Login
this film is worth seeing because it creates all kinds of questions. however don't expect it to answer any. most of the issues addressed are left for you "to decide for yourself". which is in its benefit because in fact when they do take on an attempt at an answer they're not wise enough to manage it. take their rather childish harping on charlie rose as "unfair".
as with any documentary, you are getting a constructed story and a distinct message. it is not as balanced as they'd like to think because they are inherently embedded with the subject.
the story her is a kid likes or liked to paint and with encouragement or perhaps demands she actually does more than a typical kid. the parents are involved in pushing the kid into the art market. a local gallery dealer/artist decides he wants to stick it to the art world by proving a kid can paint abstract art. (he is a strict photo-realist and views abstract art as a "scam"). he gives her a show, uses inside people in a local paper to get a story written on her, at the same time has an inside person in the new york times who eventually manages to get a story published there as well. the problem arises when 60 minutes (charlie rose) picks up on the story and does their own story about this questionable child prodigy. and when they do they can't get her to paint on camera, so they set up a hidden camera and get a painting after months which is perhaps different and perhaps not as good as others she supposedly painted. a child expert (not an artist nor art historian) hired by 60 mins says she sees nothing different about how the child works/plays other than the dad prompting her over an over. this raises a question about whether the dad had a hand in making the art. now the controversy blows up. and the question becomes is this girl being exploited. the parents go out of their way to say their kid is an innocent and oblivious little girls and that the dad has no part in anything she does other than taking care of her and encouraging her. but then the filmmakers can't get her on film painting either. when they do she doesn't do much and mostly makes a muddy (over mixing of too many colors) mess and the paints miraculously get finished while they happen to be off camera.
the parents themselves make a film where she...over a 5 hour period...makes a painting. which looks similar to the 60 minutes one and isn't convincingly shown in this film to be adequate to judge by. but this is were the film is interesting but also falls apart. it becomes clear the filmmaker didn't get what they wanted, weren't able to rethink how this should come out, and leave us with almost no one who adequately assess what has transpired.
some of this is better perceived by watching the extras on the dvd. for one they tie it in better to the way art became less about the object and more about the story of the object and its creator. and another little clip that they cut from the movie shows an interview with a woman involved in a "woman's art" show. this few minute clip blows a hole through the documentary's portrayal of the mother's "innocent motherly fear" that her child might get exploited. in fact what this little interview proves is that the whole marketing of this child was started by the mother. it was aided by the father, and brought into working order by the friends of the gallery dealer, but the mother had a clear hand in it all too.
whats sad is we may never know the truth about this situation. the work is scribbles and doodles, which while they may be interesting will never become fine art. maybe she'll continue and become an artist...she clearly has some learning to do and some experience to gain. whats even more sad is, if we can believe this documentary, the body language of the parents seems to suggest this fame is a strain on their family. lets hope the money they made helps them fade away and work on living happily.
what the film never answers, was "is the girl's work art". is it art because someone finds it interesting? is it art because its shown in an art gallery? is it art because someone buys it as art? all could be said to be true. however the bigger question may be "is it relevant art?" and strangely "can a documentary about it make it so?"
(8/10)
8/10
