I read in the morning paper about a documentary that just came out about a four-year-old girl who paints abstract paintings and who, at the time the documentary was filmed, was getting thousands of dollars per painting. The little girl looked sweet in the photo with brush in hand, but looking at the agitated abstract in front of her that already appeared to be finished(Yeah, exactly how do you KNOW its finished? LOL)I couldn't see her in the act of painting it. One must imagine that little girl, posing demurely before the camera, like a four-year-old, really working up a sweat both physically and cognitively. I couldn't. Did I mention the would-be artist dad?
The article brought to mind a previous article some years back of the elephant who painted with its tail, and appeared to enjoy it, so said the article anyway. Now this Indian elephant had to have the colors applied to its tail by humans, humans had to stretch the canvas and humans had to back it up to the canvas. So much for the creative process. Its works sold for goodly sums also. Not in the thousands like the little girl---after all she is HUMAN, and, well, the elephant isn't, is it?
What am I getting at here? Well, let's see. It looks as though the little girl was a 'successful' artist because of her age, and the elephant because of its species. But why would intelligent humans spend good money for such piffle? (I always like to think of money as 'good.' After all it is inanimate and therefore incapable of being either GOOD or EVIL, correct?) Is it because the work speaks to them personally, or because of the oddity factor?
It always seems to be the abstractionists who get slammed with this type of thing, doesn't it? Obviously a little girl or an elephant isn't going to paint like a Rembrandt or even a Picasso. I say EVEN a Picasso, because he wasn't exactly a photorealist, was he?
I thought it interesting also that the article about the little girl mentioned the local gallery owner who at one point said that abstract art is a scam and then pointed out that the little girl is a genius. Both of those statements, in this context, can't be correct, can they?