Art prodigy poses 'ethical nightmare' for parents(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Art prodigy poses 'ethical nightmare' for parents
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-23287113
14 comments
You think it would be better if his whole life/personality was fucked up by the freakish success in his early years?
The opposite extreme is not always better than the current extreme. Nobody said to indulge him completely. I am just saying that complete fear that your child will be perceived as "different" is stupid.
*edit: By the way, I charge you guilty of employing the "black-and-white" logical fallacy and request that you stop in the future.
*edit: By the way, I charge you guilty of employing the "black-and-white" logical fallacy and request that you stop in the future.
[deleted]
"He's a very lucky boy, but as parents we just have to say no to a lot of things to give him a normal life. The most important thing is that he can relate to his peers and not be seen as any different."
It's interesting how many people with "normal" lives desire to live in the limelight, yet those who are already there just seek to be normal.
Is relating to your peers and not being seen as any different the most important thing?
It's interesting how many people with "normal" lives desire to live in the limelight, yet those who are already there just seek to be normal.
Is relating to your peers and not being seen as any different the most important thing?
"relating to your peers" is too narrow of a phrase, but it seems likely having satisfying interpersonal relationships of some sort is very important. I would say it's the most important thing after basic necessities for survival. I don't, however, think "not [being] seen as any different" is necessary for that.
It is possible though that this kid might not relate to the kids in the local neighborhood that well. With the Internet now though I think this starts to become less of a problem, if you are an outlier you can now relate to like minded outliers online or at interest based meet ups.
Everyone seeks normalcy in certain aspects, and fame in others. You'd be hard pressed to find many amongst those who wish to live in the limelight who would want every moment of their lives photographed so that the tiniest of their mistakes can be displayed in full colour in public. And unless you're Perelman, most people want some recognition for the things they do that they're proud of.
Would it be nice for this child to be recognized for his talent? Yes. Would it be nice for his peers to see him as some painting freak? No.
Would it be nice for this child to be recognized for his talent? Yes. Would it be nice for his peers to see him as some painting freak? No.
My conclusion has been that those who are "normal" want some fame- they don't want to be splattered across tabloids everywhere, they just want people to know their name and what they do. People who are super famous probably want the same thing- not to be unknown, but maybe a little less famous.
Typical YC response.
Without describing in what way it's "typical" (I presume in a bad way), this comment isn't helpful at all.
I'll bite (woe is me, poor karma...)
HN is all about showing people how extraordinary you are (or at least, how extraordinary you think you are). Normal is equated with a state of stasis that needs to be overcome (or, as the cool kids/rockstars/codeninjas[sic] call it, "disrupted"). The same HN regularly upvotes and heavily "discusses" stories about people who were "screwed over by the normal [education] system", who were too special without other people realising.
HN is about getting rich, or at least richer than average (or, as the boring average-Joe lives are sometimes called, normal), about creating, sticking out, being the one-in-a-million, yes-you-can wholesale embodiment of the American Dream(tm), according to which we will all one day be rich and famous if we only work hard enough with as little interference as possible (regulation is a horror, HORROR, I tell you) from state, ethics or, worse even, "average" users, the normal users very much akin to imbeciles.
Is it a surprise many here do not want (or cannot?) understand why aspiring to be "normal" and to fit in might be a diserable thing for other people?
HN is all about showing people how extraordinary you are (or at least, how extraordinary you think you are). Normal is equated with a state of stasis that needs to be overcome (or, as the cool kids/rockstars/codeninjas[sic] call it, "disrupted"). The same HN regularly upvotes and heavily "discusses" stories about people who were "screwed over by the normal [education] system", who were too special without other people realising.
HN is about getting rich, or at least richer than average (or, as the boring average-Joe lives are sometimes called, normal), about creating, sticking out, being the one-in-a-million, yes-you-can wholesale embodiment of the American Dream(tm), according to which we will all one day be rich and famous if we only work hard enough with as little interference as possible (regulation is a horror, HORROR, I tell you) from state, ethics or, worse even, "average" users, the normal users very much akin to imbeciles.
Is it a surprise many here do not want (or cannot?) understand why aspiring to be "normal" and to fit in might be a diserable thing for other people?
