“Prodigy of Color” – The Art of Aelita Andre, Age 4

Four year-old Aelita Andre has a solo show opening at New York City’s Agora Gallery on June 4th. It might not come as too much of a surprise that a child should be able to produce beautiful, abstract expressionist art on par with the professionals, who are probably tapping their “inner children,” anyway. Aelita Andre, however, has been given free reign to so do, with as much space and materials to explore her creativity as anyone could want. Moreover, she displays real talent; working in thoughtful, methodical way, and making deliberate creative choices. Discovered via BoingBoing:

103 Comments on "“Prodigy of Color” – The Art of Aelita Andre, Age 4"

  1. jackedu317 | May 25, 2011 at 6:34 pm |

    a four year old isn’t capable of knowing what abstract expressionism is… so this kid can make decisions about color… so what? i’m not saying she has no talent, but a solo show at a New York art gallery? you’ve got to be kidding me… get it? KIDDING me?

  2. jackedu317 | May 25, 2011 at 2:34 pm |

    a four year old isn’t capable of knowing what abstract expressionism is… so this kid can make decisions about color… so what? i’m not saying she has no talent, but a solo show at a New York art gallery? you’ve got to be kidding me… get it? KIDDING me?

    • Yep.  Pretty retarded.  She is a talented and creative little girl…just like thousands, millions of other talented little kids.  Parents are propping her up and mixing her in the “child-genius” koolaid.  The music and video itself are fashioned as mystical (fade ins and outs, stills, close ups).  

      The same phenomenon exists in science, math, music and etc.  

      • jackedu317 | May 27, 2011 at 7:43 am |

        i totally agree…science is treated with religious pomp as if a scientist’s word came from the mouth of God. interesting, seeing as how they’re trying to destroy belief in that very thing.

  3. I’ll give that she has interesting technique and skill at what she is doing…. but the problem is I just don’t get what it is that she is doing

  4. I’ll give that she has interesting technique and skill at what she is doing…. but the problem is I just don’t get what it is that she is doing

    • I guess that’s why they consider it to be art. It was only a matter of time. Actually this has been done before. Congo the Chimp was painting stuff back in the 50s and early 60s and was respected by Picasso. Pierre Brassau in 1964 practically fooled the abstractionists when his works were being showcased as that of an amazing underground artist when he too was merely a chimp. There really is no limit to what they will call art these days, and that’s not even getting into the issue of The Fountain by Duchamp.

      • I’ve never really been into art at all… but I at least used to let myself respect it. I at least expect to have a certain emotion drawn out, or a certain idea expressed, or some unique beauty shown, or maybe a skill in detail shown so great that a picture and reality are hard to differentiate… but this kinda thing is just absolute nonsense to me. 

        • The only way I can defend it is that when a child or chimp makes a painting, it could be considered “true art” in the sense that it is art created from nothing. No outside influences, just a pure desire to create with nothing else informing them beyond a basic sense of self that says “I want to make something.” In that sense, I can appreciate the art of a child or animal more than something similar by an adult.

        • The only way I can defend it is that when a child or chimp makes a painting, it could be considered “true art” in the sense that it is art created from nothing. No outside influences, just a pure desire to create with nothing else informing them beyond a basic sense of self that says “I want to make something.” In that sense, I can appreciate the art of a child or animal more than something similar by an adult.

      • dumbsaint | May 25, 2011 at 7:17 pm |

        Duchamp earned the right to do ‘The Fountain’ after such works as ‘Nude Descending a Staircase’. He was perfectly capable of doing the real thing. Unfortunately, the creators of most modern art since couldn’t say the same.

        • You realize he was actually intending to pull one over on the art world from the beginning? I’m not so much criticizing Duchamp for playing the system (I love people who do this kind of thing) as I am criticizing the system for being playable in that fashion.

    • Simiantongue | May 25, 2011 at 10:33 pm |

      Being a naughty little girl making all that mess, that’s what she’s doing. She needs a time out.

  5. Anonymous | May 25, 2011 at 7:50 pm |

    I guess that’s why they consider it to be art. It was only a matter of time. Actually this has been done before. Congo the Chimp was painting stuff back in the 50s and early 60s and was respected by Picasso. Pierre Brassau in 1964 practically fooled the abstractionists when his works were being showcased as that of an amazing underground artist when he too was merely a chimp. There really is no limit to what they will call art these days, and that’s not even getting into the issue of The Fountain by Duchamp.

