Art

Post Reply New Topic

What's art that looks like a 5 year old did it doing in museums?

I wish I knew, and I have a degree in art. Near as I can tell, it's the unfortunate results of a postmodern philosophy that believes in process over results and the glorification of the mundane. Thank Kandinsky, Duchamp, Warhol (who they say was an aspie) and the like.

Speaking of Warhol, I just received my book today, Genesis of Artistic Creativity, about some possible famous Aspies and Andy is in there under ARTISTS. Looking forward to reading the book. Have another book I promised myself I'd finish first though.

How about art that looks like it was done by a four year old?

http://www.marlaolmstead.com/ very slow loading site, I'm on dial-up

This girl was on 60minutes recently. I found some of the paintings quite impressive. There was some controversy over video-taping her while she was painting. Incidentally the father is also a painter.

Eeeenteresting.

I'd much rather look at art created by a real four-year-old than an adult trying to put himself into a four-year-old's state of mind (hence the Kandinsky jibe). I once read that children have an innate sense of composition at that age, because they're looking at the canvas/paper as a whole and self-contained space, but they lose it once they learn to recognize the drawing space as flowing beyond the edges of the paper and into the rest of the world. (Did that make any sense? It's a gestalt-vs-parts thing...) Anyway, that's a kind of vision that adult artists spend years training themselves to recapture, and perhaps is something than an autistic-savant artist never loses in the first place.

I do question the rise to fame though - no matter what the field, those situations usually happen just because a kid is in the right place at the right time, or knows the right people. They say more about the charisma/publicity skill of the parents than the uniqueness of the child's talent.

Well, if you're talking about Jackson Pollock, it's called expressionism, and it's awsome. If you're talking about Picasso, then it's crap.

some of that art, I think is quite skillful. Many of the pictures express emotions so vividly. Those take a lot of skill.

Some of picasso's stuff is quite "normal" and very good. There's a picture of a girl learning to dance by him that I absolutely love(it's not in a weird style, though)

Express emotion? Looks like big mess.

Last edited by ilikedragons on 16 Sep 2005, 4:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Art is a funny thing that way huh. I am an artist and sometimes I create something that I absolutley detest. I put it aside and someone will come along and say how much they love it. I think mostly it is about personal taste...then it's about status in some cases.

It's a crazy world we're living...

Well not all of it expresses emotion, most of it doesn't.

I have a framed poster-sized print of Picasso's "Mother and Child." It's beautiful.
www.gelis-gallery.de/picasso/pablo.htm
(Scroll down just a bit.)

That's beautiful! I've never seen it before

This was done by an 8 year-old artist, Akiane Kramarik. Can you believe she's been painting with this kind of proficiency since age four?

http://www.akiane.com/

I used to be big into art, particularly these two guys as it happens. Pollock is abstract expressionist, which is an important distinction as 'expressionist' refers to a bunch of Germans about 20 years previous to Pollock. Art is so subjective but if you're talking about Picasso the one thing he was most renowned for was painting in lots of different styles so you have to be specific when you're talking about him. I suppose most people think of the distorted faces and so forth but he was painting like that for reasons. Technically he was one of the best artists that ever lived, he was painting like a renaissance master when he was 14. As opposed to Pollock who couldn't draw to save his life but that's a whole other story.

When you can paint realistically that well at that age, there is really nothing more in that vein to work toward. I imagine Picasso became rather bored with it after awhile, and that's probably why he explored other options.

Picasso and a friend of his (I can't recall his name at the moment, unfortunately) were technically the artists who came up with the idea of the collage. The paintings most of you are referring to are Cubist, and are the result of painting three-dimensional subjects from many different angles onto a flat canvas to encompass the "whole thing." I find it quite interesting, as it's sort of a broken up view of the world, seeing it in little bits and putting it together, not unlike some autistics perception.