4 year old toddler's original paintings amass $40,000
Robert Cohen
makes me:
amazed
envious
laff
think that art is seemingly whatever serious art buyers buy
realize that a young child can also be a vessel of unusal: truth, creativity,
imagination, ingenuity et cetera
think her artist father's reported genetic AND teaching-conditioning of her are
both influences
Robert Cohen
Portrait of the Artist as a Young Girl
By MICHELLE YORK
Published: September 28, 2004
BINGHAMTON, N.Y. - The hottest new abstract artist in town has reason to
celebrate.
This summer, she went from selling her work in a coffee shop to having her own
gallery show.
After a local newspaper's feature on her, about 2,000 people came for opening
night - everyone from serious collectors to the artist's preschool teacher. She
earned more money than she could comprehend. The gallery owner said it was his
most successful show ever and scheduled a second one for October.
Advertisement
So celebrate, the artist did. During a recent visit, she climbed on a big
bouncing ball shaped like a frog, grabbed the handles and bounced around the
house with laughter pealing and pigtails flying.
The artist is Marla Olmstead. She is 4.
Her preschool teacher hasn't taught Marla much of anything yet. And nobody
wants her to - at least when it comes to painting.
"I think Marla is as gifted as any child I've ever seen," said Anthony
Brunelli, the Fine Arts gallery owner in Binghamton, who is displaying Marla's
work. "I don't think she's aware of what she's doing. I think it comes from
within."
Marla uses bright acrylic paints, which she brushes, splatters and scrapes on
large canvases to create art that commands attention. She sometimes works on
one piece for days at a time. When she decides she is finished, she gives her
paintings titles like "Dinosaur," or something reminiscent of a bedtime
monster. Then she leaves the grown-ups to see images and meaning.
In the beginning, her parents said, people bought her work without knowing her
age. Then customers bought it because of her age. Some say she is a prodigy.
Some say she is just playing. Her parents are sensitive to criticism that has
not been voiced yet - at least not to them. They do not push her to paint or
tell her how to do it, they said, and they do not spend a penny of her growing
bank account. If she decides she wants to stop, she will stop.
Marla's father, Mark Olmstead, a manager of a Frito-Lay manufacturing plant,
was the first artist in the house. "You know how some parents put their kids in
front of a TV to keep them occupied?" said Mr. Olmstead, an amateur painter.
"Well, I let her paint, so I could paint."
She first picked up a brush when she was 1, painting on an easel. Then her dad
would put her on top of the dining room table and let her paint on canvases.
"Soon after, I was letting her paint and I was watching," Mr. Olmstead said.
By age 3, Marla's paintings caught the attention of a family friend who wanted
to display them in his coffee shop. When customers asked to buy Marla's first
large canvas painting, the artist's mother, Laura Olmstead, who works part-time
as a receptionist, priced it high, she thought - $250 - so it wouldn't sell,
because she had a sentimental attachment to it. It sold the first day.
"She has no concept of money," her mother said. "She was really into lip gloss,
so I told her it was enough money to buy a whole room of lip gloss."
This spring, a friend of Mr. Brunelli's bought one, and brought it to him at
the Fine Arts gallery. Mr. Brunelli is a painter whose photorealistic works are
displayed in SoHo. He was drawn to Marla's work. He and his friend stared at it
like children staring at clouds, seeing flamenco dancers and their vivid
movements on the canvas.
Then the friend told him the artist was a toddler. "I admit I was a little
skeptical at first," Mr. Brunelli said.
He discovered Marla's father was his high school classmate. A week later, he
visited the family, scrutinized more of Marla's work and watched a video of her
painting. He bought one for himself and gave up his August vacation so he could
organize her show.
"When I'm in Marla's presence, there's a weird little feeling 'cause I know
there's something inside this girl that many artists look for their whole lives
and never have," Mr. Brunelli said. "But it's in this little 4-year-old."
