What bothers me is that so many have jumped to conclusions without conclusive evidence. 60 Minutes is shameful, using one lousy psychologist's opinion as a definitive source, but, of course, it's in their interest to generate scandal, even where none exists. I could well be wrong, but my own opinion is that this girl's paintings are genuine. On Marla's web site, there are now more videos of her painting, and it all seems convincing enough to me on its own basis. But even if there are questions that remain - sneaking suspicions - there is certainly nothing to excuse such arrogant, SURE outrage and spewing of hatred on the parents...definitely, not until (and if) solid proof comes out to the contrary.
The real outrage should be over what Marla's works signify: namely, that all this abstract, expressionistic stuff is nonsense! We all know this the first time we see such a piece. Then, we take the word of so-called experts in art that it is, indeed, art. Hogwash! If these paintings were truly created by Marla, that's no surprise. They're just the types of paintings any damn kid could make, should they feel compelled. They take no skill to make - just imagination and ignorance of the concepts "good" and "skillful" with respect to visual art. And kids are blessed with those traits in spades. The art dealer in the film makes exactly this point. While he busts his butt painstakingly recreating true representations of reality with paint, someone could conceivably wipe their arse on canvas and auction off the product at Sotheby's, so long as they have a name made famous through the marketing of blind experts.
All in all, I guess this documentary achieved some objectives in both investigating and instigating controversy. I know it made me think and feel, if mostly about why I think abstract art is lousy and deserves no attention. That said, I still feel that the film, while competently produced, was pretty boring. And that could not have been helped, as this trivial story probably didn't deserve telling as a full-length feature in the first place.
The real outrage should be over what Marla's works signify: namely, that all this abstract, expressionistic stuff is nonsense! We all know this the first time we see such a piece. Then, we take the word of so-called experts in art that it is, indeed, art. Hogwash! If these paintings were truly created by Marla, that's no surprise. They're just the types of paintings any damn kid could make, should they feel compelled. They take no skill to make - just imagination and ignorance of the concepts "good" and "skillful" with respect to visual art. And kids are blessed with those traits in spades. The art dealer in the film makes exactly this point. While he busts his butt painstakingly recreating true representations of reality with paint, someone could conceivably wipe their arse on canvas and auction off the product at Sotheby's, so long as they have a name made famous through the marketing of blind experts.
All in all, I guess this documentary achieved some objectives in both investigating and instigating controversy. I know it made me think and feel, if mostly about why I think abstract art is lousy and deserves no attention. That said, I still feel that the film, while competently produced, was pretty boring. And that could not have been helped, as this trivial story probably didn't deserve telling as a full-length feature in the first place.