her/his art is worth 0.99 cents...
 

Tell me how you get to be so bitter and angry about someone you knew in high school and feel like you have a perspective on what his daughter paints or doesn't paint.
If those of you who are attacking this little girl and her parents as though you have some profound insight on these people and their life, I hope that someone does the same to you and your offspring. If you think her art is crap and her dad is doing it, I guess the jokes on you cause I just read one sold for 30 thousand dollars. What the hell have you ever done thats worth that.
 

Why would you ever wish ill on someone's offspring? They have nothing to do with what the parents did. For shame...
 

I have to agree with the person who listed this Blog. Marla is not painting the final piece. On the kitchen floor she clearly showed she did not have the ability to layer paint. Also her Father kept making up stories on how she didn't like doing it in front of the camera, the camera was effecting her ability, she likes to do her painting alone, they don't want media filming her, etc. This is a clear sign something is wrong? I think the way to settle this is to have Marla in a control setting were a hidden camera runs 24/7 and lets see what she can do. As long as she is not aware of camera, there should be no excuses on her Fathers part. When a Art Collector buys a Piece of Art, he or she expects that the person who signed the piece is the actual artist. Yes, some artist such as Lichtenstein have helpers, but not to the extent of what we are seeing here. Here's an example: Artist Lee Reynolds has been a well noted Artist for some time. But he also allowed Students to use his name on their paintings. But a real Reynolds painting can fetch a nice price, were as the Student paintings signed with Lee Reynolds signature is hardly worth the price of shipping. So, Yes, it is important that the Piece being offered it legit in every way. This will have a terrible effect on her later in life, because she will be expected to produce paintings beyond her ability. As a 4 yr old, she may paint the first run down on the canvas, but it appears that someone with some Artistic ability finishes them. And it is easy to confuse a child into believing that they did this all by themselfs. All of us have ben around to know children will take the credit for things, even when they received help. Lets say, Marla mopped the kitchen floor, but Dad had to help her ring out the mop, held the end of mop because the mop was to heavy or big. Hours pass, Mom comes home and Dad say, Marla mopped the floor. The child then goes into detail how she did the mopping etc. These things happen every day with Children. But when Marla gets to be 15 or 18 and Dad can no longer convince her she did it as he was able to do when she was 5, this may have a Backlash effect. People will say she is a Fraud, Scammer, so on. The family needs to really think about what they are doing to this child. I think that the Hidden Camera, operated by someone from the outside of the family circle is in order. Thanks
 

And just one more thought, Most Art Buyers will never admit they were fooled by someone. High Rollers feel that they can not afford to look like suckers when they Buy something that is not what is seems or a fake. They stand their ground, claim it's real to their knowledge. If they prove that the Father is responsible, they can sue "which they won't" or they can stick it in a closet or storage not to be seen again. Why won't they Sue, they don't need the Media attention, if well known Art Buyers were to be shown in the Media as buying Art from what they believe and claim was done by a 4 yr old but find out it was the Father, Oh Boy! What a Embarrassment that could be! Especially when the Touted her around as a Pollock prodigy etc. These Buyers couldn't show their faces at any serious Art Event because everyone will know they paid thousands of dollars for Art work that wasn't done by the actual Artist. So, they will hope this may eventually fade away and be forgotten.
 

I just watched "My Kid Could Do That." I agree with the majority of bloggers, I don't think Marla painted her "masterpieces" alone. I think the dad painted them-probably doctoring up what Marla did initially. I think the parents opposite work schedules would make it easy for the dad to not only decieve the world, but to decieve his wife as well.

I'd love to see 2 things. A lie detector (for the dad) and a 24/7 camera that recorded what really goes on. Can you put hidden camera's in someone's house without their permission? What if you paid a great deal of money for something and were defrauded?
 

I watched the documentary on this and found it chilling. Marla is a charming, adorable little girl who enjoys splashing paint on canvas. What struck me in the documentary is things which do suggest there are some issues with truthfulness on the part of her parents.

At one point in the film, she clearly and definitely states to her father several times that she didn't do one of the paintings - her brother did it. She says this repeatedly, and even stresses that she didn't even do a bit of it, she didn't touch it. All the while, her dad ignores her and refuses to listen until she finally gives up.

Also I read that she is considered gifted because at such a young age, she can layer paint and covers the whole canvas instead of just leaving most of it blank like most kids her age would do. But in one scene when she paints in the garden, she does a little brushing, paints a sun (a circle with lines comming off it to represent beams, which I think every child in existence has painted) and then declares it done - with the majority of the canvas unpainted and no layering of paint.