Another person equally impressed was Stuart Simpson, a California businessman
who was working in Binghamton when he heard about Marla. He bought three
pieces, including one called "Bottom Feeder."
"I typically don't like abstract as a rule," Mr. Simpson said. "Don't tell
Tony, but I would have paid any price for 'Bottom Feeder.' "
Mr. Simpson and his wife own paintings by Renoir, Monet and Manet. They have a
space picked out for Marla's work now, too.
Others scoffed. "If I didn't know a 4-year-old child had done it, I wouldn't
take notice," said Yvonne M. Lucia, who turned down Marla's work for the
feminist exhibition, Rude and Bold Women, to be on display in October at the
Y.M.C.A. in Binghamton.
Another artist, Orazio Salati, said: "I think her ability is her desire to
paint, her excitement and the opportunity to play. There's a lot of
finger-painting in the process."
Parents of other budding artists have besieged Mr. Brunelli. "They'd never
produce that, never," he said of the other children.
As for the skeptics, he said, "People wouldn't be buying the work if the work
wasn't exceptional."
In all, Marla has sold 24 paintings totaling nearly $40,000, with the prices
going up. Her latest paintings are selling for $6,000. Some customers are on a
waiting list.
Laura Olmstead still gets teary-eyed when her daughter's work sells. She would
rather keep it herself.
"It's beautiful whatever your child does," she said.
Home Delivery of The Times from $2.90/week - Act Now!
Agathena
In this case her parents have rich friends who bought
the stuff. Then the New York Times had some extra space.
King Rundzap
> copyrighted by the ny times 2004
>
> Portrait of the Artist as a Young Girl
> By MICHELLE YORK
Thanks for posting that, Robert. I looked for it on the Times site
for a minute when you put up the first post, and didn't find it (I
think I was too impatient, lol).
--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
> The work looks like a 4 year old toddler's paintings.
> In this case her parents have rich friends who bought
> the stuff. Then the New York Times had some extra space.
I thought it looked cool. I like it better than a lot of those
"geometrical abstracts" I see on a lot of artists' sites.
--King Rundzap
Richard R. Hershberger
> The work looks like a 4 year old toddler's paintings.
> In this case her parents have rich friends who bought
> the stuff. Then the New York Times had some extra space.
What is your evidence to support this assertion? The article says
that her father is the manager of a Frito-Lays plant. My guess is
that this would bring in a salary in the high five digits: solidly
middle class, but hardly rich. Perhaps he socializes above his pay
scale, but the only friend mentioned in the article is the owner of a
coffee shop: not exactly jet set. The article tells us that they
have sold 24 paintings for a total of nearly $40,000. This, assuming
my math skills have not degenerated too much, comes to an average of
about $1660 per painting. This is considerably more than a typical
middle class person will spend on a whim.
Of course it is possible that the article is full of lies, so I would
be very interested in citations of your sources.
Richard R. Hershberger
Dr. Slick
> celebrate.
>
> This summer, she went from selling her work in a coffee shop to having her own
> gallery show.
>
> After a local newspaper's feature on her, about 2,000 people came for opening
> night - everyone from serious collectors to the artist's preschool teacher. She
> earned more money than she could comprehend. The gallery owner said it was his
> most successful show ever and scheduled a second one for October.
>
> bouncing ball shaped like a frog, grabbed the handles and bounced around the
> house with laughter pealing and pigtails flying.
>
> The artist is Marla Olmstead. She is 4.
>
Looked at her stuff, and I'm not a big fan of
abstract art, but it's pretty cool.
The point is, Pollack, and really ANY artist who
makes the big time...is really just a creation
of the media.
Am i gonna call this 4 year old artist hype?
Yep. Am i jealous that my paintings aren't selling for
as much? Yep. Would i ever want to be hyped myself
in the media? Why not, i could use the money!
Richard R. Hershberger
> Agathena <nos...@thisaddress.com> wrote in message news:<_PU6d.568760$gE.525959@pd7tw3no>...
