Marla Olmstead and Abstract Art

I'm a bit late on the bandwagon here, but Leanne just emailed me and asked me if I've seen that documentary about child artist Marla Olmstead, called My Kid Could Paint That. No I haven't seen it, but it's started a deluge of interesting thoughts for me. And I was just saying how much I missed art.

OK I will have to get this movie. i did a little bit of looking around -- i've only vaguely heard of her/remember her name...so i looked at her work, watched the trailer for the movie, read a review and another article, etc. i'm very interested. what's to suggest that kids do anything differently than adults? and if abstract art is spontaneous and messy and impulsive and stream of consciousness (along with what canvas and what paint you have available), then what's to say its a sham? Isn't art...isn't the utility of art, the satisfaction from it, derived from looking at it and saying, "that's interesting" or "that's pretty" or you just have some physical reaction? and why would that be bad, if people are willing to pay for it? how bout the guy that does the color block squares? what about him? its a red canvas. awesome. people like it. like i've always said, i'm not a "real" artist, but i do love to paint, when i have time, and i can't say i do much differently than what that little girl does, when i go totally abstract...like the paintings i did for jeff...art is impulsive to me, its a beautiful mess, and that's why i love it. who's to say a 4 year old can't do that? now as far as the exploitation factor, i have to see the movie...

Then a conversation ensues where I had to go find out what that guy's name was who did the color block paintings, so I went and talked to some graphic designers here at work...

so i just talked to some graphic designers here at work and they strongly disagree with me (except for the part that if someone is willing to pay thousands of dollars for a painting, let them). they think that abstract art-- and the intention behind it -- is cool and worthwhile and meaningful because it comes from somewhere, and part of where it comes from is learning the fundamentals and working within the boundaries of traditional skill, getting good at it, and then learning to break or supersede the boundaries, and go abstract. and as for my previous mention of mark rothko, they shot my theory down to ignorance, which i claim. they were saying you have to know WHY he chose the red, and the intention and meaning of what he's trying to convey. well, i don't know those things but i still enjoy it. does that count? you don't have to be an artist to appreciate art. but is there such a thing as proper appreciation? i guess there's education and knowledge. educated appreciation. i guess i'm just the starry eyed girl drooling at all the pretty colors!?

i've just had another thought. remember how disgruntled and pissed off the literati were when italian (and spanish?) opera made its way to england? they were pissed because the general public (assumedly relatively uneducated -- the masses) go to an opera, don't have any idea what's being said in the language they don't understand, and react to these costumes and the show. The SPECTACLE. Remember how the "ancients" --right -- got so mad about the fact that people would cry watching this spectacle that they didn't understand? So I'm relating it to abstract art. Perhaps they would say I am just the starry eyed drooling girl...yikes...