child prodigy painter

[maiforpeace]

This quote at the end of the article bothers me, though:
Michelle Williamson says she and her husband won't be disappointed if Kieron one day stops painting, as long as he is happy.

"We fully expect Kieron to change his mind," she said. "But we know that whatever he ends up doing, Kieron is going to give it 200 percent."


The fuck

Why does that bother you? Many child prodigies burn out and have very unhappy lives as teens, and often end up as unremarkable adults and worse (the unibomber was a child prodigy) because their parents pushed them too hard... all a parent should ever wish for their child is that they are happy.

Sorry, I should been clearer. The first part of the quote, I agree with 100%. The second part is what puzzles me. "We fully expect Kieron to change his mind." Why on earth would he change his mind? Why would you want him to change his mind? He has an extraordinary gift that he seems to quite enjoy. I'm glad they aren't pushing him hard to do this, and taking a more relaxed approach. I think that's great. But it's not like this is some passing fancy of little or no consequence, like he parts his hair on one side but then, who knows, later on he may decide to part it on the other side, or perhaps not part it at all.

I guess they meant that in the way that children go from one thing to the next? One day, they want to be a painter, the next, a doctor. He's a bright child and no doubt will have many interests.

I found this when I went poking around on child prodigies.

http://www.ted.com/talks/adora_svitak.html

[tattuchu]

http://www.ted.com/talks/adora_svitak.html

At 3:20. Bacon Boy with meat vision

Wait.

It should be our mascot

[maiforpeace]

http://www.ted.com/talks/adora_svitak.html

At 3:20. Bacon Boy with meat vision

Wait.

It should be our mascot

Pretty amazing little speaker though, eh? She had just the right amount of humor in it.

[hadespussercats]

Cameras can certainly depict what we recognize as reality better than most paiters can-- and there are photographic artists who push the medium even further, with the help of computers. But to write off an entire artistic medium because of its most mediocre practitioners, or a few well-publicized whack-jobs, shows that you don't have much familiarity at all with the best of modern painting.

I don't write it off. It's just that the priorities have changed. It used to be to represent a scene, now it's to take money off mugs. And they do it brilliantly.
But people equate prices with quality. If something fetches millions, it must be brilliant. That's absolut crap.

People pay vast amounts for rare stamps, or rare diamonds. Not for the quality of the item, but for the rarity, and the history. They can make fake diamonds that even experts can't tell from the real thing, without special equipment.
Are they worth the same? Nothing like.
It's rarity that counts. The other thing is people have an almost religious craving for objects that connect to famous people. In the middle ages, it was the bones of saints. Now it's paintings.
You could make a perfect copy of a famous painting, it wouldn't be worth a tiny fraction of the price.
It's not the quality of the art, it's what goes with it that they crave.
.

Well, I can't disagree with any of that. But why the camera comment then? Is photographic reality the only worthwhile pursuit?

[Gallstones]

This is hardly surprising. Who doesn't look at virtually all modern art without the little voice in their head saying, "any child could do that!" ?
We've had art critics praising paintings done by three-year-olds, when they didn't know who painted them. And even animals.
Art pretty much stopped with the invention of the camera. Cameras can do it so much better, all the artists could do in reply was bullshit. (and they do that very well).
.

This is a fucking ignorant claim.

Cameras can not do "it" much better. Cameras do what they do, artists do what they do. And there are artists who do good work--like me. I use a camera to shoot my work, not to do my work.

I have an original--a unique piece, doesn't get any rarer than unique--that I'll sell you for a bargain. Only $3K.
No camera could have made it. I'll even give you the story of it's conception and execution to add value.

[PsychoSerenity]

I wonder is his skill will improve with age. He's amazing now, of course. But that's because he's 8. If his ability kinda plateaus at one point, and by the time he's an adult he's just the same as everybody else, at the same level, then that'd be kinda sad.

It's hard to tell. Age doesn't really make much difference with painting skill - that is, reproducing a scene in paint - he's not painting any better than I'd expect most people could paint with a bit of instruction and couple years practice. The reason his paintings are selling for thousands is because of his age though.

In terms of art, conveying thoughts and feelings through his work, I see nothing special there.

Kieron Williamson fidgets a little when he's asked to share his thoughts on art.

"Cows are the easiest thing to paint," said Kieron, who has just turned 8. "You don't have to worry about doing so much detail."

Seems like an ordinary 8 year old, who's had some practice painting to me.

[mistermack]

This is a fucking ignorant claim.

Cameras can not do "it" much better. Cameras do what they do, artists do what they do. And there are artists who do good work--like me. I use a camera to shoot my work, not to do my work.

