Talk:Marla Olmstead
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Pictures from the artist's father?
I was thinking of writing to the artist's father and requesting pictures we could license under GFDL, but I'm not sure if that's a good idea given wikipedia's open-editing nature and section three of this article. Thoughts?--Kchase02 T 17:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] She's no prodigy
An abstract painter who can't draw or paint anything else? She hasn't displayed the ability to draw or paint recognizabe figures or objects with any degree of skill. If you look at Picasso's work, he had the ablility to draw and paint realistically, but he chose to paint in his cubist style. Marla Olmstead hasn't shown any significant abilty outside of abstract painting, (She's never displayed any figure drawings, anatomical studies, portraits, or anything else which indicates she has a grasp of perceptual drawing and perspective). If she was a prodigy, she would be able to demonstrate artistic ability outside of the abstract relm, which she hasn't. I believe marketing, more than anything, has made her a financially successful artist, but selling a painting for thousands of dollars does not automatically make someone a prodigy. (and lets not forget that the one expert Olmstead's parents allowed to analyze her work said 'I saw no evidence that she was a child prodigy).
I don't believe you can be a prodigy of only one style of art. A classical music prodigy, for example, may not be practiced in other forms of music, but they would still have the ability to play other kinds (because of their ability to read music, understand time signatures, scales, tones, etc.) similarly, a real art prodigy would be able to demonstrate an advanced ability in various different forms of art, not just abstract painting. Finally, a lot of the meaning in abstract painting comes from the fact that the artist is making a CHOICE to paint that way, not that they can ONLY paint in that way.
If you want to see an actual prodigy, look at someone like Matt Savage.
