I know, it’s a 4-year old doing this, but the paintings just seem like random splotches of paint on a big canvas. Would any of you, given you have the resources, pay for something like this to hang on your wall?
I know somewhere in Soho, there’s a painting that consists of 3 big blocks of colors that’s selling for millions.
it’s all about context. although i agree with all of you in saying “I HATE IT!”, when looking at pollack, you must analyze the context in which he created his works. he was a troubled person with many problems and somehow, he found throwing paint in an expressive way was quite cathartic. dunno about this little girl though… anyone her age could do it, it’s nothing special… maybe she’s an alcoholic or a serious drug-addict and is going psychotic…
I think if the “artist” is oblivious to the art, it does not qualify as art. If I drop a turd that looks like Abe Lincoln, are you gonna buy it? I think it’s a big lame load of crap. When she seriously can explain her art then I will call it art.
well, especially this sentence makes this a load of cr*p. to “art” of the 4-year-old is drawing comparisons, meaning resembles the art of other artists. this type of art (i assume some abstract thingy) can only be called “art” when it’s something that hasn’t been done before, not something that resembles another work.
in recent times pretty much anything is called an “art”, like that guy in newsweek that glued together six thousand dead rats…I am not kidding.
She’s four years old painting…good for her, but in comparison to other children in her age group I am pretty certain that it is nothing spectacular or out of the norm.
Its obvious that what we define as art is not what paint artists define as art. Ask yourself why people are paying for her work if your guys think its not.
Popculture, because their click thinks it’s cool. I had a pair of Z cavariccis in 7th grade, only because they were cool. So whatever they want to be cool will be cool, but it’s not true, gallery class art to me.