  6. I’ve never really been into art at all… but I at least used to let myself respect it. I at least expect to have a certain emotion drawn out, or a certain idea expressed, or some unique beauty shown, or maybe a skill in detail shown so great that a picture and reality are hard to differentiate… but this kinda thing is just absolute nonsense to me. 

  7. Anonymous | May 25, 2011 at 8:00 pm |

    The only way I can defend it is that when a child or chimp makes a painting, it could be considered “true art” in the sense that it is art created from nothing. No outside influences, just a pure desire to create with nothing else informing them beyond a basic sense of self that says “I want to make something.” In that sense, I can appreciate the art of a child or animal more than something similar by an adult.

  8. Grooveboss | May 25, 2011 at 8:01 pm |

    just parents trying to make their kid special before they are ready to be special. Fucking paint is expensive. Now if she could play the guitar I would clap softly.

  9. Grooveboss | May 25, 2011 at 4:01 pm |

    just parents trying to make their kid special before they are ready to be special. Fucking paint is expensive. Now if she could play the guitar I would clap softly.

  10. Grooveboss | May 25, 2011 at 4:01 pm |

    just parents trying to make their kid special before they are ready to be special. Fucking paint is expensive. Now if she could play the guitar I would clap softly.

  11. So am I to assume that the term art has become so broad as to be meaningless?  I’m not saying this as a positive or a negative, I’m sincerely wondering.  It just seems that when a 4 year old’s paint splatters are considered “fine art”, I think it’s time we reassess what we mean by “art”.

  12. So am I to assume that the term art has become so broad as to be meaningless?  I’m not saying this as a positive or a negative, I’m sincerely wondering.  It just seems that when a 4 year old’s paint splatters are considered “fine art”, I think it’s time we reassess what we mean by “art”.

    • When have we ever agreed upon what “art” is or should be? In a certain sense, art itself is a commentary upon what art is, as with Andy Warhol soup labels. That’s part of what makes it so fun. 

      • dumbsaint | May 25, 2011 at 7:28 pm |

        I get where you’re coming from, but can you honestly class a 4 year old with someone like Rembrandt or Cezanne?

        • No, they’re apples and oranges. With a professional artist you’re appreciating their technique, or some complex emotion/social comment that their piece evokes. A happy four year-old girl’s world of color is simply beautiful on is own level. I think people should appreciate it for what it is, rather than comparing her to fine artists. 

          • dumbsaint | May 25, 2011 at 8:09 pm |

            People have been comparing professional works to what a kid could produce for years. “My kid could do that”. It’s been the battle cry of people who feel art has become increasingly irrelevant. Putting a kid in a professional gallery invites the comparison. Rembrandt possibly didn’t suffer this, so it was a bad choice on my part! Pollock’s the obvious one.

            I’m probably coming across as more of a curmudgeon than I really am. In fairness some of her paintings do more for me than some of the stuff I’ve seen on a gallery wall.

          • I agree with you, and I think it’s unfortunate that some people will take this an ammunition with which to attack abstract artists, rather than merely appreciating it. 

    • all human beings can do this shit
      does that make it meaningless?
      no, it makes it fucking beautiful.

  13. Anonymous | May 25, 2011 at 8:39 pm |

    This is a shame. Granted a child making art is a beautiful thing but in no way should she be considered a pro. I’ve sold many hundreds of thousand dollar pieces of art work to some of the most wealthiest people and when someone comes into my gallery and they say something stupid to the effect of “My 10 yr old could do that” at an abstract painting, I have to school them into what goes into some abstract work. This little girls talent should definitely be nurtured but in no way should she be put on a pedestal like this. I hope that as she matures in life and her art she will continue to appreciate her child like talent for art. Sorry but I’ve seen and known many abstract artists out there that haven’t received the attention this little girl is getting and deserve it much more than she does. Picasso once said that when he painted he would throw out the rules and paint as a child. Picasso also said “art is the perfect lie”.

