December 04, 2007
Toddler fools the art world
into buying his tomato ketchup paintings. The toddler in question is Freddie Linsky, who has fooled the art world into buying and asking to exhibit his paintings.
From the comments: "I'm sorry to have to ask this, but what is wrong with you people? That mother and son have just proven that it takes the skill of a two year old to produce what is called "modern art". A child of two who sings like a pordigy is something extraordinary; such is an actual skill to be applauded. The fact that 'great' artists are still painting with similar ability to a child with a 40 word vocabulary is entirely disappointing, not to mention that other people actually pay large amounts of money." I personally think he's really good!!
-
It doesn't prove anything about the artists, it only proves what has long been known about gallery owners and art critics.
-
As abstract art goes...I've seen much worse. Abstract isn't about 'skill'. Who's to say the kid doesn't have real talent?
-
I was thinking the same thing. Why can't he be a prodigy? I quite liked the Elephant one and the one described as "Monet-inspired".
-
He only seems to have sold one, for £20.
-
And was that real interest from a real German gallery, or a standard spam-type letter from the equivalent of a vanity publisher? Abstract isn't about 'skill' Modern art does seem to be largely a matter of the intellectual sub-text, which in this case is supplied by Mum, the art lecturer and 'freelance critic'. You could say she was the artist, with Freddie merely her technician. Looking at it that way, the fact that a professional fine art academic and critic can eventually succeed in persuading one innocent Manc to part with £20 (approximately the cost of the materials, I should think), on the basis of fraudulent assurances that the artist was well-established in London, no longer seems so remarkable. Perhaps the piece is telling us more about the world of journalism than the world of modern art. It does look a bit like tabloid story number 314, use every three months or so, featuring a child, an animal, a pensioner, etc, etc.
-
From that point of view, the most amusing thing is that the Mail has ineptly published a clear picture of rival paper the Sun, which these exciting artists evidently read. Alright, shutting up. You know who else is on Saatchi online? Not Hitler.
-
From the kid's perspective, the mom is the best mother in the universe. That kid in the photos is having FUN.
-
Ha ha, this is like, really funny, 'cos we all know that all art is just the Emperor's New Clothes full of talentless chancers taking everybody else for a ride. Ha ha, my sides are splitting. And abstract art is often very much about skill. You try accurately recreating a Pollock or a Rothko or a Klien. It's fucking hard and these guys spend years working through all manner of 'ooh I can see what it is' figurative stuff before moving into pure abstraction. And abandoning figuration is often about finding a more 'child-like' (eurgh, horrible phrase) way of working, to cut through an entirely different set of bullshit that hangs around representational art. This kid is just doing what kids do, something a lot of us would like to carry on doing in all manner of life areas. His mother, it seems, was simply having a laugh. To the Daily Fear though, it's manna from heaven. Anyway, as every fule kno, abstraction stopped being relevant after about 1970. So suck it up kiddo, you need to introduce some po-mo reflectivity into your bland and tame daubs. Must try harder.
-
I am in a mood today because I broke my Star Wars mug last night.
-
We're the same age and I look younger than you. Ha! Mind you I'm fat and ugly.
-
I gave up looking young years ago. It's for kids.
-
You're both mere sprogs. I'll have you know I was talking about abstract art when you were in your prams, sonnies. Sorry about the mug, though.
-
Thanks, granddad.
-
You can have my Shrek mug.
-
Yeah, thanks, but this was a 25th Anniversary mug that came free with a magazine. Like hen's teeth, they are...
-
See, I just don't think the kid is that good. Every time some jackass or jackass' cat, or kid, or genitals, claims that they are an ABSTRACT ARTIST they sort of suck. See, cause, as Kitfisto eloquently stated, the shit ain't easy. My 8 month old can make many syllables. I don't understand what he is saying, but I don't understand Japanese either. I can therefore assume he is speaking Japanese, right?
-
What kit said, with the exception of Cy Twombly. Fucking hack...
-
aslkdfj;alkjekljal;skdfa kkkk asf sdfea ddkkenfg,vzdo9r090787a2kjv kssl naksdfj k aldkke akjf302399!!! slkdkfbibiibibi? Z?? ? ? askdfljalke (An excerpt from my abstract novel, A Herringbone with Strawberry Garnish, which is 300,000 words and I wrote with soy sauce packets. Chapter Q.)
-
From the sidebar: Chimps are smarter than preschoolers. Toddler fools the art world... Ergo... Hitler is crap.
