This is from Zoe's Jelly Bean series of 2006. She is in negotiations with National Gallery about her upcoming exhibitions but is having trouble with the title "Jelly Bean" because it is a registed word by the Nutty Club.
Zoe is 17 months old artist based in Montreal
17 comments:
she's clearly a very courageous artist to be willing to work in such a minimalist style. a more timid artist than her would feel the need to fill more of the space.
i look forward to seeing more of her work in the future. imagine what she'll be like when she's 2, or 3 even.
I'm curious - what are everyone's thoughts on this type of art? There are many sub-questions to the one I just posed, I know. But, generally speaking, in broad terms, what do you all think?
Personally, I can't help but have some problems with it. I see its merit in the simple fact of its expressionism or free spiritedness. However, being someone who puts a great deal of effort into his chosen art form, who has experienced the agony of being inspirationless, and who is currently paying to get an education in his craft, I'm compelled to entertain the part of me that considers the hype about this kind of stuff a sham.
Art comes in many shapes and sizes, I know. But, there is a huge difference, in my opinion, between the art of our preschoolers that we post on the fridge and the art one finds in a National Gallery. Likewise, I don't think that the stories I wrote in grade 4 would stand a hope in hell of making it into a serious journal. Let alone anything I wrote at 17 months! I find that often times we are more accommodating with the visual medium in this respect. Why is that? In a book I just read by Peter David on writing for comics he makes a good point: (paraphrasing) “How many times have I heard someone say to me I have a GREAT idea for a story but I just haven’t had the time to sit down and write it! as if all that good writing entails is having enough spare time to sit down and pound a few pages out. It’s funny that you never hear the same thing about painting I have this GREAT idea for a MASTERPIECE, if only I had some paints, canvas, and a few hours to spare!” What does it say about art if we do entertain this kind of stuff? I mean, are we saying that anybody with the will to put some different coloured marks on some paper is an artist worthy of National recognition? I can feel this hypothetical world of toddler artists turn on its axis as all the past artists roll over in their graves at once!
Postscript: Upon re-reading the original post I couldn’t help but question if this was a gag? Never-the-less, my original question still stands as I saw a piece relating to this very topic on CBC about some tot selling her finger-paintings to a gallery.
I can only really relate to the question at all through music. As a musician, I am of two minds on this topic. I create music, ultimately, just to please myself: it feels good to do. There are other aspects, certainly, including socializing with like-minded people, the excitement of performing, some people are in it for the sex drugs and rock and roll, but it all boils down to the same thing. But, I also make my living through music, and therefore have to write and perfrom music which in some way appeals to an audience.
When it comes to the first point, then whatever anyone else does musically is completely irrelevant to me and the music I create. It's an intensely personal thing. On the second point, the music being made by others has a profound impact on me: it can directly affect how much money I make! But, I care less about the content of music in that respect, as it serves a monetary purpose for me.
I guess I feel that one can evaluate music or any other art form for its aesthetic value, its monetary value, and probably many others, and that which point of view you approach it from will change your experience.
Speaking from the "aesthetic" point of view, I really doubt this peice will get into the national gallery. In otherwords, I think he's just kidding (although it would be really cool to hear I'm wrong, and that this is a spectacular peice in person, being vivid colour on a 6ft tall stretched canvas). That is not to say 'Zoe' isn't a talented little artist, but rather, that big institutions are more selective than families and fridge doors. I realize some big galleries (WAG for one) have children's work/shows, but I don't think this is competitive with the adults (it wouldn't be fair ro us). Kids are naturally creative, and instinctual practice mark making. I find it fascinating (and informative as an artist myself) to look at kids work. I think the 'collective consciousness' and developmental phenomena are often revealed in these types of exhibitions.
As for the child-prodigy type of art recognition, it isn't "ordinary" kids art that draws attention. It is when a child excels beyond his/her expected developmental stages, showing a "gift" with image making or the formal aspects of art making (colour, composition, line etc). If a kid is showing an innate understanding of colour theory, you've got my attention, I want to see, and welcome it to a gallery (although relative to how many kids there are, this is rare).
