Capria sent me this Slate article on a new documentary on Marla Olmstead, a little girl who was considered to be an artistic prodigy in the abstract expressionist vein and then dismissed when it looked like her father was possibly prompting her work.
I'm looking forward to the documentary, as this case raises all of the fascinating issues surrounding intention, ability, the definition of art, process, audience, etc. etc.
The article does a fairly good job of discussing that fine line between artistic products and art as a discipline. You rarely hear some one say "yes, in one respect, your four year old could make that canvas. But to reduce a Pollock to finger painting is to miss the point that your four-year-old actually gets." At the same time, she doesn't fully explain why the "way of seeing and thinking" that is art demands a certain form of coaching, ie, discipline. The reason no one questions Mozart's youthful compositions is that Mozart simply could not produce a symphony without undergoing the necessary training. In other words, a symphony as such requires a tradition, while paint on a canvas, as such, does not necessarily. Much more, obviously, could be said in this vein.
Marla's case also raises the distinction between potential and actual talent. Some people are born with an innate understanding and sensitivity to color and line. But that ability will only remain innate until it is cultivated by technique.
Again, lots to talk about. Thoughts, dear friends?
Posted by pjaussen at October 8, 2007 6:18 PM