I just saw that movie, too, and also liked the dad’s artwork a lot. Why he had to go lying about it is unclear to me, although the kid was awfully cute. Anyway, my takeaway there was that I need to give my kids a little canvas/paint time. Just, you know, in case. Maybe I’ve got hidden talent, too.
Bluestem (friend of yer sis)

I also just finished watching the movie..documentary..documentary of a documentary..which ever you prefer. I just would like to say that the whole thing just ticked me off. Not in the sense that I felt the parents were a fraud, just for the fact that 60 minutes and every other negative person in the film tried to pick apart this whole thing. The funny thing is, people want to “uphold” the observations of a women who was taught by another human being how to “read” people and tell the world what SHE believes to be true, that is the biggest pile of horse manure. That is what the world thrives on, and no matter how positive the circumstance ,it can be made into something dramatic and suspicious. I believe that the parents had more self restraint than I would have ever been able to muster up. Some people are idiotic , and in my opinion of the whole situation..If you have thousands of dollars to spend on something that hangs on the wall and collects dust, and later you feel like you were scammed..well I am laughing my ass off at you for being so stupid and so careless with money as if you use it to wipe your rear end on a daily basis! My thoughts go out to the parents and to the kids..I hope all is well with the family and I say screw them all..if they don’t like it or don’t trust it, then stay away and don’t buy it.

I saw it. Twice. Thought-provoking. I don’t think the dad is the artist, but don’t much care, either. The fact is, the art is good. It’s a personal thing. If you like it, you can say it’s good. A lot of people are invested in what “the experts” say, becuase they don’t trust their own feelings / knowledge/ intuition / preferences. If every art expert comes forward and says that these paintings are no good, I will still like the ones I like.
P.S. Good points: 1) making just about anything “dramatic and suspicious” 2) can’t feel sorry for those who spent the money. Anyway, if you’ll enjoy it for a long time, it’s a good purchase in my book.

The art (with the exception of works like Ocean and Flowers) is not done by Marla. That is clear when you analyze the techniques of those paintings. Even a simple visual juxtaposition of the paintings will convince most novices of the fraud. The better art (done by some adult) is nice, not great. But it would be just amazing if a 4 year old did it so that’s why it was sold that way. Fortunately for the parents, there’s a sucker born every minute.

i watched the movie too, few months back… but i am not very sure or just forgot If the documentary somehow indicated that the parents videoshoot her work from sratch to finish… so, what i did was to go to her website marlaolmstead.com. If you click the main home page, on the left part of the page, you will notice that they have a start-to-finish video of her artwork. and if you click the page, they offer to collector & press a complete video of those work…. Her works are still selling… i think if the parents were fraud, it could have stopped from day 1 of that 60-minute bruhaha…

I just saw the movie, the father definitely painted most of the. It pretty horrible that they are exploiting this girl that way, but hey it’s making them a boatload of cash. I am teaching my kids to paint early.

Whether Marla painted the canvases and the father glitzed them up or if Marla really did paint every one of them,it doesn’t really matter ( at least no to me).The art is most magnificent and inspirational. Isn’t that what art is about anyway? Connecting people from all back rounds and religions? Representing beauty, hope or just the human spirit? I don’t think it really matters just as long as it doesn’t interfere with Marla’s talent and outlook on her work. Yes, it is a controversal but who ever the artist maybe keep doing what you’re doing. I will always be a big fan.

I was one of those children that was raised by a artist and from age 4 on my father taught me how to draw, using many mediums , charcoal, pastel and much more he would instruct just like any art teacher …how to get the base and then go back and bring it to the finished stage. He never touched it.
He also taught me how to be a cartoonist…so I could see the fun side of art.
I always got art supplies for christmas and would spend hours drawing…
But as I got older and took art in school I lost my interest in the classical techniques so When I was 10 I learned about beads and fabric and so much more.
I still like to paint and such and my one daughter has followed in the family footsteps.
So one from a early age can create great art…is Marla’s art Great I think it is incredible for her age.

I am 50 and Marla has cuter clothes than I do.