  14. This is a shame. Granted a child making art is a beautiful thing but in no way should she be considered a pro. I’ve sold many hundreds of thousand dollar pieces of art work to some of the most wealthiest people and when someone comes into my gallery and they say something stupid to the effect of “My 10 yr old could do that” at an abstract painting, I have to school them into what goes into some abstract work. This little girls talent should definitely be nurtured but in no way should she be put on a pedestal like this. I hope that as she matures in life and her art she will continue to appreciate her child like talent for art. Sorry but I’ve seen and known many abstract artists out there that haven’t received the attention this little girl is getting and deserve it much more than she does. Picasso once said that when he painted he would throw out the rules and paint as a child. Picasso also said “art is the perfect lie”.

    • Grooveboss | May 25, 2011 at 7:05 pm |

      My chimp can do that!

    • I agree that it would be wrong hold her up as some kind of savant who has mastered the skills and techniques of professional artists at age 4. I wish they weren’t using the word “prodigy;” this is better described as “outsider art.” The fact that she’s totally naive in a way that no adult can be is what makes her output uniquely interesting; some adults do an awful lot of drugs trying to get into the headspace she’s working in. 

      As you say, “a child making art is a beautiful thing.” It happens all the time, but how often is a talented child encouraged and given a space to be completely unrestrained in her creativity like we see here? That is an *especially* beautiful thing, which is why people want to look at it. 

      • dumbsaint | May 25, 2011 at 7:30 pm |

        You managed to answer my question from the other thread at the same time as I posted it. Well done!

    • Simiantongue | May 25, 2011 at 10:31 pm |

      Pedestal? Someone uploaded a couple of youtube videos and you’re calling that “put on a pedestal”? Well if that don’t smack of sour grapes lol.

  15. This is a shame. Granted a child making art is a beautiful thing but in no way should she be considered a pro. I’ve sold many hundreds of thousand dollar pieces of art work to some of the most wealthiest people and when someone comes into my gallery and they say something stupid to the effect of “My 10 yr old could do that” at an abstract painting, I have to school them into what goes into some abstract work. This little girls talent should definitely be nurtured but in no way should she be put on a pedestal like this. I hope that as she matures in life and her art she will continue to appreciate her child like talent for art. Sorry but I’ve seen and known many abstract artists out there that haven’t received the attention this little girl is getting and deserve it much more than she does. Picasso once said that when he painted he would throw out the rules and paint as a child. Picasso also said “art is the perfect lie”.

  16. Grooveboss | May 25, 2011 at 11:05 pm |

    My chimp can do that!

  17. When have we ever agreed upon what “art” is or should be? In a certain sense, art itself is a commentary upon what art is, as with Andy Warhol soup labels. That’s part of what makes it so fun. 

  18. Anonymous | May 25, 2011 at 11:17 pm |

    Duchamp earned the right to do ‘The Fountain’ after such works as ‘Nude Descending a Staircase’. He was perfectly capable of doing the real thing. Unfortunately, the creators of most modern art since couldn’t say the same.

  19. Anonymous | May 25, 2011 at 11:20 pm |

    So, the most persistent criticism of Pollock has been put to the test and verified?

  20. dumbsaint | May 25, 2011 at 7:20 pm |

    So, the most persistent criticism of Pollock has been put to the test and verified?

  21. I agree that it would be wrong hold her up as some kind of savant who has mastered the skills and techniques of professional artists at age 4. I wish they weren’t using the word “prodigy;” this is better described as “outsider art.” The fact that she’s totally naive in a way that no adult can be is what makes her output uniquely interesting; some adults do an awful lot of drugs trying to get into the headspace she’s working in. 

    As you say, “a child making art is a beautiful thing.” It happens all the time, but how often is a talented child encouraged and given a space to be completely unrestrained in her creativity like we see here? That is an *especially* beautiful thing, which is why people want to look at it. 

  22. Anonymous | May 25, 2011 at 11:28 pm |

    I get where you’re coming from, but can you honestly class a 4 year old with someone like Rembrandt or Cezanne?

  23. Anonymous | May 25, 2011 at 11:28 pm |

    I get where you’re coming from, but can you honestly class a 4 year old with someone like Rembrandt or Cezanne?

  24. Anonymous | May 25, 2011 at 11:30 pm |

    You managed to answer my question from the other thread at the same time as I posted it. Well done!

  25. No, they’re apples and oranges. With a professional artist you’re appreciating their technique, or some complex emotion/social comment that their piece evokes. A happy four year-old girl’s world of color is simply beautiful on is own level. I think people should appreciate it for what it is, rather than comparing her to fine artists. 

