As a professional artist I would have to say that modern "fine" Art is largely stupid and un-artful. If you want to see the real trailblazers in modern Art, look not toward the gallery, look to the internet.

Digital painting applications have revolutionized the way that profressional artists work, and great artists like Craig Mullins and Bay Raitt are the artists producing the most important work of our generation.

Forget the "isms" entirely, they are irrelevant now.

Of course the definition of Art is still entirely subjective. But lets examine it from an evolutionary perspective. What we are really talking about when we discuss Art, is the tendency for humans to fabricate reality. The imagination has been an important tool (perhaps the only real difference between ourselves and the rest of the animal world) and artists are merely facilitating the expression of imagined realities, through the physical capacity to manually reproduce the images formed in their minds.

So essentially, if your kids drawings move you, and reveal their world view, then hey, it is Art.

Sent by Jody Sol | 12:38 PM ET | 11-01-2007

Yay for kid-sploitation. Here's the thing: Any 4 year old can make art (and yes, even -your- kid's art is truly art, the most wonderful kind) but somebody has to market and sell the art and the artist in order to achieve $25k success. No 4 year old can do that, and few people of any age can.

The true genius in any known artist is the marketing team. You don't need art lessons or talent to be a successful artist. Never did. You need a business plan. Articles and reports regarding artists such as this one should take a look at who has created this phenomenon, because nobody 'discovers' an artist-- rather artists must be sold like a product.

As an art dealer and gallery owner, I know this fact well.

Sent by erick | 1:03 PM ET | 11-01-2007

There certainly is some effective marketing (cool website, newspaper articles etc.) But I enjoyed looking at Marla's paintings (online), and I could imagine myself buying some (though not for $25,000).

I had a friend who once created a sculpture as a student and did not think much of it, but someone offered her several hundred dollars for it! As a young artist, this was exciting for her. But when she got to the exhibition hall the next day, the crew had thrown it into the trash. One man's art is another man's trash.

Sent by Nat | 4:49 PM ET | 11-01-2007

Picasso said: By the time I was twelve I could draw like Raphael. Then I spent the rest of my life learning to draw like a child again.

fred call

Sent by fred call | 11:00 AM ET | 11-06-2007

Didn't the original "abstract expressionists" themselves work on tuning in to the automatic and subconscious. This kind of primal egocentric expression would be expected of a child between the ages of 4 and 7 if she could wield the brush (and she can)!. Will she lose "the gift" as her mind becomes more grown-up? Time will be the interesting factor, and people paying the high prices are paying to wait and see.

Sent by jim | 10:48 PM ET | 11-14-2007

Sent by jim: Will she lose "the gift" as her mind becomes more grown-up?

Good question, Jim. Pull out the DVD of Amadeus. Mozart, the child prodigy at the age of five writing the music for the ages, Amadeus descends into a 'short' lifetime of ecentric genius toppling over into insanity.

Sounds almost like the making of a president.

Advice to investors in art and Wall Street alike, it's a money game not for children....unless the artist happens to be a child.

As for the channeling of the mind, you are likely referring to Jackson Pollock, the paint throwing expressionist. Actor Ed Harris starred in and directed the movie 'Pollock,' another tale of genius madness.

If little Marla grows up to be a mother of threee and president of her local PTA chapter, she will have lost the gift, the public perception, and her paintings will be used to line the bottom of bird cages.

We'll have to wait to see how Marla grows into the truth of who she really is artistically in the financial investment market.

fred call

Sent by fred call | 10:02 AM ET | 11-15-2007

Gareth says: "Hey, elephants and chimps (and children) can do a pretty good job of abstract painting, so why not bugs?
Lovely Art Painted by Bugs
Posted by Mark Frauenfelder, December 5, 2007 3:49 PM | permalink
Artist Steven R. Kutcher dips the creepy crawlers in (watercolor) paint, or has them traipse through it, and then he lets them scurry across the canvas (watercolor paper)." Link

I vote that there are no more political subjects in this blog.

The majority of bloggers here have no concept of what politics is about (except when it comes to reciting conspiracy theories, and there are plenty of blog sites for that).

Trying to blog about politics around here merely demeans the purpose of NPR, which is to inform and educate.

Well, first the bloggers around here have to get an education...somewhere. But this isn't the place to do it. Maybe Community College?

So, no more politics. Let's blog art and music and topics that have no real impact on the lives of human beings: like national elections.

fred call

Sent by fred call | 9:22 PM ET | 12-05-2007

If you think of art as just 'expressing yourself', then of course a 4 year old can create 'art'.

But that's what happens when we have no standards for beauty and excellence - anything goes.

Sent by Mo | 3:09 PM ET | 03-17-2008