I just watched the documentary this afternoon and I am left with one beacon-like thought: FRAUD!
Clearly most if not all of those paintings are at best collaborations of Marla and her father’s work. Some are so blatantly embellished its hard to understand how anyone can not see it!
P.T. Barnum must be smiling when he looks down at the rubes shelling out tens of thousands of dollars for lies. But then again, if the buyers are too stupid to realize that they are being had by Marla’s parents, then I guess they deserve to lose their money.
Sadly it is young Marla I feel most sorry for. Due to her parents greed she’ll always have a black mark on her name and doubts of her talents. She may or may not have grown up to be a great artist but her parents love of fame and personal fortune have secured her a place in the Annals of Doubt.
Shame on her mother and father!

I am a professional fine artist, a painter and educator (BFA Carnegie-Mellon, MFA Yale). I have been studying and producing modern art for the past 35 years. I suppose one could consider me, as regards fine art, in the same way one might regard a certified and practicing MD in matters of health and medicine. When I proclaim on the topic of art the conceits expressed are substantive and trustworthy, as I do indeed fully comprehend all facets of this special reality. It is not bold or egotistical of me to say such things, no more so than a doctor advising a patient to heed his or her advice. That was the set-up, here is the punch line: I am here to tell you that little Marla did not execute those many paintings – at least not on her own. Precisely they (the early Marla paintings) are the result of a unique and actually quite delightful collaborative process between parent (the father) and child (Marla). This fact was almost instantly obvious to me upon observation of the work. I am intimately familiar with the collaborative process in art, and I also have worked with very young children involved in the creative act. It would take too much space (for this venue) to elaborate in full and precise detail how I know these paintings to be collaborations, suffice to say that they are, and they are good art – not great art, but they are bold, fun, exciting, attractive and pleasing. The only real mystery here is why Marla’s father opted for subterfuge over clarity. Why not from the start let us all in on the harmless truth of it? There is no sin in collaborating on a painting with one’s daughter, or any child for that matter – it’s a great idea. I like these paintings very much, and the people who have paid a lot of money for them may have been lied to, but they most certainly have good taste and are not fools. This is a strange saga, simultaneously sad and wonderful. Isn’t the world a fascinating place?

Why is it that whenever something, someone or some previously undiscovered place comes along the naysayers come out of the woodwork? Why? The question that this little girl is or isn’t a prodigy is moot…art’s beauty is in the eye of the beholder…the purchase of art as an investment is no different than buying a stock…there’s risk involved…”due diligence” is the best way to minimize losses…greed and fear are the only motivators for investors…when greed exceeds fear, sometimes bad deals are made…buying this little girls’ art was motivated by greed, period…if one truly loves the art…it was a good investment…if the buyer was motivated by other reasons well, too bad so sad…by the way…I love her work !

I agree with John Bender. Most of the collaborative art is good and would have been appreciated if presented honestly. But as is the case in America today, nobody wants to be appreciated when rich and famous is within grasp (regardless of the cost). This story is about The Bandwagon. For decades we have seen talentless performers excel in all fields. With financial backing and the right marketing message we will swallow anything.

I believe that the father has duped the mother and that she is relatively innocent in all of this. I say ‘relatively’ because she must have had her own doubts yet let herself be reassured by her husband. Early in the documentary she mentioned their conflicting schedules, which would allow for plenty of time for the father to work alone with the child. Towards the end of the documentary she offered to undergo a polygraph test and the look on the father’s face told it all.

Finally, I think the child is young enough to walk away from this with more good than bad. If she continues to paint she will always have name recognition. As an adult the sins of the father will not be held against her. Or, if she goes down a more normal path, then her college is paid for and she’ll graduate without any student loans to drag her down.

So I ask an interesting question: Did the father do the best thing for his daughter by lying?

Thank you, John Bender. I like your style. It never ceases to amaze me how clueless these “experts” and the media can be. If little Marla is not a wunderkin child genius then she must be a total fraud. no, no, NO. You have articulated my thoughts and feelings so well, I don’t have to say anymore, other than, how magical it is; neither one of them could have achieved this art on their own.