I spend a fair amount of time on HN (probably too much) and write lots of comments here and enjoy a pretty good amount of upvotes and I'm a big fan of being normal and not much of a limelight seeker. I'm also basically a socialist and roll my eyes at most calls for deregulation of (whatever).
I'm not sure you can lump all of HN so cleanly into one bucket.
I'm not sure you can lump all of HN so cleanly into one bucket.
My comment might involve a certain mount of hyperbole. In this case, it is exactly lumping all of HN together for the sake of making a point.
I see this as a function of self-reflexion and self-critique, which no functioning system in my opinion can do without. Don't forget that I am also a member of this site, I read the articles, I vote and I post. This obviously suggests that HN is not homogenous but instead can serve as a platform for differing opinions. I do think, however, that my hyperbole describes a certain active (and, dare I say very vocal?) portion of the posters here.
If you (and some of the other posters who have replied below) don't fall within that group then that is a good thing.
I see this as a function of self-reflexion and self-critique, which no functioning system in my opinion can do without. Don't forget that I am also a member of this site, I read the articles, I vote and I post. This obviously suggests that HN is not homogenous but instead can serve as a platform for differing opinions. I do think, however, that my hyperbole describes a certain active (and, dare I say very vocal?) portion of the posters here.
If you (and some of the other posters who have replied below) don't fall within that group then that is a good thing.
You describe a certain very vocal portion of the American public. I'm not sure their proportions on HN are significantly out of whack.
I agree with you partially, and upvoted you, but part of what makes HN great is that it makes me feel normal to be ultra motivated.
Maybe some people make pompous comments, or complain about first world/high class problems, but it is the only place I have found, on the net or otherwise which the ultra motivated outweigh those seeking to fit in.
Maybe some people make pompous comments, or complain about first world/high class problems, but it is the only place I have found, on the net or otherwise which the ultra motivated outweigh those seeking to fit in.
Like georgemcbay, I'm basically a socialist.
I have no fundamental objection to regulation in general. Some regulations are deeply flawed, but this doesn't justify pitching them all overboard any more than some humans committing crimes justifies locking all humans in prison.
Though I do consider the American educational system broken, you'd find I don't agree with many of the libertarian views of how it's broken, and strongly disagree about the correct solutions, which I do not believe lie in the private sector.
I'm content with making a good salary not screwing people over. I'm often the first to raise any legal or ethical concerns if a plan looks like it might get close to (or cross) the line.
I also view sane, well-run startups as a kind of end in themselves. I like the working environment and feeling like I can make a meaningful contribution based on my personal strengths, rather than being another fungible cog in an inflexible bigco machine. The chance of a big payoff is a nice bonus, not the primary goal.
I do view professed desires to be "normal" with suspicion, primarily because in America, "normal" has been used with shocking candor to justify oppression of novel ideas or forms of expression, homosexuality, and in enforcement of gender norms. It's even been used to justify physical abuse of children who dare do something so harmless and mundane as writing with their left hand. It is the embodiment of othering and fear of the unknown.
So you see, HN is not entirely homogenous, and even attitudes that may look similar can emerge from people with diametrically opposed political views.
I have no fundamental objection to regulation in general. Some regulations are deeply flawed, but this doesn't justify pitching them all overboard any more than some humans committing crimes justifies locking all humans in prison.
Though I do consider the American educational system broken, you'd find I don't agree with many of the libertarian views of how it's broken, and strongly disagree about the correct solutions, which I do not believe lie in the private sector.
I'm content with making a good salary not screwing people over. I'm often the first to raise any legal or ethical concerns if a plan looks like it might get close to (or cross) the line.
I also view sane, well-run startups as a kind of end in themselves. I like the working environment and feeling like I can make a meaningful contribution based on my personal strengths, rather than being another fungible cog in an inflexible bigco machine. The chance of a big payoff is a nice bonus, not the primary goal.
I do view professed desires to be "normal" with suspicion, primarily because in America, "normal" has been used with shocking candor to justify oppression of novel ideas or forms of expression, homosexuality, and in enforcement of gender norms. It's even been used to justify physical abuse of children who dare do something so harmless and mundane as writing with their left hand. It is the embodiment of othering and fear of the unknown.