Where an adult is making child-like art, I think there is also something of value. It takes alot to unlearn happy faces, houses, stick men and the paralyzing self conscious fear of being bad/not accepted at what you do. When it comes to Cy Twombly or Jean Dubuffet, it isn't a matter of how long something was worked on, or how much dexterity they have, but what they uncover, and add to the language of art. If you looked at old-fashioned landscape paintings every day for a decade or so, you would more than likely be intrigued by a canvas with a pencil mark scrawled on it. Ambiguity and mystery are synonymous in many ways, and when an artist is making something, I don't think they should be confined to spelling it out everytime, that' would just be boring.
Also, while i see visual art (painting drawing) as being similar to writing and music in many ways, they certainly aren't a perfect match. A great peice of writing COULD be done with a few hours to spare (providing the person had something going for them, like being really smart, or creative, or inspired). Writing is something all of us do (most anyway) on a regular basis. I don't think you need to have a degree in writing and learn about all the conventions before you can do it well. Equally so with painting. Alot of the best artists in my opinion are "self taught". Still most people don't paint everyday, so it isn't a perfect comparison. With drawing for example, I have seen someone go from no obvious skill to being able to draw anything in front of them with a surprising degree of accuracy with one short lesson (3 hrs). This of course doesn't ensure they will be a great artist, or make great art. They still need the "good idea(s)"
(One good idea could possibly be like the modernists who trashed contemporary concepts of quality {or a really cool one in theatre-the absurdists, who decided if logic led to war, they'd go the other way}-in fact a lot of our favorite artists were "going the other way" Even impressionism was a derogatory term).
At the same time, while I am no expert on music, I would imagine it is far less likely to get a 3 hour lesson and then to be a virtuoso (or even moderately profficient for that matter)on guitar or what have you. I don't know all the ins and outs of this, but there is definately some major differences between these practices, and no easy answers are available. That's fun though isn't it?
Wait a second 17 months old! Did someone draw the jelly bean for her (making it a collaborative peice), and she just scribbled in it a bit? Cause if she drew that jelly bean at 17 months old that's blinking amazing!
Or even that she signed her name! Most 17 month olds would be lucky even to recognize just a few distinct letters, so I suspect that the jelly bean and signature were both added. It is possible to progress a lot as a child, but that's a pretty young age - for example, my son Cyan is 16 months old right now, and he only has a few words in his vocabulary, though he can understand a lot of what we say to him. He certainly can't read or write anything yet!
When Picasso made his first great pieces of art, his Dad who was also an artist decided to never make art again. I think picasso was fourteen or something.
and anonymous(david I think), that is the longest comment I have ever seen. It should actually be a post of it's own if you don't mind me saying. you should be writing articles on art and posting them on our blog. please. :)
"you should be writing articles on art and posting them on our blog"...
I am =)
Zoe is my niece in Montreal and she has just started day care. i think she may have had help with the jelly Bean but the colours are sweet.
It's the national Gallery loss if she walks on her upcoming exhibition.
I should be more clear when I make suggestions to people so that they don't feel the need to copy my words to defend themselves and try to make me look silly.
What I meant was, make some actual posts.Your words demand central stage. Rather then being tucked away as comments.
Looking back on the lasts posts I don't see any art-icles by you.
=/
my bad. I have to learn to keep my comments to myself.
Zoe is a hack!
There is nothing original here, her lines are weak, and the jelly bean... don't even get me started on the jelly bean!
oh please! such freedom! such flow. notice the bold, uninhibited strokes. the loose, almost lyrical form, and yet still concentrated into such a small, precise area.
denis is just envious. :)
I see an elf with a runny nose inside a womb
i see a biscuit with a burger in its beak.
I think this is outstanding work and hope to see more of it. She seems to be able to express herself using both hands.
She is clearly a gifted prodigy child. Obviously comes from her father's side of the family.
Beautiful use of negative space. hot concentration of color in balance. Shows real talent.
Post a Comment