  26. Anonymous | May 26, 2011 at 12:09 am |

    People have been comparing professional works to what a kid could produce for years. “My kid could do that”. It’s been the battle cry of people who feel art has become increasingly irrelevant. Putting a kid in a professional gallery invites the comparison. Rembrandt possibly didn’t suffer this, so it was a bad choice on my part! Pollock’s the obvious one.

    I’m probably coming across as more of a curmudgeon than I really am. In fairness some of her paintings do more for me than some of the stuff I’ve seen on a gallery wall.

  27. I agree with you, and I think it’s unfortunate that some people will take this an ammunition with which to attack abstract artists, rather than merely appreciating it. 

  28. Simiantongue | May 26, 2011 at 2:31 am |

    Pedestal? Someone uploaded a couple of youtube videos and you’re calling that “put on a pedestal”? Well if that don’t smack of sour grapes lol.

  29. Simiantongue | May 26, 2011 at 2:33 am |

    Being a naughty little girl making all that mess, that’s what she’s doing. She needs a time out.

  30. Grooveboss | May 26, 2011 at 3:00 am |

    ^this is the truth 

  31. superfluous | May 26, 2011 at 3:41 am |

    gotta love all the reactionary, brainwashed, elitist, conformist comments made by broken people seeing what freedom looks like from the outside.       (granted, the ones made here seem relatively benign)

    as a thought experiment, try reading the comments while replacing terms like “4 year old”/”child” etc with the word “Jew”.
    seems to me there’s an awful lot of pompous mysticism associated with Art, possibly due to its historical association with instituions that promoted pompous mysticism as a way of controlling people and their creativity and imagination. for this purpose, a gate keeper was required.

    A child cannot create art, this goes against the very farbric of our civilization!!

  32. superfluous | May 25, 2011 at 11:41 pm |

    gotta love all the reactionary, brainwashed, elitist, conformist comments made by broken people seeing what freedom looks like from the outside.       (granted, the ones made here seem relatively benign)

    as a thought experiment, try reading the comments while replacing terms like “4 year old”/”child” etc with the word “Jew”.
    seems to me there’s an awful lot of pompous mysticism associated with Art, possibly due to its historical association with instituions that promoted pompous mysticism as a way of controlling people and their creativity and imagination. for this purpose, a gate keeper was required.

    A child cannot create art, this goes against the very farbric of our civilization!!

    • Grooveboss | May 25, 2011 at 11:59 pm |

      i child can create art if it wants to. but getting this much attention is not healthy at least in my opinion and just the money behind is weird. now a chimp can not create art that fury bastard must pay.

    • Grooveboss | May 26, 2011 at 12:36 am |

      this is freedom http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-io-kZKl_BI

    • jackedu317 | May 26, 2011 at 4:38 am |

      usually i like your comments, but i’m not sure what you’re talking about here. replace “child” with “Jew”?….no one said she can’t create art… and what the fuck does that have to do with insulting an entire group of religious fanatics? there’s a lot of pompous mysticism with religion too… probably way more than with art… i think someone has a chip on their shoulder… about what i have no idea… i don’t like the sleeping , brainwashed masses either, but maybe we’re broken too, since we’re wasting time talking about this nonsense…

      • superfluous | May 26, 2011 at 12:38 pm |

        my basic point was that since she’s not an adult, her art will never, no matter what, be recognized as comparable to adult competitors. regardless of quality, regardless of skill. children seem to be, in this respect, defined as not entirely human. every society has groups of people whose contributions are never considered fully valid or equal, the various gate keepers seem to insure that the exclusive nature of this arrangement is maintained.

        “pompous mysticism with religion, too.. ” yes, that was indeed part of what i was trying to implicate (without derailing the conversation entirely.)

        “i think someone has a chip on their shoulder” … not only chips, but crisps, nuts, deep fried bacon and cheese flakes and onion flavoured chili dip by the truckloads!
         
        “sleeping, brainwashed masses” <- an-aesthetized? if so, then wouldn't aesthetics be a worthwhile activity?
        my experience is that good art makes me more awake than just ordinary "non-sleep". 

    • dumbsaint | May 27, 2011 at 9:53 am |

      Seems to me you’re also guilty of applying pomp and mysticism to art. If it’s a simple adjective why is it important to you that other people describe a kids paintings as ‘art’?