So you see, HN is not entirely homogenous, and even attitudes that may look similar can emerge from people with diametrically opposed political views.
[deleted]
And here I thought YC was just a place where reasonably intelligent people with an interest in computers could talk.
I'm glad that my parents never pushed for me to be "normal".
What superpowers do you possess?
Just the confidence to know it's okay to think outside the box and color outside the lines.
I daresay this kid will grow up with that confidence as well. The normalcy they're speaking about is likely normal human interactions with other children his age.
A friend of the Culkin family recounted in an interview how people would stare at the young Macaulay Culkin on the street, and the actor himself has expressed a desire to have had a more 'normal' life.
The normal they want for their child is unlikely to involve suppression of his creativity, and is likely to involve supporting him as he deals with his fame and his peers' reaction to it.
A friend of the Culkin family recounted in an interview how people would stare at the young Macaulay Culkin on the street, and the actor himself has expressed a desire to have had a more 'normal' life.
The normal they want for their child is unlikely to involve suppression of his creativity, and is likely to involve supporting him as he deals with his fame and his peers' reaction to it.
This kid is a genius. Which at the same time raises some flags. Makes me wonder if it really is him creating the paintings. What happened to the 10,000 hour rule and all that saying that there are no real instant successes? How did he get this good? How long did it take? Well, I'm off to answer my own questions in google.
> What happened to the 10,000 hour rule and all that saying that there are no real instant successes?
Just because some moron creates a heuristic that crudely models reality doesn't mean that nature has to follow that heuristic.
Just because some moron creates a heuristic that crudely models reality doesn't mean that nature has to follow that heuristic.
Gladwell is certainly a polarizing figure, but in no way does he deserve the epithet "moron".
Gladwell writes very well; the content involves carefully layering anecdotal evidence, oversimplification and over-generalisation of scientific theory (that is already brittle) -- bad science. I stand by the epithet.
Mozart began composing at the age of five. By the time he was 8 he had written around 16 pieces that survive to today, including a Symphony.
"What happened to the 10,000 hour rule and all that saying that there are no real instant successes?"
Mozart.
Mozart.
The 10,000 hour rule is not just about 10,000 hours. If you read Gladwell's book (or better, the research that Gladwell seems to cite), you find that there are important things that go along the 10,000 hour rule, probably the most important being a great teacher with a great teaching technique being there for you all the time (such that he/she can give you instantaneous feedback), who keeps pushing (vs. sticking to basic things for too long), deliberate practice, etc.
Perhaps the reason why Mozart immediately sticks out is it's hard to conceive in your mind someone becoming that good so quickly. The reality is, with Mozart and probably this prodigy, he has parents who're exemplary in their respective domains (music and art), and they both live in a nurturing environment that served them well. (Oh, and as for Mozart: he didn't become good that quickly. He started composing early, but the compositions that solidified him as a genius came much later on).
Perhaps the reason why Mozart immediately sticks out is it's hard to conceive in your mind someone becoming that good so quickly. The reality is, with Mozart and probably this prodigy, he has parents who're exemplary in their respective domains (music and art), and they both live in a nurturing environment that served them well. (Oh, and as for Mozart: he didn't become good that quickly. He started composing early, but the compositions that solidified him as a genius came much later on).
I'm not sure he was a counterexample. He started playing musical instruments at the age of 3 or 4, and began composing some pieces when he was 5. While Mozart was undoubtedly a musical genius, he had an early start and lots of exposure to music.
There are barely 10,000 hours of awake time in two years. Nor does the 10,000 hour theory explain, e.g. a friend's son who can decode text lightly encrypted into abstract symbols at normal reading speed - a little over a year after after he started to read English.
The 10,000 hour theory occupies the same niche as every piece of self-help snake oil, whether it is intended as such: a comforting feeling that the formula will bring success to the reader.
The 10,000 hour theory occupies the same niche as every piece of self-help snake oil, whether it is intended as such: a comforting feeling that the formula will bring success to the reader.
Search his name on YouTube and he paints in a few interviews. Seems legit. I think he still needs 10k hours to master the art, but due to natural talent he skipped the first few thousand hours.
If he keeps up with this, imagine how good he will be when he's more mature.
