"My Kid Could Paint That"

 I watched this documentary, as part of a school assignment, called "My Kid Could Paint That". Basically it was about this little girl named Marla Olmsted who became globally famous for her art pieces. She was only four years old, and her pieces were being sold for tens of thousands of dollars. However it covers even more than that, as the story takes a turn and people begin to wonder if it was the Marla who solely did the paintings, or if she received help with them.

Marla would paint art pieces like this one, which is called "Ocean". All of her pieces are abstract art, and what made Marla special was how famous art critics would be astounded at the fact that a little four-year-old had such an incredible eye for color and could make these beautiful pieces as young as she is. People from all around the world would be curious of how a girl that young could paint such complex and extraordinary works of art.

Throughout the documentary however, the narrative took more of a turn and began to focus on one big scene in the movie, one that personally stuck with me and tugged at my mind, causing me to feel all these emotions. It was a scene in the movie where the parents, Laura and Mark, sit down together to watch "60 minutes". The show produced an episode about their family and how Marla became a global sensation overnight. In the episode, psychologist Dr. Ellen Winner makes an appearance and explains how she was amazed when she saw the paintings and discovered who had painted it. She even goes to say that she would consider Marla a "prodigy" and that she has never seen an art prodigy before.

But, that moment was short-lived, and the episode takes a major turn. After viewing a 50-minute video clip of Marla starting a new painting, Dr. Winner immediately expresses suspicion. She explains that typically in child prodigies, there is a very intense focus that they express while doing what they do, and that it cannot be seen in Marla. This then digs into the fact that no one (except for her parents) has ever seen Marla paint something from start to finish, and that Marla gets uncomfortable in front of the camera. This very notion releases skepticism to the public and raises the question, "Did Marla really paint these works or art?". This skepticism leads to the change in tone of Marla's story by the public, framing the family as frauds and Marla as no good. 

This scene described above completely amazed me, not because of the art, but because of the crazy influence that media has on everything around us. What started as a light-hearted and special story soon turned into a daunting and bad memory that lasted for what seemed like a lifetime; and it was all because the public got bored of the initial story. In media all over the world, stories constantly get twisted and altered mainly because people get bored and producers need attention. It makes me sad to know that so many heart-warming stories can be turned into controversial stores with a bad rep, just to get a reaction out of the people viewing it.

Reflecting on the art, however, it really did amaze me how a four-year-old could paint like that. The concept of abstract art also plays with my mind because of how random it can be. I can't wrap my head around how art critics can derive objects and meaning to a picture with paint splatters and lines that go every which way. Abstract art is unlike any other, and it definitely gets the job done of making you think. 

Overall, the documentary was a very good watch. It was definitely not what I expected, as it touched on topics so much more than painting. It definitely left me with the following impressions: Marla is amazing, media will be instigators, and art critics are a different breed of people.