      • superfluous | May 27, 2011 at 11:09 am |

        uhm, could you try to rephrase/clarify that..  (and it’s a noun? not sure that’s relevant, though..)

        • superfluous | May 27, 2011 at 4:18 pm |

          dumbsaint:
          your comment makes sense to me if i presuppose that you consider it an instance of pompous mysticism to call pollock (and, by extension, reasonably similar paintings) art. is this what you’re getting at?

          • dumbsaint | May 27, 2011 at 7:56 pm |

            Pollock’s work is art. It’s professional art. It’s just bad professional art in my opinion. Aelita’s painting is art. It’s not professional but it’s an interesting enough thing to look at outside that context. Calling her a prodigy, putting her in a gallery and producing an austere video is a bit silly.

            Pollock has been a pet hate of mine since art school. I think he was a hack so I’ll take cheap shots at him where I can and have a chuckle to myself. Even still, I do feel it’s unfair to compare his work to a kids as much as it pains me to admit it.

          • superfluous | May 27, 2011 at 11:19 pm |

            yeah, the whole prodigy thing is silly, with her name becoming subtly yet distinctly visible through slow motion cascades of paint elegantly flowing through empty space.. a bit over the top.

            mine was/is richard serra – tilted arc. only remember pollocks “cathedral” (i think). desperately random, stale and lacking any real compositional dynamic.. i dunno. like his earlier (non-splash) paintings better..

        • dumbsaint | May 27, 2011 at 7:54 pm |

          I was trying to be clever and probably failed- If we’re to strip the word ‘art’ of what makes it the kind of holy word you’re describing then why should it matter what people call a kid’s painting.

          I don’t think anyone is really denying that Aelita’s work is art though. The argument is against her work being treated as something equivalent to a work of professional art. Which it isn’t. Yet, that’s apparently enough of an insult to the kid’s supporters that the rest of us are brainwashed conformist monkeys or something. It’s that reaction that leads me to suppose that you hold some reverence for the term yourself.

          • superfluous | May 27, 2011 at 11:03 pm |

            seems to me that “professional” is just another holy word in this context. for instance, in order to be considered a professional artist one would probably need to be officially sanctioned by some kind of issuing agency (gate keepers), right?
             
            heh, i did say that the comments made here seem relatively benign, present company included 🙂
             
            i was reminded of an LSD-documentary i saw some years ago, in which some people were given LSD/active placebos in order to determine if LSD could induce mystical states/visions (like the kind described by some of the alleged saints of christian history). the researchers concluded that this was in fact the case. then the documentary went on to interview a rather bleak looking student-of-theology, who disowned the LSD-induced visions on the basis that they were gotten “on the cheap”, using mountain climbing vs just taking a helicopter to the top (if i remember correctly) as an analogy.
             
            so it works, but it’s somehow cheating, not real, not earned.                [*yawning digression*]
             
            children often display a heck of a lot of the characteristics of a proverbial edge vis-a-vis abstract expressionism, and that without years and years of the formal tediums and triumphs of a tedious formal education. (intensely creative, imaginative, expressive, experimental, undividedly focused etc..)
             
            so it works, but it’s somehow not real, not earned.
             
            there will be no favourable mentioning of LSD in the media (and it can make ppl who didn’t take it psychotic).
            likewise, a lot of the comments on this (art) story seem to have a sort of “yes, but..”-kind of argumentative structure – as if to undermine her artistic accomplishments solely on the basis of her status as a child.
             
            i suspect this has something to do with social hierarchy.. and, in this case, an irrational one at that.
            (mind you, i am not saying i would want a 4 year old messing around with, say, a nuclear arsenal…)

            both the times i watched the video, the paintings (except the one with the masks and the red/burgundy one towards the end) made me go “oooooh!” and filled me with a lasting sense of wonder and how-much-happiness-can-you-take, and i though to myself “that really makes me want to paint”.
            as far as abstract art goes, imo, it doesn’t get better than that..

            (“but but but you called me brainwashed!!”.. did i really?)

          • dumbsaint | May 28, 2011 at 1:51 am |

            It’s not an insult to say she’s not professional. She’s 4 years olf of course she isn’t. Any enjoyment you get from her work isn’t from her ability as an artist. It’s the forensic evidence of a child’s mind at play. That doesn’t make the experience of looking at her work any less enjoyable. It’s the opposite. If you try to look at it as a serious work of art it doesn’t hold up. It’s ‘art-ness’ (adjective at last) isn’t what makes you ooh ahh. There’s more to it than creating a pretty picture.