I have an original--a unique piece, doesn't get any rarer than unique--that I'll sell you for a bargain. Only $3K.
No camera could have made it. I'll even give you the story of it's conception and execution to add value.

All the artists could do in reply was bullshit. (and they do that very well).

I rest my case!!

Every time I have a crap, it's a unique piece. I'll do you a straight swap. I'll even give you the story of it's conception and execution to add value.
.

[mistermack]

Well, I can't disagree with any of that. But why the camera comment then? Is photographic reality the only worthwhile pursuit?

Well, it used to be, till they invented the camera. The camera obscura came before the camera, some of the dutch 'masters' were using it years ago, according to experts.
Now, art is like fashion. You make a name for yourself with the art press, your stuff will sell for big money. That's the modern worthwhile pursuit. Get famous and sell stuff for big money. But you need to learn to bullshit, not paint.
.

[hadespussercats]

Well, I can't disagree with any of that. But why the camera comment then? Is photographic reality the only worthwhile pursuit?

Well, it used to be, till they invented the camera. The camera obscura came before the camera, some of the dutch 'masters' were using it years ago, according to experts.
Now, art is like fashion. You make a name for yourself with the art press, your stuff will sell for big money. That's the modern worthwhile pursuit. Get famous and sell stuff for big money. But you need to learn to bullshit, not paint.
.

There's a lot of bullshit going on in the art world, but, call me a Pollyanna, I still think painting as a medium can and does offer value to the world-- value even beyond price tag and provenance.

[Ronja]

Well, I can't disagree with any of that. But why the camera comment then? Is photographic reality the only worthwhile pursuit?

Well, it used to be, till they invented the camera. The camera obscura came before the camera, some of the dutch 'masters' were using it years ago, according to experts.
Now, art is like fashion. You make a name for yourself with the art press, your stuff will sell for big money. That's the modern worthwhile pursuit. Get famous and sell stuff for big money. But you need to learn to bullshit, not paint.
.

There's a lot of bullshit going on in the art world, but, call me a Pollyanna, I still think painting as a medium can and does offer value to the world-- value even beyond price tag and provenance.

[Gallstones]

This is a fucking ignorant claim.

Cameras can not do "it" much better. Cameras do what they do, artists do what they do. And there are artists who do good work--like me. I use a camera to shoot my work, not to do my work.

I have an original--a unique piece, doesn't get any rarer than unique--that I'll sell you for a bargain. Only $3K.
No camera could have made it. I'll even give you the story of it's conception and execution to add value.

All the artists could do in reply was bullshit. (and they do that very well).

I rest my case!!

Every time I have a crap, it's a unique piece. I'll do you a straight swap. I'll even give you the story of it's conception and execution to add value.
.

OK, I'll sell you a print of it then. Since it won't be an original or unique, it will come at quite a bargain.

[RuleBritannia]

"When you go to an art gallery you are simply a tourist looking at the trophy cabinet of a few millionaires." -- Banksy

[mistermack]

OK, I'll sell you a print of it then. Since it won't be an original or unique, it will come at quite a bargain.

LOL
I'm not surprised you don't want my shit. You're already full of it.
.

[mistermack]

There's a lot of bullshit going on in the art world, but, call me a Pollyanna, I still think painting as a medium can and does offer value to the world-- value even beyond price tag and provenance.

But can you honestly say that you are free of conditioning? I think we are surrounded by conditioning. News, school, friends etc.
It's like the Emperor's invisible suit of clothes. We are surrounded by people saying "isn't it ooooooooh, isn't it aaaaaaah, isn't it absolutely wheeeeeeeeeeeeeee" and some of it is bound to rub off.
You can't see it or feel it, it's gone in drip by drip.
Just imagine if you were from the fifteenth century, brought here by time machine.
How long would it be before you stopped telling people that all the art from the impressionists onwards was absolute twaddle?
.

[hadespussercats]

There's a lot of bullshit going on in the art world, but, call me a Pollyanna, I still think painting as a medium can and does offer value to the world-- value even beyond price tag and provenance.

But can you honestly say that you are free of conditioning? I think we are surrounded by conditioning. News, school, friends etc.
It's like the Emperor's invisible suit of clothes. We are surrounded by people saying "isn't it ooooooooh, isn't it aaaaaaah, isn't it absolutely wheeeeeeeeeeeeeee" and some of it is bound to rub off.
You can't see it or feel it, it's gone in drip by drip.
Just imagine if you were from the fifteenth century, brought here by time machine.
How long would it be before you stopped telling people that all the art from the impressionists onwards was absolute twaddle?
.

Your end refutes your beginning-- unless, of course, you think the impressionists, Picasso, Dali, Rothko, etc., etc. are in fact absolute twaddle. And if so, well, I don't know how much more we have to talk about.