This is when she was being filmed with no supervision from her father. When her father is there watching her, he repeatedly stresses to her that she doesn't have to do it, but when she just squirts paint on the canvas and rubs it all over with her hands, he cannot keep the frustration and anger out of his voice and makes the excuse that she only does that when she's on camera - off-camera she would be using a spatula.

However in the hidden camera footage which is supposed to prove what she does, you can hear her dad directing her - telling her what colour to use and where to use it. So I think he's possibly telling the truth when he uses very carefully chosen words - that he never puts paint on the canvas himself. That isn't, however, the same as the paintings being done 100% by Marla with no interference from him.

I believe 100% of those paintings were indeed painted by Marla, but that aspects of some of them have been directed - she is told what to paint, where, and in what colour. At one point she even says she'll either stop painting, or her dad has to help her finish it. When he refuses, she offers to tell him what to paint, but he has to do the actual painting because she doesn't want to do any more.

I'm afraid her dad does across as someone who is loving the attention, and he averts his eyes from the camera every time he says she didn't get help from him. When asked directly if he does help her or not by the director, neither parent actually denies it - they act disappointed that he's even asking, and mom says she'd like to take a polygraph test - but they don't actually come right out and 100% deny it, and of course mom doesn't take a polygraph.

I am not attacking Marla - I think she's a happy kid painting away and has no concept of what is really happening, except her dad tells her how to paint and she does it to please him.

I don't think her parents are evil people, I suspect they will save the money for her college fund and hope it will give her a good, happy life. They obviously love her and care well for her, and her mother is obviously very uncomfortable about her daughters fame - but I think mom and dad have very different views but are trying to present a united front to the world.

Everyone else involved with her stands to lose a lot of money is her work is discredited, which they admit in the film, or are the journalists who started the whole thing off and now feel guilty - so their observations are tainted either by money or guilt. If this whole thing collapsed and was exposed as some kind of fraud, I think the only person who wouldn't care is Marla - at the moment. But when she gets older, I do worry about her.
I wish her and her family all the best - nobody really knows the truth except them, but for Marla's sake, whatever the truth is, I just hope she grows up into a happy woman. Even if she doesn't do all the painting, she isn't a fraud - she's a little girl who enjoys painting - period. Anything done with the paintings afterwards, any money made, any claims made for it, are completely beyond her control. If this is a scam, it's her parents doing it, not her, and her parents who would have to answer it, not her.
 

the father coaches her. PERIOD! however, she is talented and will become a successful painter painting her own style some day. good luck to her!
 

I just finished watching "My Kid Could Paint That" on DVD. I thought it was a very interesting and well done documentary. I wanted to believe the little girl was creating the art herself, but at the end it became more and more clear that she wasn't.

The part I found the most interesting, was when they showed the "Ocean" painting between pictures of the others she'd supposedly done. That was like the moment of truth for me. The "Ocean" painting was so different than the other examples.

I'm glad I watched the movie. If you are all interested in art and people's motivations, watch it.
 

Maybe she is no "Prodigy" but she is extraordinarily talented. I thought that both "flowers" (60 Minutes - video) & "Ocean" (parents video) were absoultely beautiful. Can you expect a four year old to paint in the same exact style with each painting? If you go to their website there are more video excerpts of her painting, some I think are what people seem to call "refined" like 'Rain' (done with her fingers). Ultimately this discussion is about the investors. Regardless of who painted the paintings they are quite stunning and are, consequently, what they are. However, if they are not painted by Marla (which I believe they are) they are worthless to the collectors.
 

I watched the doc and I thought it was quite objective in that the director seemed to be genuinely interested in finding the truth, and even seemed hopeful that there would be a happy ending. In the end he didn't pronouce a judgement one way or the other, but rather let the facts stand and speak for themselves.

It's clear that the father has directed her painting at the very least, and very likely actually took turns with her and helped her paint many of the works. Perhaps he even painted the majority of some pieces. He is the artist, in my opinion, and she is one of his tools -- and one he knows how to manipulate very well.

The point made that children will claim authorship of creations that they may have only contributed to minimally is actually empirically supported in developmental psychology. Children are all too willing to take pride in other's work. Some think it actually helps them to with memory (in spite of inaccurately identifying the source).

The exchange in the film between the father and daughter when she says she's either done or it's his turn is very telling and quite a sad moment. The girl has obviously had many experiences with her father like this, where he would then take over or redirect her. Also, the way she gives the ultimatum seems particularly adultlike, which makes me think that this little girl is simply imitating the manipulative stance that her parent has used so many times with her. The dad behaves in an extremely guilty fashion afterwards. You have to think: if she really were creating these works independently, how would you expect the parents to act? I don't know about you, but I wouldn't give a f*** about what people thought because I would be confident that sooner or later the fact that the kid does the painting would be revealed. I'd have nothing to be nervous about.