If he keeps up with this, imagine how good he will be when he's more mature.
I just wanted to point out that this is a UK family, talking to the UK press - so their attitudes (IMHO) may not be being interpreted correctly in 'American'. (I'm from the UK, but have lived in NYC for over a decade).
I strongly doubt they're pressuring their child to be normal : Eccentricity and 'being interesting' are cherished qualities in the UK. I'm guessing that what they're saying is that they're making sure he has 'space' so that when he wants to do ordinary stuff, and that there's no-one whispering in his ear that he needn't be interesting in playing football (soccer) because he's a genius with a higher calling.
Also, maybe the art thing is just a childhood phase, and that's Ok by them too.
From what I see from the people around me in my office, attitudes to children (and their education, aspirations, etc) are very different US vs UK.
I strongly doubt they're pressuring their child to be normal : Eccentricity and 'being interesting' are cherished qualities in the UK. I'm guessing that what they're saying is that they're making sure he has 'space' so that when he wants to do ordinary stuff, and that there's no-one whispering in his ear that he needn't be interesting in playing football (soccer) because he's a genius with a higher calling.
Also, maybe the art thing is just a childhood phase, and that's Ok by them too.
From what I see from the people around me in my office, attitudes to children (and their education, aspirations, etc) are very different US vs UK.
I also think it's marvelous that they've engaged solicitors to handle his affairs. It is good that there is an impartial party whose primary professional interest is in the wellbeing of their son. So many parents lose their way in situations like this by confusing their goals with their children's goals, and having a third party in the children's corner is a great way to control for that.
It is also mercenary: establishing a trust fund in the child's name shields the money from liability claims against the parents.
Could you expand on this please, especially detailing the liability that the child is likely to face under UK laws?
If the money is placed in an account jointly owned by the parents, a successful legal claim against the parents can be forcibly taken from the account. For example, a slip-and-fall lawsuit involving the front porch of the family home. When a lot of money is involved, the steps can become surprisingly slippery.
yeah, this seemed quite a decent approach from the family to me (english). the idea that they're not being supportive of their kid seems way off the mark. they're just trying to find the right balance, as far as i can see.
i wonder how bad we are at interpreting nuance in american media? maybe honey boo boo isn't a parenting guide?
i wonder how bad we are at interpreting nuance in american media? maybe honey boo boo isn't a parenting guide?
As another brit, I want to echo this. I suspect the treatment by his peers would be different in the US then in the UK. Not so much the talent part, but definitely the wealth aspect - in my experience a kid who was ostensibly much more wealthy at school than the others would likely be a target for bullies and find it easy to become an outcast.
I think it stems from jealousy, but also a relic of old class divides. Wealthy people, especially in less well off areas, are not usually admired for their hard work, but sneered at for their (assumed) inheritance or abuse of the system.
I think it stems from jealousy, but also a relic of old class divides. Wealthy people, especially in less well off areas, are not usually admired for their hard work, but sneered at for their (assumed) inheritance or abuse of the system.
There are people who are viewing these parents negatively? That has got to be luckiest boy on the planet.
The top comment at the moment (by tokenadult) expresses the hope that the story misquotes the parents when they say "The most important thing is that he can relate to his peers and not be seen as any different."
My guess is that is exactly what they said, and they didn't mean that they'd do anything that discouraged their child at all. It's just a case of cross-cultural mis-communication going on.
Another case in point : I'd say that his paintings are 'pretty good' (which is high praise in the UK), whereas in the US 'genius' gets handed out far too easily (to my ears).
My guess is that is exactly what they said, and they didn't mean that they'd do anything that discouraged their child at all. It's just a case of cross-cultural mis-communication going on.
Another case in point : I'd say that his paintings are 'pretty good' (which is high praise in the UK), whereas in the US 'genius' gets handed out far too easily (to my ears).
At the point when I make this comment, there are quite a few others remarking negatively about the parents' desire for the child to "relate to his peers and not be seen as different".
While a charitable (and likely accurate) view of this is that they wish him to just have healthy relationships with his peers, many here seem to view the statement as indicative of a desire to hammer out any individual creativity in the hope of creating a child who is average in every way.
