my opinion!) that her work isn’t very skilled. Her paint application is interesting, but not technically advanced. Also, her compositions usually have an all-over quality, the eye isn’t led anywhere. There’s nothing wrong with painting like that, but it’s been done before.

I don’t dislike this girl, and I’m happy she enjoys making artwork so much. But I do wish other artists were afforded the same oppurtunities.

I teach art at the collage level. I can draw and paint photo-realistically, and I also pursue lyrical abstraction. The fact that I can produce realism is not something which somehow justifies the abstractions. The abstractions would not somehow become not-art if they had been produced by someone who does not produce realism. I mention this, as it is “logic” commonly used by those who cannot understand abstract art, Andy Rooney giving a good example of that here, with regards to Picasso:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsfX6xqCBks

I’ll allow that obscene amounts of money thrown around for some art can be a bit much, and I’ll allow that this girl’s level of talent may not justify the attention. I’ll also allow that arguments could be made about the girl’s intent, though she seems quite focused to me. Because I drew identifiable dinosaurs and tanks at that age, can we argue that I did not actually attempt to represent those things? Can you argue that a human, at any age, is not a complex ball of confusion and emotion? I will not argue as to whether or not this girl is making good art, or whether or not she is a prodigy, but I will argue that she, in her way, IS making art. As for any accidental elements, even realist artists use happy accidents. I see beautiful designs and compositions in cracks in the sidewalk and other such places all of the time. They are framed with my mind in the same way that a photographer frames with a camera. You may not realize that Ansel Adams made delightful abstract compositions by photographing close-ups of moss, leaves, dirt, pine cones, or whatever was available. Michelangelo instructed his students thusly:

“…cast your glance on any walls dirty with such stains or walls made up of rock formations of different types. If you have to invent some scenes, you will be able to discover them there in diverse forms, in diverse landscapes, adorned with mountains, rivers, rocks, trees, extensive plains, valleys, and hills. You can even see different battle scenes and movements made up of unusual figures, faces with strange expressions, and myriad things which you can transform into a complete and proper form constituting part of similar walls and rocks. These are like the sound of bells, in whose tolling, you hear names and words that your imagination conjures up.”

In the end, I might superficially liken abstract art to something like the “Magic Eye” optical illusions. Some people cannot manage to see the images in the “Magic Eye” illusions, but those of us who can know full well that they are there. Some might not be able to truly see all of what’s in Abstract Expressionist works or related styles, but make no mistake, the value is there.

Jasper

Alan Ladd tells his story:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI-6ZpucRH8

I’ll bet the unidentified curator who was “impressed” — if he or she actually exists — is breathing a sigh of relief about now. A little breathless PR, and poof, a curator who can’t tell the coached scribblings of a four-year-old from mature art is miraculously transformed into the genius who discovered a prodigy.

I have kids. I cannot afford to spend thousands of dollars to allow them to explore like this. I think this really comes down to the parents being able to afford the supplies and a space to paint.

As for me, I’m wondering when somebody’s actually going to pop out a prodigy engineer, mechanic, or lawyer (historically, hasn’t there been a couple of prodigy physicist-mathematicians already?).

I often wish we were more free in our lives then we are. What i mean is that when you get to teenager years, it seems peer pressure comes into play. Its great shes innocent to the world, and able to be in the moments of creating the works… She’s going to love looking back at this time i hope.

I was Stuck infront of the TV untill about the age of 14, when i awoke to thoughts that the world of books is something i should get into more, and try and travel as much as possible. 12 years later, im glad i got that sudden inspiration.

I hope her all the best with her future.

Me personally, I do believe that she shows more maturity in her creations (I believe someone said something above about how other four year olds would just cover the whole canvas if given the opportunity). The compositions aren’t terrible and her color choices are more sophisticated that someone else her age. I did find it interesting to watch her paint. I’ve seen most children her age either stick to drawing figuratively (you know “this is my house, this is my dog, this is a flower”) or they grind down on the crayon as hard as they can with scribbles. But watching her, it does at times feel like she really is giving some thought to where she puts down what. It’s hard to tell, however, because not many four-year-olds are given the freedom that she has been given.

But a prodigy? I lean more towards no. I mean, it’s not likely that she fully understands artistic elements that aren’t subjective, like form, space or line. She’s doing what any four-year-old given that amount of freedom and paint would do: slinging it everywhere. But to her, she is making art. Probably not exhibition worthy art, but art nonetheless.

You’re really starting to have a personality at that age… a visualization of the emotions and mentation of someone that age would have relevant things to communicate to all of us.

But I pretty much have a hard time believing that there is any artistic intent behind her work. I wonder if that matters?

In other words, I think no one would doubt that a 4yo child playing Bach on a piano or a guitar is a prodigy (or at least clearly in the discussion). Same for a 4yo child who can solve extremely difficult calculus problems. Where it gets dodgy is when the skill/work/product shows no evidence of any… well, mastery. Math has demonstrable principles and proofs. “Art” also has principles of some sort, be they rhythms or patterns or narratives. There is of course also irony, and reaction to these patterns and principles, which can be “art”, though with requisite referentiality or self-referentiality–i.e., the artist is aware of what she is doing.

As for the desirability of the creative space, and how difficult it is to reach that space of creative freedom, that doesn’t obviate having the skill, knowledge, and techniques to actually create.

If anyone should be an abstract expressionist, who better than a 4 year old?

I mean… couldn’t there have been piano savants born before the invention of the piano? So I’m a Xyflogranzic genius… just born 1,209 years to soon…

I admit I’ve long had trouble with some abstract art, but on some level I find I’m able to look at a piece of work and recognize it as Art (due disclaimer: whatever the hell “Art” is).

This? This is spurts of paint on a canvas. I thought it looked pretty nice until it zoomed in on one of the canvases and you could see how the paint was caked on, crusty and layered. It suddenly became far less appealing once I was reminded of how…well, crummy it is.

What I find more impressive (and important) is how much she obviously loves painting. Those canvases must take ages to paint, even with her method, and it’s mighty cool that a 4-year old can focus for that long on something.

I just hope her parents get absolutely nothing for this, OR they put everything away for her to use later. If that’s all good, then carry on, mini Pink Jackson Pollack.

The artist, prior to making the work, must say to themselves: I am going to create this art, X, and it will evoke Y in people that experience it. I would also accept that they start making X before they fully know what Y is…but they have an idea.

Then they create X. It may not take shape exactly as they planned it but regardless they create the piece and do their best to evoke Y.

Then they show it to people. People say, wow, that’s such a good representation of Y WITHOUT having to be told beforehand that X is meant to be about Y.

Another way to put the above is that the artist must show evident skill in evoking a reaction they intend.

I also have a place in my world for art that is simply photo-realistic. Though I guess then it’s more a craft than an art. Again though it’s about showing skill.