My Kid Could Paint That - Exclusive: Amir Bar-Lev

[hajar9911]

you know i give that movie a quote " that's not art , that's autographs " because people aren't paying 300k dollars because that painting is so beautiful , they pay it because the artist is famous so they are actually buying the name

proof : if another artist was 20 years older, and she did a lot better paintings . no one would buy it . because it would be another professional artist . they buy it not because it's beautiful but because it's new which sucks

[LIGHTRONIX]

"i didn't have the knockout punch that marla—" ...marla what!?

[ansonjew]

I wish the film would have scrutinized the art critic who proclaimed the girl's work to be "genius" a little more. The story hangs on the notion that it is impossible for any child other than a "prodigy" to produce those paintings. The fact is that any kid could have done those paintings. Abstract expressionism is at best a rhetorical argument only for "educated" art history insiders and at worst, a commercial scam. If she perfectly copied a Rembrandt they'd probably call her "uncreative."

[hajar9911]

@ansonjew i saw a painting of hers . it was the same flowers we all could do when we were 4 , the difference is ; her parents are wealthy enough to buy her oil paints at such a young age and maybe even buy her popularity . that's the only explanation for why suckish paintings any 4 year old could do would sell so much

[DancefloHo3]

I only watched this because he is hot

[monkey505boy]

The media created the "prodigy" angle, because it sold newspapers. And it was the media that created the "fraud" angle, for the same reason. The reason some crappy splotchy mess can sell for a million dollars is in the spin, the angle. And for that to work, there has to be an ambiguity. This ambiguity allows Marla's work to be both prodigy and fraud, depending on the spin and the media. The truth is simple and boring. The media hypes whatever angle will sell newspapers.

[PeanutButterJellyFlu]

1. just like a critic said: in art, prodigies dont count. they count in music or literature but not art.

2. when u look at marla's signature on her paintings, they look like they're done by an adult. she has a backwards 'R' (probably in an effort to make it more convincing). she signed her name in white. her letters are wiggly and uncontrolled but each line in each letter is perfectly thin. there arent any smudges. for a signature with such uncontrolled letters, the letters would be smudged too

[PeculiarTactics]

@PeanutButterJellyFlu Why do prodigies not count in art? 

[soundincentive]

It was quite obvious that most of those paintings were not done by her. A fraud is a fraud. When you buy art, it's not just about the art but also about the artist. So can the real painter please stand up? I think Amir was conflicted on the astonishing direction that his documentary had taken and ended the film as professional as he could.

[myluckyalice]

the reason why the parents were so "conflicted" is that they didn't want to become exposed... duh. they just wanted to live in their little world of selling artwork for very high prices because it had a label of "prodigy" and "genius" on it because of their young daughter. they knew that if they went international, the truth would come out. but, they took a risk...

[grahammj]

@myluckyalice If the parents were committing outright fraud, then what was in it for them to let this guy make the doc?

[BaubleRob]

@grahammj Having watched the film, it looked to me like the dad was helping her and the mom didn't know anything about it. Regardless, frauds often crave attention and never conceive that they will be caught, so that could explain it.