            **Aelita’s work lacks sophistication and a compelling motive. Her
            technique is non-existant and she has no understanding of abstraction,
            despite it’s superficial similarities to similar known works. The
            application of paint is almost entirely arbitrary. etc etc.** <—
            that's why she's not a contemporary of professional artists. No shit
            right? It's not a terribly enjoyable way to look at her paintings.

            There's no 'gatekeeper' here. Just knowledge, technique and experience. These are things of value. You expect certain things from a professional than you would from a layman. I don't think it's unfair for artists to want to be thought of as professionals. It's a profession right? Give us that small dignity even if we aren't as important as a nuke commander in greater scheme of things. Artists have to work hard to be taken seriously as it is. If you go to art school, people wonder why you don't 'go get a real job, and a haircut too'.

            I didn't take insult at the 'brainwashing' comment incidentally. I was trying to point out your strong reaction to people denying her work as art. My point was, if art itself isn't the holy word we've been talking about, why do you care so much? Call it chopped liver and it'll still be the same object you were looking at before.

          • superfluous | May 28, 2011 at 12:45 pm |

            ok, cut to the chase: how can something frivolous, in the greater scheme of things, be important?

            (you may want to read that question as not being antagonistic to art)

  33. Grooveboss | May 26, 2011 at 3:59 am |

    i child can create art if it wants to. but getting this much attention is not healthy at least in my opinion and just the money behind is weird. now a chimp can not create art that fury bastard must pay.

  34. Grooveboss | May 26, 2011 at 4:36 am |

    this is freedom http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-io-kZKl_BI

  35. jackedu317 | May 26, 2011 at 8:38 am |

    usually i like your comments, but i’m not sure what you’re talking about here. replace “child” with “Jew”?….no one said she can’t create art… and what the fuck does that have to do with insulting an entire group of religious fanatics? there’s a lot of pompous mysticism with religion too… probably way more than with art… i think someone has a chip on their shoulder… about what i have no idea… i don’t like the sleeping , brainwashed masses either, but maybe we’re broken too, since we’re wasting time talking about this nonsense…

  36. Anonymous | May 26, 2011 at 10:40 am |

    You realize he was actually intending to pull one over on the art world from the beginning? I’m not so much criticizing Duchamp for playing the system as I am criticizing the system for being playable in that fashion.

  37. Yep.  Pretty retarded.  She is a talented and creative little girl…just like thousands, millions of other talented little kids.  Parents are propping her up and mixing her in the “child-genius” koolaid.  The music and video itself are fashioned as mystical (fade ins and outs, stills, close ups).  

    The same phenomenon exists in science, math, music and etc.  

  38.  Why doesn’t it?

  39. all human beings can do this shit
    does that make it meaningless?
    no, it makes it fucking beautiful.

  40. superfluous | May 26, 2011 at 4:38 pm |

    my basic point was that since she’s not an adult, her art will never, no matter what, be recognized as comparable to adult competitors. regardless of quality, regardless of skill. children seem to be, in this respect, defined as not entirely human. every society has groups of people whose contributions are never considered fully valid or equal, the various gate keepers seem to insure that the exclusive nature of this arrangement is maintained.

    “pompous mysticism with religion, too.. ” yes, that was indeed part of what i was trying to implicate (without derailing the conversation entirely.)

    “i think someone has a chip on their shoulder” … not only chips, but crisps, nuts, deep fried bacon and cheese flakes and onion flavoured chili dip by the truckloads!
     
    “sleeping, brainwashed masses” <- an-aesthetized? if so, then wouldn't aesthetics be a worthwhile activity?
    my experience is that good art makes me more awake than just ordinary "non-sleep". 

  41.  I used to take crayons to the wall when i was a young kid. Unlike this girl though, my artistic ambitions were crushed when my parents saw my works of art.

  42. except she apparently has a solo show at some gallery in new york… That’s a bit of a pedestal to me.

  43. Grooveboss | May 26, 2011 at 5:21 pm |

    always ends up eating the paint and later flings colorful poo but has poor color selection. Its the kind of art i can do without. 

