Advertise here.
 |
Title: My Kid Could Paint That
|
| CONSUMER ADVICE |
Parents, there are a couple strong curse words, but that's about it. Recommended for ages 13 and up. |
The debate for what makes good art is up for debate to this day, but chances are “My Kid Could Paint That” will do nothing to end that debate. In fact, frustrating as it is, this movie will actually make the debate go deeper then it ever was before. The movie is a documentary by Amir Bar-Lev, who was allowed into the home of the Olmstead family. The reason for this is not because of interest in the family, but of little 4 year old Marla, who has already painted and sold over $100,000 worth of paint and hasn’t even graduated kindergarten yet. Though originally thought of as some fluke that would go away, Marla’s original $250 painting eventually caught the attention of the media, and before you knew it Marla was the biggest story in the world. She was on talk shows, newspaper articles, and (as you figured) the subject of this documentary.
 |
The fact that the director was allowed in the Olmsteads house meant that few things were off limits to him, and as such he got lots of great footage of the families everyday life as well as their reactions to media reports on their daughter. Little Marla seems the least interested in her work, and prefers jumping around and clinging to mom. The lifestyle is friendly and glamorous, until a report on “60 Minutes” brought the whole thing down. In the special a psychologist says, "I saw no evidence that she was a child prodigy in painting. I saw a normal, charming, adorable child painting the way preschool children paint, except that she had a coach that kept her going." What’s more, when viewing the footage of the painting “60 Minutes” caught on film she feels that that painting is less polished then all the other paintings that were made off camera.
 |
This leads many people in the world to doubt the authentically of the paintings. Even the director of the documentary shares his own doubts he’s starting to have in the family. As he says, “if they are liars they are very good ones.” I don’t want to spoil anything in the movie, but from my perspective it doesn’t look like Marla made the fancy paintings. She may have started them, but to say she finished them after some of the reveling evidence would feel pretty ignorant on my part, though the film does provide some stuff that would put my conclusions to doubt. Likewise my whole family seemed to each reach a different conclusion, and the truth, if there is one, is buried so far deep that I question if it can really be dug out at this point. Ah, but don’t take this review to shed the illusion that this is a con waiting to be unveiled, as the true criminals may in fact be the art buyers themselves.
 |
The modern world of art is filled with all kind of abstract paintings and sculptures, all of which appear to be about nothing at all. Da Vinci’s Last Super is obviously art. It’s about something, it tells a story, and if you’re a famous novelist it even provides some images that you can use to turn into a best-selling book if you so please. But when I see all these paintings that are nothing but sploshes, crooked lines, and mixed colors I start to wonder. One time I was house-sitting a friends house, and I took a moment to observe a painting that was hanging on the living room wall. It had a white background, with one black stripe near the left and one half black stripe on the right. I looked it over, I turned my head, I tried to view it from every angle I could to see what the big deal was. In the end I walked away in defeat. I never told my friend this, but the conclusion I reached was that the painter was a comedian, playing a practical joke on someone who didn’t get the punch line.
 |
 |
|
|