While a charitable (and likely accurate) view of this is that they wish him to just have healthy relationships with his peers, many here seem to view the statement as indicative of a desire to hammer out any individual creativity in the hope of creating a child who is average in every way.
"many here seem to view the statement as indicative of a desire to hammer out any individual creativity in the hope of creating a child who is average in every way"
Cross cultural miscommunication at work - to me (and I'm from the UK) it sounds like the parents were handling a tricky situation pretty well.
Cross cultural miscommunication at work - to me (and I'm from the UK) it sounds like the parents were handling a tricky situation pretty well.
I've found this story a bit odd because if a child even just a few years older made paintings like these, they would maybe win a prize, but certainly not sell for $70,000 a piece.
Which makes the parent's handling of the money even more important, in case the novelty fades as he ages.
Reminds me of the sad story of Jackie Coogan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Coogan#Coogan_Bill
Reminds me of the sad story of Jackie Coogan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Coogan#Coogan_Bill
Like all famous artists, I suspect it's equal parts talent, marketing, and information cascade.
Is very hard to make that kind of judgement from low resolution online photographs of paintings.
It isn't, really. It's typical Bob Ross stuff that doesn't have any market outside of art fairs and repos for hotel chains.
"typical Bob Ross stuff that doesn't have any market outside of art fairs"
Well, you would seem on the face of it to be completely and utterly wrong on that score, at least according to the people buying his paintings.
Out of interest, do you paint much?
Well, you would seem on the face of it to be completely and utterly wrong on that score, at least according to the people buying his paintings.
Out of interest, do you paint much?
You seem to be missing the point. He is saying that the paintings have little intrinsic worth, but gain it from the external circumstance of being created by such a young artist. Your response that people buy the paintings therefore they have value is completely orthogonal, because that doesn't prove either way whether the value is intrinsic or extrinsic (and art is a market know for extrinsic value, such as a painting going up in price once the formerly unknown artist is discovered, etc).
The comment "typical Bob Ross stuff that doesn't have any market outside of art fairs" is directly talking about perceptions of market worth, not intrinsic value.
Well done for using the word orthogonal though. I like that word. It isn't as good as susurrous however.
Well done for using the word orthogonal though. I like that word. It isn't as good as susurrous however.
I'm not really wrong on that score, just look at some of the paintings in the article, and check out his website. Many of the examples given aren't even very good, especially the "winter landscape" image 7/8 in the article. I don't want to sound like I'm slagging some little kid, because it's great for a child of his age, but if he was even slightly older, say 11 or 12, he wouldn't be selling anything. There are loads of young painters this good in China, for example, and they aren't selling for 5 digits.
The interesting part of story is that the kid is actually selling the paintings for such amounts. If he was just painting them but not selling them, I'm not sure this would even make the news.
The interesting part of story is that the kid is actually selling the paintings for such amounts. If he was just painting them but not selling them, I'm not sure this would even make the news.
"I'm not really wrong on that score"
Well, you are though. You said that his work has no market outside of art fairs, and that is patently untrue as he is selling them for a lot of money and not through art fairs.
You also claimed that it is easy to tell a painting's quality from low resolution photographs and that these paintings are "typical Bob Ross stuff" when they are in a very different style from Bob Ross.
Basically, as far as I can tell, you either want an argument out of this, or are merely pissed off that some kid has got rich from paintings you don't personally appreciate after only seeing photos of them on the net.
Well, you are though. You said that his work has no market outside of art fairs, and that is patently untrue as he is selling them for a lot of money and not through art fairs.
You also claimed that it is easy to tell a painting's quality from low resolution photographs and that these paintings are "typical Bob Ross stuff" when they are in a very different style from Bob Ross.
Basically, as far as I can tell, you either want an argument out of this, or are merely pissed off that some kid has got rich from paintings you don't personally appreciate after only seeing photos of them on the net.
I didn't mean this kid's paintings don't have a market outside of art fairs, I meant that is where this sort of impressionist painting is usually found when produced by someone else.
Yeah, one of the very amazing things about going to an art museum is that paintings are often incredibly different in "real life" than they are in reproductions (pictures on the net, postcards, posters, etc, even high-quality art books).