Art is a feeling. Art is a realease. Art is thought provoking and inspiring. Art is whatever you want it to be! If marla is doing these paintings then they are beautiful. If her dad is doing these paintings then they are beautiful. It’s sad that art that we have seen before by abstract artist is only important if a child does it! What should I do with the abstract art that own? It wasn’t painted by a child and it isn’t any less ABSTRACT!

Marla is a fraud. The father did the paintings. The only one with an ounce of integrity in the film was the mother…and even she allowed herself to get caught up in the glitz and glamour. She knew better but went along with her husband and the creepy, shameless self-promoting art dealer, Brunelli.

Where’s Marla now? I bet she’s really setting the middle school art world on fire, huh?

Even the duped buyers couldn’t admit they’d been scammed….How about when the father screamed at her to “use the red…paint with the red”?????

Those parents should be ashamed for the way they exploited and used that poor child.

The father saw his way out of the frito-lay factory and the media helped perpetuate the scam.

Why is it so hard to accept that Marla really did make these paintings herself? What if Van Gogh had people finish his work and passed it off as his own?

I think that John Bender is carfully expressing the whole thing to the readers from fine art’s prospective, but what John Bender didnt understand is how the twist of this even works.

I went to malar’s web and see some paintings put on sale. I noticed that some of them are not good and impressed. They have more credit to belong to Malar’s than previous ones that attacts media.

Her father now start to put her D’s real painting for sale.

That is her father’s original motivation I think.

Marla is amazing, she did do all those paintings. There are millions of kids our there that have extrodinary talents and people beileve themm,why should Marla be any different why is she being accused. Her father’s paintings look tottally different from Marla’s. Just because she is a kid dosnt mean she cant do things. You all should know this, its kind of common sense

Let’s all re-join the real world, those of you that truly want to believe that Marla is a “prodigy”. The truth is, her father allowed a lie to be perpetuated and it got too big before he could save face. The large sums of money didn’t hurt too bad either.

Thank you John Bender for giving your extremely informed and educated opinion. I have worked with children for over 20 years, the art that we were actualy able to observe Marla perform in various footages were how 4 year olds do art. The ONLY time in the film that we saw her do anything “comparable” to the “works” that were sold at high prices was the footage the PARENTS took. Anyone ever hear of editing? And sound can be dubbed into home video easily. All I’m saying is, the footage of Marla we observed from the family’s film was very possibly verbally directed by dad and/or “edited” (do I sound like a skeptic?!)

Either way, there is no way some of the high selling “early” pieces compare to what the parents filmed. And what about the painting that the documentarian filmed (toward the end, the piece she painted outside…very crude)? That was Marla’s true artwork (and the artwork of many 4 year old’s). Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and if folks want to spend their “excess cash” on something anyone of us could paint, so be it. My point–there is no way those paintings would have sold for those prices if they had dad’s name on them, or the notariaty that came with the “4-year old prodigy” name. The real question is, will Marla really financially benefit in anyway from her parents exploiting of her (are they really putting that money away for her? And by the time she’s 18, is the cost of college really going to be that much?)Wish my son had that much “talent”, I wouldn’t have to work another day!

SAW MOST OF THE DOCUMENTARY—THE MOST INTERESTING PART THAT TRULY SHOWCASED HER TALENT WAS WHEN SHE WAS USING SIDEWALK CHALK ON THE DRIVEWAY–THAT SHORT BIT SAYS IT ALL.THE BUYERS OF MODERN ART–THIS GIRL’S INCLUDED ARE ATONING FOR MISDEEDS.WHETHER IT WAS EXPLOITING EMPLOYEES COMMITTING FRAUD –WHATEVER.MODERN “ART’ IS ART BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO PRODUCE IT AND DEAL IN IT SAY ITS ‘ART”,NOT FOR ANY OTHER REASON.SOME PEOPLE SEE THE VIRGIN MARY IN A STAIN ON A HOLDING TANK OF SOY OIL.NATURAL SELECTION OVER TIME MAY–OR MAY NOT WEED THESE PEOPLE OUT.ITS AMUSING THAT’S ALL