  44. Anonymous | May 26, 2011 at 5:34 pm |

    the Agora Gallery?…. uhm… that’s what we call a Vanity Gallery… they will show anyone, ANYONE that has the few hundred dollars or so to rent the space….. If the parents have that money, they can also hire a publicist to say wonderful things about the art…. so .. this is not what i would consider credible.
    Don’t get me wrong, children’s art is often charming and wonderful to look at.
    BUT just because it’s in a NY Gallery does not necessarily mean it’s in the same league as other professional artists.

  45. the Agora Gallery?…. uhm… that’s what we call a Vanity Gallery… they will show anyone, ANYONE that has the few hundred dollars or so to rent the space….. If the parents have that money, they can also hire a publicist to say wonderful things about the art…. so .. this is not what i would consider credible.
    Don’t get me wrong, children’s art is often charming and wonderful to look at.
    BUT just because it’s in a NY Gallery does not necessarily mean it’s in the same league as other professional artists.

  46. Eltopodoughnut | May 26, 2011 at 11:32 pm |

    taste is the killer of art i see both points but i think she is amazing

  47. Eltopodoughnut | May 26, 2011 at 7:32 pm |

    taste is the killer of art i see both points but i think she is amazing

  48. Mister-X! | May 27, 2011 at 6:46 am |

    Andrew, you are always lame and unimaginative ins your responses. I hope you die soon.

  49. jackedu317 | May 27, 2011 at 11:43 am |

    i totally agree…science is treated with religious pomp as if a scientist’s word came from the mouth of God. interesting, seeing as how they’re trying to destroy belief in that very thing.

  50. Anonymous | May 27, 2011 at 1:53 pm |

    Seems to me you’re also guilty of applying pomp and mysticism to art. If it’s a simple adjective why is it important to you that other people describe a kids paintings as ‘art’?

  51. superfluous | May 27, 2011 at 3:09 pm |

    uhm, could you try to rephrase/clarify that..  (and it’s a noun? not sure that’s relevant, though..)

  52. Grooveboss | May 27, 2011 at 3:22 pm |

    ^ like a knife 

  53. superfluous | May 27, 2011 at 8:18 pm |

    dumbsaint:
    your comment makes sense to me if i presuppose that you consider it an instance of pompous mysticism to call pollock (and, by extension, reasonably similar paintings) art. is this what you’re getting at?

  54. Anonymous | May 27, 2011 at 11:54 pm |

    I was trying to be clever and probably failed- If we’re to strip the word ‘art’ of what makes it the kind of holy word you’re describing then why should it matter what people call a kid’s painting.

    I don’t think anyone really denying that Aelita’s work is art though. The argument is against her work being treated as something equivalent to a work of professional art. Which it isn’t. How can it be, she’s not a professional. Yet, that’s apparently enough of an insult to the kid’s supporters that the rest of us are brainwashed conformist monkeys or something.

  55. Anonymous | May 27, 2011 at 11:56 pm |

    Pollock’s work is art. It’s professional art. It’s just bad professional art in my opinion. There is good abstract expressionist art out there though.

  56. superfluous | May 28, 2011 at 3:03 am |

    seems to me that “professional” is just another holy word in this context. for instance, in order to be considered a professional artist one would probably need to be officially sanctioned by some kind of issuing agency (gate keepers), right?
     
    heh, i did say that the comments made here seem relatively benign, present company included 🙂
     
    i was reminded of an LSD-documentary i saw some years ago, in which some people were given LSD/active placebos in order to determine if LSD could induce mystical states/visions (like the kind described by some of the alleged saints of christian history). the researchers concluded that this was in fact the case. then the documentary went on to interview a rather bleak looking student-of-theology, who disowned the LSD-induced visions on the basis that they were gotten “on the cheap”, using mountain climbing vs just taking a helicopter to the top (if i remember correctly) as an analogy.
     
    so it works, but it’s somehow cheating, not real, not earned.                [*yawning digression*]
     
    children often display a heck of a lot of the characteristics of a proverbial edge vis-a-vis abstract expressionism, and that without years and years of the formal tediums and triumphs of a tedious formal education. (intensely creative, imaginative, expressive, experimental, undividedly focused etc..)
     
    so it works, but it’s somehow not real, not earned.
     
    there will be no favourable mentioning of LSD in the media (and it can make ppl who didn’t take it psychotic).
    likewise, a lot of the comments on this (art) story seem to have a sort of “yes, but..”-kind of argumentative structure – as if to undermine her artistic accomplishments solely on the basis of her status as a child.
     
    i suspect this has something to do with social hierarchy.. and, in this case, an irrational one at that.
    (mind you, i am not saying i would want a 4 year old messing around with, say, a nuclear arsenal…)

    both the times i watched the video, the paintings (except the one with the masks and the red/burgundy one towards the end) made me go “oooooh!” and filled me with a lasting sense of wonder and how-much-happiness-can-you-take, and i though to myself “that really makes me want to paint”.
    as far as abstract art goes, imo, it doesn’t get better than that..