An earlier poster said that she didn't think the parents were bad people or something to that effect. I really think this is wrong. Think about what the parents have done to these kids, both Marla and Zane. They have continually manipulated the girl and forced her to keep quiet about the lies. This kid has been helping her parents lie since she was four. Will she ever even have a clear sense of what is a lie and what is truth? Her parents apparently do not. Clearly the kid doesn't talk about the paintings because she has been instructed to be silent about them. Furthermore, it may be that if she had a choice she would not paint as much as she does. We don't know how much manipulation goes on behind the scenes, but given what we do know I think it is probably beyond what you can imagine. And what about the brother...living in the shadow of his supposedly talented sister, observing all of this chaos. One would like to imagine that when they grow up they will recognize what happened, which would be sad but at least they could recover some sense of truth. However, I think it's unlikely that things will get sorted out. These kids were raised in the context of a huge deceit, and one that continues. It truly is a tragic story.
 

Watching this film was a great insight into the art world. People, especially buyers, don't really understand art. They buy pieces they are told are worth something. It's a lie and it is hilarious. Marla's father is a liar and he is using his daughter to get something he could never have. Would the paintings even be half as impressive if people knew right off the bat that they were painted by a "grown-up" ? Would the gallery owner have even given him the time of day? The gallery owner is riding the band wagon and her dad is steering. I think that the mother knows, but realizes they are in too deep, and the father really doesn't want to work at frito-lays so...what else can we do? AHA! rip off our daughter. Nice idea. Watch this guy. Watch his shifty eyes, and how they get wide when he's put in a corner. Then watch how he pathetically digs himself deeper, but making these terrible excuses. He goes on for a couple of minutes, digging deeper. They are in too deep, so now, i would be willing to bet, that Marla's paintings are authentic. The new ones are likely hers..they don't want to get caught again. Why would they be willing to lose thousands of dollars???
 

I just watched the documentary "My Kid Could Paint That" about Marla Olmstead and her family. The main thing that struck me wasn't the controversy over whether the child did the artwork or not, but the entire contentious issue of the exploitation of this child's life or privacy by the parents and others. At first, perhaps the media interest wasn't anticipated, but the continued pressure both to produce paintings and be in the media spotlight whether to positive or negative acclaim seems like a disservice to the child. I agreed with the documentary filmmaker who suggested that watching the family's self-produced 5-hour film of their child painting is somewhat voyeuristic. I haven't watched it but it seemed to me like something that could be used for inappropriate purposes by the wrong person.
 

The documentary about Marla did not make the point that no artist produces work that is always of the same nature or the same level of quality. Most famous poets, for example, are known for a few poems that are repeatedly anthologized; the rest of their work is not quite up to the level of these pieces. Same goes for painters, novelists, musicians. So how can anyone expect a small child to produce work of the highest caliber every single time a canvas is put in front of her as the only possible proof that she is authentic? Children are easily distracted, and why should Marla be an exception? She is a child as well as a young artist. The fact that the canvas Marla painted in the garden was not at all up to the standard of her best work does not necessarily mean that she is a fraud. Similarly, the fact that many of the paintings in the show were different in nature, some perhaps better than others, some more complex and sophisticated than others, does not mean that all could not have been made by the same person--a child. We simply cannot know for sure what happens within the Olmsted home. It seems sad to reduce this interesting and uncommon child and all of her work into nothing but a moral issue. Like the professor who admired Marla's work in the extra footage omitted from the film, shouldn't we simply delight in the colors, composition and playfulness of Marla's lovely and joyous paintings--even if the child artist received some assistance?
 

I watched the documentary too and I whole heartedly wanted to believe that Marla was painting them and really wanted to see some vindication in the end. I liked how at the end the documentary maker had that expert talking about how art is a lie and the documentary is lie. How do we all know that the person making the film wasn't just trying to make a controvercial film--a controvercial film makes more money, right? We only got to see what he wanted to show us. Maybe he's a great guy, maybe he's not. Maybe he's the fraud who made a very well crafted documentary or maybe Marla's dad is....guess we'll never know, but maybe we should take all points into consideration...
 

I watched this film. I am an artist myself and I have to say, when I gave markers and paper to my one year old daughter, when she was crying in a high chair, she did quit amazing drawings. I showed her drawings to my friends artists - they were shocked. She did abstract drawings, movements not typical for her age.My daughter is 19 now and not painting. I use to teach 2 -6 year olds to paint. If coached, they do amazing things. If they continue to do it over years - they could become artists. About Marla - child is gifted, possible father told her to use this or that color. What is weird - that the level of finish, because kids don't like to do things long time, so its hard to believe that small child will do paintings that long to bring it to the point of being overdone.It is too polished. So I feel bad for a child, when she'll realize she been used for money. I hope, she will continue to love painting and wont loose her naive vision.
 