Scientific method would solve the mystery. See if Marla can produce the paintings away from her father and mother … totally away … give her the same set-up she supposedly has at home … for a week or month. Hidden camera (or non-hidden if she is comfortable with it). Let her talk to her father and mother by phone anytime she wants, for comfort. My bet, she can’t produce the paintings. This is the same way you would learn how a magician prepares his tricks. My bet, the father is the magician, Marla is his assistant.

i saw this documentory in class today and i was suspicious because i didnt think that a 4 year old can pait like that . i didnt see the entire movie my art teacher said that there are many people who say that her father paints for her. also when ever she is asked if she wants to talk about her paintngs she refuses. probeblt because she douent know a thing about them and her parents tell her that she has to do what ever the press thinks shes doing. honastly i love the painting . i dont care who is paint ing them. thier wonderfull

Let’s all also keep in mind that we were told this story through the filmmaker’s lens, like any documentary. I personally came away thinking there’s no way Marla did all the paintings herself (mostly because the dad is so creepy and weird), but I catch myself because I am basing this on Amir Bar-Lev’s interpretation and presentation of events. And although he does not come down too strongly on either side in the film, he informed my class last week that he feels confident that the dad (and possibly the mom) played a part in making the art.

I don’t believe that if the dad painted for Marla or helped her, the child would not at some point spill the beans – I have two boys, one still five, and their ability to hold a secret is just about zero.

I suspect that the father did limit the palette in some cases, did premix some of the paints and probably did take the canvas away at critical points. He was smart enough to prep some canvases in solid colors so that they don’t look too empty. And maybe that’s why he looked so nervous in the film. I felt bad for him trying to please the media and maybe in hiding a small thing making it seem like he was hiding a lot more.

I would have liked to know how many of the paintings this girl painted that didn’t work out and didn’t make it to the gallery wall. As far as the more polished pieces, my sense is that they would be possible if the child painted faster so that her attention wasn’t diverted to too many different shapes, colors and themes. This is what I saw in the paintings done on camera. In situations where she wasn’t distracted by attention of strangers or cameras and supported by her parents presence, she could have easily painted faster. Comparing a painting that might have been done in a burst of creative energy in half hour to one done over a month and a period of five hours, AND in the basement, is frankly ludicrous.

There are so many stories of great artists who go to incredible lengths to ignite their inspiration and still produce wildly uneven work, but this little girl is supposed to be consistent and able to perform on demand? What a ludicrous conceit!

I am a bodyworker and teach some of my clients an emotional watercolor technique. Most of them have never painted before and most of them quickly start to produce beautiful abstract paintings. My instruction is limited to encouraging them to paint quickly, to choose the colors they like in the moment and to make only gestures that feel good to them. In a way the instruction is limited to what a child could understand.

I feel sad for all the people who can not conceive of this clearly happy and loved little girl producing those paintings – you don’t know how easy it is to make beautiful abstract art.

I was a painter once and aa art collector. For me,If I like that particular piece of artwork and I think I can afford it,I will buy it regardless of the artist’s background,big or small, it’sall about personal taste,after all.How can you tell it’s good piece of work? Well, You don’t get bore by looking at it day by day but enjoymentand feel lucky to own it. Just like a good song,lyrics,you never get tire or sicked of it even you listen to it day after day afterday…Back to art collection,you never know,you might bought a piece of work by another potential’Tom Thompton’.That would a big bonus. Are you passionate? Neil Young!

We watched the documentry this evening. I do believe Marla paints but I don’t believe the paintings sold are by Marla. I kept replaying part of the footage from the Ocean painting she did and I could be wrong but the part at the end of the footage were the swirls are being created – this does not look like a childs hands, they look too big and the pressure being put on the painter container looks alot more like adult strength as opposed to a young child. Not sure if anyone else noticed? At the end of the day her parents have to live with themselves and the truth always finds it’s way out. I don’t believe her father was being honest and her mother got very nervous in the last interview. They should both do a lie detector test, if they have nothing to hide they have nothing to worry about and they have an opportunity to stop all the conterversy. Maybe Marla’s mum doesn’t know the father does the paintings? Maybe her tears were because she did know and was upset that she agreed to let her husband do this andsge went along with it. Personally I don’t trust Marlas Dad. I don’t know him obviously but that is the feeling I got when watching him.