    (“but but but you called me brainwashed!!”.. did i really?)

  57. superfluous | May 28, 2011 at 3:19 am |

    yeah, the whole prodigy thing is silly, with her name becoming subtly yet distinctly visible through slow motion cascades of paint elegantly flowing through empty space.. a bit over the top.

    mine was/is richard serra – tilted arc. only remember pollocks “cathedral” (i think). desperately random, stale and lacking any real compositional dynamic.. i dunno. like his earlier (non-splash) paintings better..

  58. Anonymous | May 28, 2011 at 5:51 am |

    It’s not an insult to say she’s not professional. She’s 4 years olf of course she isn’t. Any enjoyment you get from her work isn’t from her ability as an artist. It’s the forensic evidence of a child’s mind at play. That doesn’t make the experience of looking at her work any less enjoyable. It’s the opposite. If you try to look at it as a serious work of art it doesn’t hold up. It’s ‘art-ness’ (adjective at last) isn’t what makes you ooh ahh.

    **Aelita’s work lacks sophistication and a compelling motive. Her
    technique is non-existant and she has no understanding of abstraction,
    despite it’s superficial similarities to similar known works. The
    application of paint is almost entirely arbitrary. etc etc.** <—
    that's why she's not a contemporary of professional artists. No shit
    right? It's not a terribly enjoyable way to look at her paintings.

    There's no 'gatekeeper' here. Just knowledge, technique and experience. These are things of value. You expect certain things from a professional than you would from a layman. I don't think it's unfair for
    artists to want to be thought of as professionals. It's a profession right? Give us that small dignity even if we aren't as important as a nuke commander in greater scheme of things. A kid could maybe approximate the look of a Rothko but it would lack the gravitas of someone spelling out a complex emotion 'i hate my life and want to die' using a few subtle fields of colour.

    I didn't take insult at the 'brainwashing' comment incidentally. I was trying to point out your strong reaction to people denying her work as art. My point was, if art itself isn't the holy word we've been talking about, why do you care so much? Call it chopped liver and it'll still be the same object you were looking at before.

  59. justagirl | May 28, 2011 at 8:37 am |

    my word. where DOES she find the time.?

  60. justagirl | May 28, 2011 at 4:37 am |

    my word. where DOES she find the time.?

  61. superfluous | May 28, 2011 at 4:45 pm |

    ok, cut to the chase: how can something frivolous, in the greater scheme of things, be important?

    (you may want to read that question as not being antagonistic to art)

  62. It’s simply beautiful! I don’t think it matters who created it, it’s beautiful. The Rembrandt debate is irrelevant. There are works by very accomplished artists that I dislike immensely. I don’t think it matters what we call it, or who did it. If it inspires you, then that’s what’s important. For me that’s the essence of good art. I would love to paint like her. In fact, I might try it!

  63. It’s simply beautiful! I don’t think it matters who created it, it’s beautiful. The Rembrandt debate is irrelevant. There are works by very accomplished artists that I dislike immensely. I don’t think it matters what we call it, or who did it. If it inspires you, then that’s what’s important. For me that’s the essence of good art. I would love to paint like her. In fact, I might try it!

  64. It’s simply beautiful! I don’t think it matters who created it, it’s beautiful. The Rembrandt debate is irrelevant. There are works by very accomplished artists that I dislike immensely. I don’t think it matters what we call it, or who did it. If it inspires you, then that’s what’s important. For me that’s the essence of good art. I would love to paint like her. In fact, I might try it!

  65. All children are artists. The fact that Aelita’s parents have chosen to celebrate that is wonderful.
    Kudos to them for letting her BE!

  66. All children are artists. The fact that Aelita’s parents have chosen to celebrate that is wonderful.
    Kudos to them for letting her BE!

Comments are closed.