It's not just the colors, which are very often completely mutilated by reproductions—and sometimes that's inevitable as many paints react to light in a way that's simply not possible to reproduce using simple colors and standard inks, from differences in gloss, to metallic pigments, to paints with embedded "stuff", to paints that are oddly "intense" (due to fluorescence?)—but also the textures of paintings, which can range from dead flat to subtle but noticeable strokes, to painting where the paint is literally 10+cm thick, and sculpted, often with fabric and other materials incorporated.
Seeing a painting on wikipedia is not really seeing it. This isn't mere pedantry either—in many cases it's an utterly different experience.
It's not just the colors, which are very often completely mutilated by reproductions—and sometimes that's inevitable as many paints react to light in a way that's simply not possible to reproduce using simple colors and standard inks, from differences in gloss, to metallic pigments, to paints with embedded "stuff", to paints that are oddly "intense" (due to fluorescence?)—but also the textures of paintings, which can range from dead flat to subtle but noticeable strokes, to painting where the paint is literally 10+cm thick, and sculpted, often with fabric and other materials incorporated.
Seeing a painting on wikipedia is not really seeing it. This isn't mere pedantry either—in many cases it's an utterly different experience.
They are working on that: you can buy a 3D printed replica of a van Gogh: http://www.3ders.org/articles/20130722-3d-replicas-of-van-go... (haven't seen one, but at $25,000 a piece, they better be good)
That's cool... adding texture helps ... but the paint composition itself is equally or more important.
I suppose they could go as far as trying to replicate that too, but the cynic in me says probably not...
I suppose they could go as far as trying to replicate that too, but the cynic in me says probably not...
I don't think it takes a trip to the gallery to conclude that the paintings aren't all that great. After all, the paintings themselves are based on photographs:
http://www.cleveland.com/arts/index.ssf/2010/08/kieron_willi...
http://www.cleveland.com/arts/index.ssf/2010/08/kieron_willi...
It's only uncommon to paint exclusively from photographs.
I'm sorry, but everyone can have an opinion about art, that's what makes it so easy to value it at so high a price, and in my opinion I'd probably never pay even a thousand dollars for one of those paintings. Now that's me, somebody may like them more, but I still just from a scroll through them have trouble understanding what the commotion is all about, except perhaps that he's so young.
The following video completely redeems Bob Ross:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLO7tCdBVrA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLO7tCdBVrA
Prodigies are extremely rare but do legitimately happen: kids who on first touching a piano or other instrument, play complete tunes etc. Kieron Williamson is in a list of visual arts prodigies[0]. Nevertheless the maturity and use of sophisticated technique, esp. in the painting of the grandfather, is startling. The list of musical prodigies is longer.[1] W.A.Mozart made his performing debut at 4 and wrote compositions at age 5. [2]
[0]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_child_prodigies#Visual_... [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_music_prodigies [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart
[0]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_child_prodigies#Visual_... [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_music_prodigies [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart
First world problems.
Which are valid problems. See the related informal fallacy, "Appeal to worse problems": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_worse_problems
"As a child star, Coogan earned an estimated $3 to $4 million ($48 million to $65 million adjusted for 2012 dollars), but the money was spent by his mother and stepfather, Arthur Bernstein, on extravagances such as fur coats, diamonds, and expensive cars. Coogan's mother and stepfather claimed Jackie was having fun and thought he was playing. She stated, "No promises were ever made to give Jackie anything. Every dollar a kid earns before he is 21 belongs to his parents. Jackie will not get a cent of his earnings",[5] and claimed that "Jackie was a bad boy.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Coogan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Coogan
I find the stories of kids who sue their parents for misusing their funds quite sad. I never could figure out what the right way to deal with that was, put the money in t-bills and while 'safe' you get sued for being a poor financial manager. Put it into a fund and have it lose value and find yourself in trouble again.
You can ask your child's wishes but if they want to spend it all on candy do you?
The whole live a normal life thing is pretty straight forward if all the money gets whisked away into some trust account somewhere. When you start trying to use it to "improve" things where it often causes problems.
You can ask your child's wishes but if they want to spend it all on candy do you?
The whole live a normal life thing is pretty straight forward if all the money gets whisked away into some trust account somewhere. When you start trying to use it to "improve" things where it often causes problems.
