My Kid Could Paint That
(7/10)
by Tony Medley
Marla Olmstead,
born in 2000, began painting when she was 2-years-old. In less than two
years, she became famous. I saw her on the CBS Sunday Morning show. Her
parents, Mark & Laura Olmstead, seem like uncomplicated, attractive
people.
Unfortunately,
they were naïve. They trusted the muckracking CBS TV show, 60 Minutes,
and interviewer Charlie Rose. Anybody who has ever seen Rose on his PBS
interview show knows that this is a man who is more full of himself than
any person who has ever lived. He is the master of the five-minute
question that can be answered “yes, I agree; that’s what I said (or did
or believe)." Then Charlie goes on to show his audience and his guest
how much more he knows with another monologue-type question that can be
answered monosyllabically.
Rose and 60
Minutes know a victim when they see one. So, just when Marla was on
the verge of really making something of whatever talent she had, they
devoted a substantial part of their report on Marla to a critic who
questioned the validity of Marla’s paintings, causing the world of the
Olmsteads to come crashing down.
Even worse,
they trusted director Amir Bar-Levy, who got permission from the
Olmstead’s to make a documentary about Marla. He started before the
60 Minutes hit, so had his cameras pointed at Mark and Laura while
the show was being broadcast.
This is an
indictment of modern art, on the one hand. To think that a 4-year-old
girl could create great art is pretty ludicrous. As some have said, it
points out the absurdity of treating incomprehensible blotches of paint
on a canvass a something special. It might be pretty, but is the person
doing it a genius, or is she just a little girl following her instincts
that are basically immature and juvenile?
On the other
hand it shows the danger of trusting the media. The Olmsteads seem like
nice, gentle people who got in over their head and didn’t realize what
inviting the media into their lives could do to their daughter and their
family.
As to Bar-Levy,
his conclusions defy analysis. There is absolutely nothing he shows in
this film that can lead to a conclusion that Marla did not do her
paintings by herself. There is not one iota of evidence anybody else
added a drop of paint or anything else to her work. All that’s there is
a mean-spirited art critic and a self-absorbed TV interviewer. But
Bar-Levy refuses to take a position, a position that the Olmsteads
finally needed. This is an interesting film, but shame on Bar-Levy (not
to mention Rose and his critic).
|