Enjoyed "My Kid" so much via Netflicks that I went out and bought my own copy. Relax, I haven't been watching it like it's the Zapruder film but the more I do watch it, the more I think Marla's for real. Consider:

--if the Olmsteads were attempting a great hoax would have have granted so much access to "60 Minutes," Mr. Bar-Lev, etc. That seems sort of risky.

--something Mr. Olmstead says in the film rings true. If demand for Marla's work is so far greatly outdistancing demand, why doesn't he just take over and churn paintings out one a week or one a day? It would be a license to print money, wouldn't it?

--I wonder if we have trouble accepting Marla as we don't have a great history of other child painting prodigies. We know of child music, math and chess prodigies but I can't think of any in painting, certainly not as young as Marla. If we had someone to compare her to would it be easier to accept?

--Artists both high and low have been marketed to the nth degree. From Monet to Thomas Kincaid (sp?) have had their images put on everything from umbrellas to mousepads to postcards. But Marla isn't a cottage industry. If this is a hoax and it's all about raking in the dough, why not merchandise her?

--as for some of the things Marla says in the film, let's remember that four or five year-olds aren't usually the best source of information. Kids lie, embellish, exagerate. Remember when Zane says he was painting while in "mommy's tummy"? Do we believe him too?

--we must also remember that Bar-Lev had hundreds of scenes and sound-bytes to use in this film and therefore it would be very easy for him to pick and choose the ones that are most questionable and most likely to stir debate and doubt.

--while Mr. Olmstead does seem to enjoy the attention (or is he just proud of his daughter?) it seems like fame came to them. Marla's work went from the family basement to the local coffee shop to the local paper and then nationally. If they wanted to, couldn't the Olmsteads have taken a more direct route?

--if for the sake of argument, Dad does "direct" his daughter when she paints, does it matter, if Marla is the one manipulating the brush?

--this demanding of video proof that Marla paints all her own paintings is, I think, a result of the modern media age. Now that we can't use an ATM, walk down the street or go through the airport without being on videotape, do we expect now that everyone has to have a visual record of their work or else it didn't happen? We don't have footage of Picasso creating most of his works or of Wright designing one of his buildings, do we now have the right to question their authorship?

Told you I've been thinking of this too much. Thanks for reading. Comments?
 

How can anyone watch that documentary and still think the paintings are authentic? The poor kid said that she did not want to paint that much many times and was shown asking her dad to draw faces on them and tell her what to do next. Kids that age do not have the motor skills to do some of what was on those paintings, not that they were that great. Also there were contrived things like the Micky Mouse ears -kids don't do stuff like that , adults trying to look like kids do.
 

And another thing...

I don't know if this most recent comment by Anonymous was in response to my earlier posting but I tried to lay out some reasons on why someone ("anyone") might believe the paintings are authentic.

And here's a few more:

--I don't know about now, but from the film it doesn't appear that either of the Olmsteads have quit their jobs or moved to a better house all built on the proceeds their artist daughter has brought in. If the plan of this "hoax" was to make money and fool the world, the Olmsteads are showing great restraint by not enjoying the spoils.

--Note that it's Mrs. Olmstead who offers to take the lie detector test. No one else brought it up. My feelings on all of this would be quite different if they had and either she or her husband had refused.

--Has anyone else noticed that everything was "pro-Marla" until the woman on "60 Minutes," who never met or spent any time with Marla that we can tell, raised issues and concerns. Just how highly do we value her opinion? It's interesting that just a few comments from a one person can so fully affect so many people's lives.

--Meanwhile, I would think that if an adult was painting those paintings they would be less likely to include the "mouse ears" as it is to blantantly "child-like" and too referential to Disney.

--Little brother Zane. If everyone in the film and the Olmstead family agrees that Zane is the more outgoing of the two children, and the Olmsteads really wanted to create this art hoax, why didn't they just hold off a year or two and then try to pass Zane off as the mini Pollock?

--if this is a hoax and Marla is being "exploited" by her parents, then why hasn't she been better coached by them in what to say (esp. in front of the cameras) and how to act and paint when she being observed? (This goes back to my point about ample access I brought up in my original posting.)

--I do concede that the footage we now have of Marla painting (like the "Ocean" video) are of works that are less sophisticated (or "polished," as they say in the film). But if Marla is at least, without question, painting SOME of these paintings why would the parents (or anyone) attempt to then pass other non-Marla works off as her own. Again, that seems very risky. It also doesn't seem like the more "polished" ones are selling better than the less "polished" ones.

More food for thought.