-
And abstract art is often very much about skill. You try accurately recreating a Pollock or a Rothko or a Klien. Yes, accurately recreating anything takes skill, but that's not what I was talking about and it's definitely not art. Hell, I bet Pollock, Rothko, or Klein couldn't have accurately reproduced any of their own works. (Barnett Newman, however, is easy to recreate) What this kid did is real art, and you're right that it takes a certain child-like mindset to get into abstraction...at least a shutting down of the adult representational left-brained thinking. All two year olds are expressionists...in another year or two he'll be drawing stick figures and his budding artistic career will be over.
-
And another thing...look at his piece "Sunrise". What 2 year old mixes those colours? Pinks and yellow-greens? His mother obviously chose the colour schemes, stopped the process when the balance and framing were right, and filtered out the horribly crappy pieces. As Pleggy said...the kid was merely the technician.
-
The glaring linguistic error I keep seeing (well, it's the fault of the original journalist) is that the child "fooled" anyone. The child did nothing but paint. His mother did the fooling of people. As far as that Jones character, well... one to watch, I'd say.
-
You have to study the classics and hone your art for years and years before you can toss all learning aside and express yourself through abstractions, sort of like Bruce Lee did when he developed his own unique style. This punk just wants to skip all the work and go straight to the glory, which is so typical of a two year old. HE IS NO BRUCE LEE.
-
Certainly not. I dropped him with one tiny roundhouse. He didn't get up or anything. Just lay there, wah wah wah, lookit me, I'm hurt, somebody help me... Attention wh0r.
-
He paints like a muthafocking ninja, though.
-
I wasn't talking about re-creating a Pollock et al, I meant genuinely reaching that level of abstraction. Never seen a perfect copy of a Raphael? Obviously children, elephants, monkeys and chancers can splodge paint around, but one of the hardest things to actually get is the 'sincerity' with which those marks are made. Of course 'modern' art is difficult for the casual observer to understand straight off. But then again, it's like any other subject that is followed to a certain level of engagement. Yes, I've read stuff about evolutionary biology, but above a certain level it becomes the realm of so-called professionals, which I am capable of joining if I'm prepared to put the time in, but so far haven't. Plus I'm a bit thick, so quite a lot of it probably is genuinely above me. What this story is all about is the reactionary notion that all modern art is a con and that anyone can do it. On one level, yes, anyone could spend a few months (more realistically years) diligently learning to drip paint from a stick, but as in science, peer led criticism sorts all that out. This is, remember, a piece from the Daily Fucking Mail, which for my colonial cousins is a right-wing, OMG they're coming over here to take our jobs, Thatcher was right kind of newspaper. If it's post- Constable it's suspect. What this kid did is, yes, real (if, in the horrible term, naive) art, self-expression, pure joy etc. What happened next is the manipulation of the chink in art's armour, ie that yes, it is easy to lampoon and 'fool' others. However, artists in general, and me in particular, get a bit sick of having to answer the 'I / a child of five / a monkey could do that' charge. Basically, it's a case of FROSH. I think all sports are shit, but I don't go out of my way to fucking prove it. Easy targets for an uninformed audience (and I genuinely don't mean the good folks here, rather DM readers). Thanks, I'm here all week. Try the Duchamp.
-
And Newman is the fucking BOMB, BTW. I bet it would take a good few fucked up canvases to reach that level...
-
...having to answer the 'I / a child of five / a monkey could do that' charge. I thought the usual response was "Well, you / a child of five / a monkey didn't didn't come up with that, did they?" I saw some Manzoni in the Tate Modern last week, and had to laugh, thinking of Kit, who, as I recall, has something of a taste for the man...
-
Sexy Cappy is right, although I like to augment that reply with a hearty 'Now fuck off!" Manzoni is VERY funny, which for me does it every time. Hold on - are you saying I eat shit?? On preview, as usual, Pleggy has said everything I meant to, but in a less ranty way in comment # five. One of his more piquant pieces, I'll think you'll find.
-
Second on the Barnett Newman -- his Stations of the Cross (NGA, D.C.) are simply astounding. And kit, I phrased it that way just to get you mad, because you're just so frikken SEXAY when you're peeved! So, yes, let's have Pleggy do the talking, then we can make out. Kit, I love you so much, I want to take you out behind the middle school and get you pregnant!
-
OK, upstairs inside but only downstairs outside for now. I'm no slag. See you behind the swimming pool at 3.30pm
-
You trollops.