When I've heard about such lawsuits, they've involved objectively unreasonable actions. Junk bonds, the latest get-rich-quick scheme from a loser brother, or just plain extravagant spending for the benefit of the parents would be examples. Putting everything in t-bills, not so much.
Just a bit of context from a person who works in contemporary art: the question of "exploitation" is complicated by the fact that a career like this is probably based in some part on exploiting people who don't understand the state of art or the mainstream art market.
The notion, for example, that he is comparable to Monet is absurd, not only because this kid isn't a good painter but also because it would be impossible to make Monet-like paintings today and be anything like Monet was during his time. The questions Monet was answering are no longer the questions anyone is asking art to answer.
If people are being told that this boy is a genius, or that he is likely to be an important artist in the future, they are being defrauded. Whether his parents are participating in the fraud or are being misled themselves probably has some bearing on how much we should trust them as parents I think (neither being a great endorsement but the former being much worse than the latter).
The notion, for example, that he is comparable to Monet is absurd, not only because this kid isn't a good painter but also because it would be impossible to make Monet-like paintings today and be anything like Monet was during his time. The questions Monet was answering are no longer the questions anyone is asking art to answer.
If people are being told that this boy is a genius, or that he is likely to be an important artist in the future, they are being defrauded. Whether his parents are participating in the fraud or are being misled themselves probably has some bearing on how much we should trust them as parents I think (neither being a great endorsement but the former being much worse than the latter).
What I find really interesting is that he says he prefers oils because they are more "forgiving" than watercolors. Yet his style of painting doesn't really need "forgiving." His handling is pretty loose and abstract. Almost perfectly suited for watercolors.
And his paintings are very formulaic. Lots of abstract passages with bits of crisp realism showing up here and there. Almost like a solid painter that has been painting for many years and is popping these babies out for a show on the boardwalk where they'll go for $500 apiece. I wouldn't be surprised if someone was "coaching" him.
And his paintings are very formulaic. Lots of abstract passages with bits of crisp realism showing up here and there. Almost like a solid painter that has been painting for many years and is popping these babies out for a show on the boardwalk where they'll go for $500 apiece. I wouldn't be surprised if someone was "coaching" him.
Agreed. Even the use of language, "forgiving," is how teachers talk about media, not children.
Unfortunately, if you look closely, the paintings are actually quite awkward (the portrait of his grandfather especially) and are worse for trying to echo a loose, confident style. Even if we accept this hyper-conservative, even regressive approach to art, it's unfair to expect him to have much skill at such a young age (and he doesn't have much at the moment).
Unfortunately, if you look closely, the paintings are actually quite awkward (the portrait of his grandfather especially) and are worse for trying to echo a loose, confident style. Even if we accept this hyper-conservative, even regressive approach to art, it's unfair to expect him to have much skill at such a young age (and he doesn't have much at the moment).
So how do you square that with the financial success?
Easily: customers who have lots of money, who have a predisposition to prefer "traditional" artwork, and who believe the plausible idea that a child who is being recognized (according to the dealer) as a "prodigy" is likely to be only more recognized the older he gets, which would mean higher prices.
In reality, there are no more "prodigies" in the field of art because it has been completely de-skilled. Likewise no one who paints in this genre and with this perspective (see the "blobs on canvas" quote) will ever be included in the way that is necessary for his career to develop and his prices to be justified by the larger art market. He won't be able to show in mainstream museums, he won't be represented by credible dealers, and he will exist to whatever extent he can in an economy built mostly around exploiting people who don't know anything about the field.
In reality, there are no more "prodigies" in the field of art because it has been completely de-skilled. Likewise no one who paints in this genre and with this perspective (see the "blobs on canvas" quote) will ever be included in the way that is necessary for his career to develop and his prices to be justified by the larger art market. He won't be able to show in mainstream museums, he won't be represented by credible dealers, and he will exist to whatever extent he can in an economy built mostly around exploiting people who don't know anything about the field.
> In reality, there are no more "prodigies" in the field of art because it has been completely de-skilled.
