MovieChat Forums > My Kid Could Paint That (2007) Discussion > So many comments missing the point.

So many comments missing the point.

posted 12 years ago by TheManInOil
4 replies | jump to latest

Regardless of any consideration of who was behind what and whether you take the parents' story at face value or not, the fact is that these paintings were never valued because they were good.

If they're good then it doesn't matter who painted them. People stopped buying when they suspected they may have been the product of a father/daughter duo rather than just the kid. What they had been willing to pay for is not good artwork but for who supposedly made it. The art itself was never of any value to them.

And I'm not saying they have no artistic value, either. What I'm saying is that the very question is irrelevant because buyers in the art world only price and purchase work based on the popularity of the artist, not on the merits of the work. Hell, we see right in the movie that a woman bought Ocean not because she liked it but because it was 'more significant' than the one she liked (and because some relative told her she liked it).

The story of the documentary is one of how the media distorts/creates stories, but its ostensible subject - whether abstract art has any objective value, is still valid. And it's evident from what we see here that any artistic merit had nothing to do with why people sought out, purchased, or touted this kid's paintings.

"I'll book you. I'll book you on something. I'll find something in the book to book you on."

[–] sgnewman2000 12 years ago

"If they're good then it doesn't matter who painted them."

Not true at all. Art is a commodity and Brand Name artists add value. Clearly it DOES matter to the collector whether or not the paintings he just bought are the work of a child genius or that of a night manager at Frito-Lay.

[–] cookiela2001 12 years ago

<< "If they're good then it doesn't matter who painted them." / "Not true at all." >>

I agree, it does matter.

The director is shown answering questions at a screening in the extra features, and the dad's art dealer friend says exactly the same thing, that it doesn't matter who painted them.

The director says that as modern art paintings have become less realistic in telling a story, the viewer takes in the artist's life and circumstances to fill in the story, and this contributes to the emotional experience of looking at the painting. He has a bottle of water in front of him, and says something like, "This is the same as that bottle of water over there. But if I tell you it was the last thing Abraham Lincoln, say, touched, it takes on a different significance. Even if it's really no different than the other bottle. But now it has something imposed on it that effects you emotionally that's not true."

(I'm paraphrasing, of course.)

[–] lazarillo 10 years ago

OK, well that's obvious. Serial killer John Wayne Gacy and former President George W. Bush have both done paintings. And while I doubt they're technically accomplished, they do (or will) command pretty high prices someday.

So what is the difference between them and Jackson Pollock or Andy Warhol? If you can't look at a painting and say it's good REGARDLESS of who painted it, then there are no objective standards to art. The point is if the entire value of these paintings hinges on whether or not they were painted by a four year old, then really they have no intrinsic value.

[–] tyboulder 7 years ago

You're right, there are no objective standards to art. I think that's one of art's most defining characteristics. Groups of people can agree with each other on movements, styles, etc., but that only applies to the people that buy into that group's logic.