Tuesday, December 4, 2007

art gallery fooled by two-year-old artist

Freddie W.R. Linsky sold a piece of art to a collector who thought it was wonderful. An art gallery in Berlin has invited Freddie to participate in an exclusive art exhibit.

What they don't know yet, is that Freddy is a two year old child who just likes to play with paint.

This year, Estelle Lovatt started posting Freddie's "art" on Charles Saatchi's online gallery. She said her son was an art critic who was a "regular" in the art scene. The pictures (some painted with splattered ketchup) were posted with over-the-top captions.

For example, Freddie painted a bunch of red and green splotches. His mother posted on the web with the title "Sunshine" and these words:
"A bold use of colour. Inspired by the 'plein air' habit of painting by Monet, drawing on the natural world that surrounds us all."

Another painting entitled "The Best Loved Elephant" had this caption:
"The striking use of oriental calligraphy has the kanji-like characters stampeding from the page, showing the new ascent of the East. It is one of Linsky's most experimental works."

Lovett, an art lecturer herself, never dreamed that people would really be duped. "He sits on his high chair with a piece of paper and gets very excited at the mess he gets to make" she said.

The art gallery in Berlin and the art collector that purchased "Elephant" won't be quite so enthusiastic when they find out.

story link

Now I don't feel so stupid. Modern art often looks like spattering of a 2 year old to me.

4 comments:

Don Simus said...

This is not new. Check out:

True art or a fake?
http://reverent.org/true_art_or_fake_art.html

An artist or an ape?
http://reverent.org/an_artist_or_an_ape.html

Pollock or birds?
http://reverent.org/pollock_or_birds.html

friendinME said...

Don... thanks. The links you left prove the point, alright. :) It is hard to tell "art" from "not art" sometimes. I hope my readers check out some of those links.

Anonymous said...

The images that the boy is creating are art as they are his expression through paint. His mother, by posing him as an artist, has given his images the status of 'art'. Look at Duchamp's work. If an artist says it is art then it is art, whether they create it or not.
Art is inherently subjective, therefore everyone has their own opinion on whether it is art or not. I do not feel that this 'spoils' what 'art' is because it is all about expression, perception and debate.

friendinME said...

Anonymous, What you said, I suppose, is true. In a sense, anything that anyone creates is art.

However, in this case, the 2-year-old artist's work fooled and embarrassed the critics by showing that they can't tell the difference between a kid's "artwork" on paper and the "art" of a trained artist.

The story is not a comment on "what is art" art as much as it is on the absurdity of the critics and consumers who buy "art" because of the hyped drivel that someone writes about it.

I remember visiting the Philadelphia Museum of Art and saw an exhibit of a piece of art... it was a bike wheel nailed to a stool. It was stupid until you understood the artist's point: anything people create is art. I guess whether art is art depends on one's definition.