>
> > The work looks like a 4 year old toddler's paintings.
> > In this case her parents have rich friends who bought
> > the stuff. Then the New York Times had some extra space.
>
> What is your evidence to support this assertion?
...
...
...
I guess that answered that.
Agathena
Dr. Slick wrote:
> robt...@aol.com.spam.no (Robert Cohen) wrote in message news:<20040930094236...@mb-m25.aol.com>...
>
>>BINGHAMTON, N.Y. - The hottest new abstract artist in town has reason to
>>celebrate.
>>
>>This summer, she went from selling her work in a coffee shop to having her own
>>gallery show.
>>
>>After a local newspaper's feature on her, about 2,000 people came for opening
>>night - everyone from serious collectors to the artist's preschool teacher. She
>>earned more money than she could comprehend. The gallery owner said it was his
>>most successful show ever and scheduled a second one for October.
>>
>>So celebrate, the artist did. During a recent visit, she climbed on a big
>>bouncing ball shaped like a frog, grabbed the handles and bounced around the
>>house with laughter pealing and pigtails flying.
>>
>>The artist is Marla Olmstead. She is 4.
>>
>
>
>
> Looked at her stuff, and I'm not a big fan of
> abstract art, but it's pretty cool.
>
> The point is, Pollack, and really ANY artist who
> makes the big time...is really just a creation
> of the media.
Pollack played the media but he wasn't created by
it. His genius was to make his complex working method
look easy and random.
Agathena
Richard R. Hershberger wrote:
Glad you think so. I didn't answer your question
because, I read the same article as you did.
There is no 'answer' to the obvious.
Richard R. Hershberger
Translation: you simply made shit up.
Dr. Slick
> >
> > The point is, Pollack, and really ANY artist who
> > makes the big time...is really just a creation
> > of the media.
>
> Pollack played the media but he wasn't created by
> it.
ANYONE famous in any way is created by the media.
His genius was to make his complex working method
> look easy and random.
Well, "genius" would be a bit of a
big word to use for Pollock, IMO. Unique and
original, maybe, but not a genius.
Don't mistake fame for ability.
Slick
Thur
"Dr. Slick" <radi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1d15af91.04101...@posting.google.com...
I would add :- don't attach any value to artworks from fame.
What we ought be looking for in Art are a great works of art,
not famous names.
But then in Modern Art, how can we tell what is "good" or "great"
without a famous signature to tell us?
I am still working on this puzzle.
Thur
Robert Cohen
at one year of age, she began painting, which is quite extraordinary (is there
a known precedent?)
my wife speculates: it's about "reincarnation," she literally has the "soul" of
a deceased artist
she is now about four years of age, and includes her childish signature in each
work
if ya missed it, the clip of today's SUNDAY MORNING may be available at
<www.cbs.com>
further speculation: when the child is more enculturated by our conforming
society, and her spontaneous impulses are ...uh...socialized (for lack of
better word), then i fear a loss of her very wonderful art
Dr. Slick
> >
> > Don't mistake fame for ability.
> >
> > Slick
> >
> > www.DrSlick.org
>
> I would add :- don't attach any value to artworks from fame.
> What we ought be looking for in Art are a great works of art,
> not famous names.
> But then in Modern Art, how can we tell what is "good" or "great"
> without a famous signature to tell us?
> I am still working on this puzzle.
> Thur
But you see, Fame makes a work of art valuable,
just because people are familiar with it. This doesn't
necessarily mean that everyone likes the art or
considers the artist a genius. Some people think
that just because someone is famous, they must
be a genius. Funny, i've met quite a few geniuses
that very few people know.
However, i will say that when certain pieces
of art become famous, it is because that art
must have some sort of emotional impact on
people. You can't really buy your way into
greatness. You could try, but then people
can see through that. Great art just IS.
I'm kinda contradicting myself here, eh?
Like which came first, the Fame or the Artistic
Greatness? hehe...
Slick