That's a rather provocative statement! I assume by "art" you mean "painting"? Or did you really mean it more broadly? I don't have any professional or formal training in this field so forgive me if I'm misinterpreting or retreading old ground here, but doesn't your statement seem to imply that there is no room for beauty in contemporary art? If it is completely de-skilled, "anyone" can make art, and so it will only be valuable to the extent that it makes some sort of statement, or is perceived as valuable by collectors / experts.
That's a rather provocative statement! I assume by "art" you mean "painting"? Or did you really mean it more broadly? I don't have any professional or formal training in this field so forgive me if I'm misinterpreting or retreading old ground here, but doesn't your statement seem to imply that there is no room for beauty in contemporary art? If it is completely de-skilled, "anyone" can make art, and so it will only be valuable to the extent that it makes some sort of statement, or is perceived as valuable by collectors / experts.
He means that art is now predominantly about ideas, influences, and references. Craft plays only a passing, marginal role.
Just for perspective, I watch a few dozen people on deviantart I met IRL or found through reddit or other discussion topics. They may not have the artistic skill of some institutional art classical painter, but I find their art more appealing and interesting.
That, and modern computing has enabled, in my experience, a pretty sharp proliferation of artistic skill. Once you didn't have to buy paint or watercolors (which can become expensive) and had the ability to undo, art got a lot better. For me. Art is, after all, a personal thing.
That, and modern computing has enabled, in my experience, a pretty sharp proliferation of artistic skill. Once you didn't have to buy paint or watercolors (which can become expensive) and had the ability to undo, art got a lot better. For me. Art is, after all, a personal thing.
Some of those classical artists fall into the trap of focusing on trying to make things look as real as possible.
There is another option - don't sell the paintings.
Article doesn't describe the most interesting part: Does these abilities appear spontaneously at early age? How child gets in to something so intensively? Was there any training and how much? But another article from Guardian does shade some light on this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/29/boy-paint...
The truth is far more innocent. Two years ago, a serious accident had forced Keith to stop work and turn his hobby – collecting art – into an occupation. The accident also stopped Keith racing around outside with his son. Confined to a flat with no garden, surrounded by paintings and, like any small boy, probably influenced by his dad, Kieron decided to take up drawing. Now, father and son are learning about art together.
At first, Kieron's art was pretty much like any other five-year-old's. But he quickly progressed and was soon asking questions that his parents couldn't answer. "Kieron wanted to know the technicalities of art and how to put a painting together," says Michelle. Hearing of Kieron's promise, one local artist, Carol Ann Pennington, offered him some tips. Since then, he has had lessons with other Norfolk-based painters, including Brian Ryder and his favourite, Tony Garner.
Garner, a professional artist, has taught more than 1,000 adults over the last few decades and Kieron, he says, is head and shoulders above everyone. "He doesn't say very much, he doesn't ask very much, he just looks. He's a very visual learner. If I did a picture with most students, they will copy it but Kieron is different. He will copy it and then he will Kieronise it," he says. "It might be a bit naive at the moment but there's a lovely freshness about what he does. The confidence that this little chap has got – he just doesn't see any danger."
The truth is far more innocent. Two years ago, a serious accident had forced Keith to stop work and turn his hobby – collecting art – into an occupation. The accident also stopped Keith racing around outside with his son. Confined to a flat with no garden, surrounded by paintings and, like any small boy, probably influenced by his dad, Kieron decided to take up drawing. Now, father and son are learning about art together.
At first, Kieron's art was pretty much like any other five-year-old's. But he quickly progressed and was soon asking questions that his parents couldn't answer. "Kieron wanted to know the technicalities of art and how to put a painting together," says Michelle. Hearing of Kieron's promise, one local artist, Carol Ann Pennington, offered him some tips. Since then, he has had lessons with other Norfolk-based painters, including Brian Ryder and his favourite, Tony Garner.
Garner, a professional artist, has taught more than 1,000 adults over the last few decades and Kieron, he says, is head and shoulders above everyone. "He doesn't say very much, he doesn't ask very much, he just looks. He's a very visual learner. If I did a picture with most students, they will copy it but Kieron is different. He will copy it and then he will Kieronise it," he says. "It might be a bit naive at the moment but there's a lovely freshness about what he does. The confidence that this little chap has got – he just doesn't see any danger."
I can't say I agree with this at all.