MovieChat Forums > My Kid Could Paint That (2007) Discussion > Does 'Colorful Rain' not prove that Marl...

Does 'Colorful Rain' not prove that Marla is capable of high level work?

posted 14 years ago by shadow_priest_x
7 replies | jump to latest

A short while ago, the Olmsteads issued start-to-finish videos for three of Marla's more recent paintings:

Fairy Map
Rabbit
Colorful Rain

While "Fairy Map" and "Rabbit" are both relatively weak and closer to "Ocean" and "Flowers" than they are to "Asian Sun" or "Zane Dancing," "Colorful Rain" is actually quite good and displays a maturity that is on level with many of the other paintings that many have claimed were most definitely done either exclusively by the father or at least were done with his help.

Many people on this forum claim to "know" that the more advanced pantings were not Marla's. How do you know? I certainly don't claim to be so presumptuous as to know, even though I may have my suspicions.

But "Colorful Rain" (which you can go look at right now in the galley at marlaolmstead.com) opens up another possibility in my opinion: That out of a large body of work, Marla occasionally creates great pieces. Perhaps 9 out of 10 paintings are Ocean level or below . . . but the one that is not is significantly more advanced, whether by accident or conscious intention.

The fact of the matter is that the only people who know for sure what the real story is are Marla, and her father and mother. But there's enough evidence to suggest either possibility that it's ridiculous to be so sure of yourself.

[–] briprat 14 years ago

Your post is rediculous.

Are you related to this family? You've posted on this board a few times defending the parents.

Every person I've spoken with who has seen this movie has no doubt the dad played a major role in her paintings.

I have not seen these new videos of her painting start to finish. But I would be interested in watching them. The videos aren't on her website.
The one time a camera was present her work was laughable.

IMO, the documentary and 60 Minutes proved this family is a fraud.
Sad.

[–] shadow_priest_x 14 years ago

Your post is rediculous.

Interesting how it's "rediculous" when you admit you haven't even seen the videos I'm talking about.

Are you related to this family? You've posted on this board a few times defending the parents.

I believe in "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." In my opinion, there is still cause for reasonable doubt. People have a tendency to jump to conclusions without all the facts. The bottom line is that neither I, nor you, nor anyone else who has watched this 1 1/2 hour glimpse into these people's lives know what the truth is.

If I seem to be coming to the defense of the parents, it's because there has to be some sort of counterweight to everyone who is calling for their heads. What if the truth is that Marla really did paint them? Is it fair to the family that they've been put through this much scrutiny? Wouldn't you feel like a huge a$$hole then?

I have not seen these new videos of her painting start to finish. But I would be interested in watching them. The videos aren't on her website.

Why not reserve judgement until you HAVE seen them? They are no longer posted on the website. However, start-to-finish DVDs were produced for the three paintings I mentioned. Excerpts were released on the website; the full videos were released to collectors. "Colorful Rain" is strong enough, in my opinion, that if she can do that one, then it seems reasonable that she may have been able to do the others.

[–] alexfioren 13 years ago

The only proof of her paintings we have is "Ocean" which is a joke and a complete piece of garbage and most of the paintings shown on that site are in the same rank. None of them are comparable to "Bottom Feeder" or "Asian Sun" and any idiot can tell the dad painted those along with all of the other paintings of that calibur. Anything that Marla did paint is Oceanesqe and anyone who thinks "Ocean" is a great work of art deserves to be ripped off by these lowlife scammers. Saying she painted "Bottom Feeder" is like saying we went to the moon but when people who actually have a brain examine it they can see clear as day that it is all a fraud. Little kids who are usually talked about as being brilliant are just loud mouth little bitches with their head up their ass which is also a description of the type of people who would believe that a kid could be brilliant for no reason in the 1st place. In the end it is just a little kid prematurely becoming a bitch due to a lack of restraint in their life and more often than not they grow up to be homosexual and it is all a sad sorry laughable gimick. Nick

[–] TheManInOil 12 years ago

Thank you for being sane.

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

[–] tbone280lr 10 years ago

I have watched this documentary recently and came to these boards scanning the different threads for one such as yours. I know its been a few years since it was initially posted but I just wanted to back up what you are saying.
We are talking about a, at the time, 4 year old little girl. Even an adult artist does't pump out masterpiece after masterpiece and to expect this child to is just ludicrous to me. I don't claim to know exactly what was going on here and anyone who claims that they do with a massive amount of certainty is just silly. I don't have a particularly hard time believing that this child painted every single one of those paintings on her own, but I also wouldn't be surprised if the father, or anyone else, was maybe a bit more involved than initially let on. All we have are our suspicions, if skeptical.
I would love to see the video of her creating "Colorful Rain" as it is that one and others similar that would really impress me if the whole story is true.
I loved the documentary for all the points it raised about the state of the modern art world, collectors, media, and of course the familial dynamics. Just fascinating all around.

[–] lazarillo 10 years ago

A lot of people don't understand abstract painting (even artists), and it's a popular sport to attack it going all the way back to Hitler. However, if a four year old can do it, maybe the emperor really does have no clothes. As an amateur writer, I'll confess that I don't fully get James Joyce, but there is NO WAY a four year old could write "Ulysses".

Maybe the real issue isn't that she didn't paint this stuff, but that it is really not THAT good. It became famous in the first place because it was allegedly painted by a child and was kind of "outsider art". If the painting themselves were really genius, WOULD IT MATTER who painted them?

Starting with Jackson Pollock, art has been inextricably tied up with the artist. If a totally "un-gifted" child painted something and a famous artist put his or her name it, it would doubt sell even better than these paintings.

[–] gatorDawg 8 years ago

I don't think anyone sensible has ever claimed that any of Marla's works would be considered genius if, say, a 40 year old had painted them. Many of them are 'good' paintings. They show good coherency and balance. The use of color is attractive. They are about what one would expect from a competent, at least fairly well practiced and skilled, adult artist. But, they wouldn't be considered uniquely exceptional, or anything like that. It's only the fact that a 4 year old supposedly did them which makes them uniquely exceptional.

Remove the idea they were painted by a four year old and they are not works of genius -- they're just decent paintings. A 40 year old doing such work is a decent painter. A 4 year old doing such work is a phenom.

If an adult made these paintings, that adult would not be considered a visual arts equivalent to a James Joyce. They'd be considered the equivalent to a decent, competent novelist who knows how to write a decent book, but doesn't have any hope of coming close to winning a Nobel Prize in literature, or anything like that.