That's it really - seemed fairly self-evident. The observer in the extra feature on the DVD got it spot-on: the ones that had been "coached" were macro-visualised - painted with the "big picture" and "big," mature compositional elan in mind; Ocean et al were obviously not. Marla gave the game away a few times; the wife was trusting, the husband vicarious and frankly transparent.
sharePretty much all the paintings look different to me. There is no signature style.
They also show the dad's paintings and they are hideous.
It's all scribbling I really don't see what the big deal is of a four year old painting. I mean I get it she covers the entire canvas she layers her work which most four year olds don't do, but still it's just a mess.
shareYeah totally, and even if the dad did help her paint, he's still painting like a kid anyway.
I wouldn't say ANY 4-year-old kid could do what she does but I absolutely do believe that she painted them. Why? They all look like they were done by a toddler. That said, I think 98% of abstract art looks like a toddler did it. But why would anyone deny it? These aren't extraordinary paintings. They're pretty lame as far as I'm concerned. It's about what I would expect from a 4-year-old. Maybe the father coached sometimes and maybe he never did but that doesn't matter. Even if he did coach her, it's still her doing the painting. It's her "imagination" on the canvas, not his. I personally don't think he sits there and coaches her. I'm sure here and there he's said some things like "paint the red" or 'paint over here' but other than that it seems legit to me.
And why does anyone doubt this girl after the Ocean DVD came out? She's obviously doing all of these paintings herself. To me, that Ocean painting looked like the most sophisticated, thought out painting she's done. Everything else is paint mixed and messed around. But this had different colors, different shapes, and different styles all in one. It wasn't my favorite of hers but probably hands down her best painting. I don't get these doubters...
The Ocean DVD only shows her painting Ocean which does not display the fine motor skills and overall macro conceptualization of the others. In fact, none of the paintings featured in the videos do. They're a jumbled mess of smaller images and globules of textures in random patterns and she just keeps going and going until the canvas is full. The paintings done OFF camera show cohesive patterns and, as it was said in the documentary, some "order within the chaos". Controlled chaos, a madness with method, a story told by the entire canvas as a whole. The DVD paintings are pure chaos. They look like a series of paintings done by a kindergarten student during art class but pasted in unison on a canvas. Watch on camera how bored she grows of each technique and constantly switches colors and textures and utensils. How chunky and stark and raw her colors are--hot pink, purple, blue. As another poster on the board said--the off-camera paintings showed some restraint with colors and Marla appears to have NONE on camera. The off-cameras may have only 2 colors, or a subtle combination of hand-mixed and blended earth tones. On-cameras are straight from the tube, unless she mixes them all together in a brown mud which she does several times. See how on the off-camera paintings the colors are blended, how shading is used, how they compliment one another, does she appear to ever do more than grab a pretty color, squirt it and swirl? Observe on camera the difficulty she has even wielding the spatula and moving it across the medium with her tiny hands. Then, watch the off-camera paintings, and how some have the same fine motor patterns repeated 20, 40, 60 times all over the paintings, does she appear to have the patience or dexterity to repeat them? The paintings off-camera show long, even, smooth strokes from the base of the canvas to the top, all the way from one side to the other. Marla paints in small sections no longer or wider than her own midsection--which is common for children her age. She can't brush a stroke across an entire canvas because she'd have to walk from one side to the other just to achieve that motion. Even the buyer of Ocean recognized this difference. She bought it anyway because the dealer talked her into it.
How is it HER imagination if someone else is telling her how to express it? That doesn't make any sense. He can't see inside her mind, inside her heart, so how is "her" work a representation of those things if he's telling her what to do?
Marla is talked into expressing herself and told how to do so, and the collectors are talked into buying her works. The only people in this story who are thinking for themselves are the ones trying to get rich and famous. It's pathetic and reprehensible. I hope when Marla grows up she retains enough memory from this period in her life to know her father, at the very least, is a disgusting fraud.
I like your comments. Once they were selling the paintings for tens of thousands of dollars, then they are going to get scrutinized up and down, front to back (surprise, surprise!). How could they not see it coming? Now they are stuck having to prove that she really could do the stuff that they said she did.
Looks like the parents dug themselves a deep hole that they couldn't climb out of. By acting like the 60 minutes piece was a hatchet job just made things look worse. It looked like they were more interested in saving the revenue source than protecting the kid.
Didn't 60 minutes years & years ago do a story about a guy who had others paint for him and he just signed his name to the artwork? It seemed that his lifestyle/personality was the reason people bought his "work". Anybody know who I'm talking about?
Anyone remember the scene where Marla asks her dad what she should do now, and the dad literally crapped himself? Its pretty evident whats going on after that.
"Even my parents called me Mulder" -Fox Mulder
The kid is talented. That the father helps her and coaches her is irrelevent.
If she went to art class that's what a teacher would do.
(By the way, her father's art is not any good nor is it similar.)
I just watched this movie last night for the first time (and re-watched a good portion today, and watched the "Return to Binghampton" extra video), and I agree with every word you said (I'm referring to Pizzelle's comments a ways above).
share<< The paintings done OFF camera show cohesive patterns and, as it was said in the documentary, some "order within the chaos". Controlled chaos, a madness with method, a story told by the entire canvas as a whole. The DVD paintings are pure chaos. >>
Yes. The colors and patterns on the canvases done off-camera (i.e., touched up by dad), are integrated. The ones we see her do herself are choppy, with the images being less related. Random, kind of (and I don't mean to be too harsh) like it's all just vomited up.
Of course, my favorite is the sketchy one she does out in the garden, pronouncing, "It's done." (?????????????????????????)
The one I can't believe anyone would attribute to her is Ode to Pollock. I mean, please.
I think the one I do like best though is the one called Green (?) But then, that's the one she says she didn't do anything on.
Maybe, although you don't know that. You're speculating.
But the real question is - so what if he was?
"I'll book you. I'll book you on something. I'll find something in the book to book you on."