Marla Olmstead is 4 years old. Her father, factory manager Mark Olmstead, is an amateur painter of extremely modest talent. When Marla expressed interest in painting, Mark set her up with paints and a canvas on the dining room table. Although still in diapers, Marla produced complete abstract paintings that really aren't bad at all. On a lark, a friend of the family put some up in his coffee shop, and patrons expressed interest in buying them. A gallery show, local newspaper articles, NY Times articles all followed, and soon Marla's paintings were selling for five figures.
Enter documentarian Amir Bar-Lev, who sets out to make a documentary on the media sensation and the question of what is modern art. Then "60 Minutes" enters the picture. What seems to be just another of many media appearances the Olmstead family has been making turns into an expose that accuses Mark of being the real artist.
This is an interesting documentary that turns fascinating in the 2nd half, even if that fascination is a bit like watching a slow motion car wreck. Marla's paintings are ... decent. They are esthetically pleasing abstract works that are pretty clearly not worth anything like the money being paid for them. Their value gets caught up in a frenzy involving their origins and a lot of values and ideas that people are imposing on the work of a four year old.
But are they really the work of a four year old? The Olmsteads are never able to demonstrate that they are, and it's clear that Bar-Lev no longer believes them at all. Early supporter and gallery owner Anthony Brunelli admits on camera that his real interest is debunking the whole idea of the abstract art that he resents for selling better than his own meticulously photo realistic work (which is technically admirable, but aesthetically worthless).
My own impression is that the completed painting we see are not the work of the child we see painting.
Enter documentarian Amir Bar-Lev, who sets out to make a documentary on the media sensation and the question of what is modern art. Then "60 Minutes" enters the picture. What seems to be just another of many media appearances the Olmstead family has been making turns into an expose that accuses Mark of being the real artist.
This is an interesting documentary that turns fascinating in the 2nd half, even if that fascination is a bit like watching a slow motion car wreck. Marla's paintings are ... decent. They are esthetically pleasing abstract works that are pretty clearly not worth anything like the money being paid for them. Their value gets caught up in a frenzy involving their origins and a lot of values and ideas that people are imposing on the work of a four year old.
But are they really the work of a four year old? The Olmsteads are never able to demonstrate that they are, and it's clear that Bar-Lev no longer believes them at all. Early supporter and gallery owner Anthony Brunelli admits on camera that his real interest is debunking the whole idea of the abstract art that he resents for selling better than his own meticulously photo realistic work (which is technically admirable, but aesthetically worthless).
My own impression is that the completed painting we see are not the work of the child we see painting.