Why are people so gullible, with no common sense whatsoever .The poor Mother wanted to belive she has an Einstein of sorts .It was so obvious the Fathers input. you only had to watch the child trying to daub the paint onto the canvas to see she was incapable of the work that was claimed to be hers. Not to speak of the comments she in her innocence spoke, as she should. Its known as “out of the mouths of babes”. What has gone on amounts to child abuse and those kids should be taken from those so called “parents”
Oh ! what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.

Why are people such sheep? I just watched that documentary and thought: What a load of c*@p. Even if she did do them, the ennui of the documentary indicates that something about the story doesn’t add up.

I like the way the curator says – completely unselfconsciously – “The parents are charismatic and the kids look like a Gap Ad” as if those are the attributes of creativity and credibility. I guess they are in marketing.

Oops. I commented before I’d finished watching the whole thing and its not a boring doc. at all. its actually really good. And no. She didn’t do them paintings! Lol.

I have worked with metropolitan children, at-risk youth and foster kids for the last 18 years, I have shown this “MARLA” documentary to my arts classrooms since it was produced. I grade the students for their interpretations of this Olmstead mystery. I ask the kids, who come from all racial, cultural and socio-economical backgrounds… if her paintings are truly self-generated works of art or someone elses… whether by inception or spuratic guidance, FOR THE MOST PART, THE MAJORITY OF ART CHILDREN BELIEVE SHE DID, BECAUSE THEY HAVE THEIR OWN REALMS OF INSPIRATIONS AND CREATIVE PROMPTINGS TO REFERENCE. THey actually come out benefiting by learning to cover edge to edge in asymmetrical balance and composition. As an educator, I appreciate this film… and human being* hundreds of students are now following her steps. HR – ARTERNATIVES.ORG

FRAUD FRAUD FRAUD .. as an ex police officer I notice non-verbal communication and signs of lies and the father stunk the place out especially at the end .. I have doubts about the mother who may be unwitting or in absolute denial to the point of dillusional .. but the evidence is incontrafutable and shows that the little girl did not paint the pictures and her father did. I could hardly believe his smug wondwerment at the critique of the images as if they were his own long before i knew of the suspicions and I had already decided it was beyond dodgy before the possible deceit was revealed .. the polished and controlle abstract work in most of the images is poles apart from anything the girl was seen to produce and ther mere fact that ‘ocean’ was singly glorified shows that even they where amazed that she could produce something that could by some cataract ridden presbyopic art lover be seen as basically concievably similar was a confirmation of any doubts about her validity. The final scenes of her in her kitchen encouraging her father to paint and her father’s excrutiatingly unconvincing talk about her request as being odd and funny was the last straw .. FRAUD .. nice local art show canvasses but not child progidy stuff .. sorry.

Poor little girl, she didn’t paint it, even knowing that the work its good (not spectacular), their causing such a damage on her, and you can see she doesn’t have that ”something”, she seems like a normal-average child, their parents should be ashamed, you don’t play with your childs life like that!

How come an idiot compares Van Gogh to that retarded guy who explodes his child?????

My husband and I just watched Amir Bar-Lev’s fabulous documentary on Marla Olmstead’s paintings. (Thanks Knowledge Network for another great show!)

We were see-sawing back and forth as to whether or not she completed the paintings on her own, and then I realized….for myself, it doesn’t matter! Art is so many things to so many different people – you just have to ask anyone from Victoria, BC about the modern sculpture outside of Memorial Arena and you’ll get dozens of different responses. (My favorite was the gentleman from out of town who saw it and thought our garbage collectors were on strike.)

I believe that if you find a piece of art that you love (and you might even be lucky enough to be able to take it home with you) it doesn’t matter if it’s a rock that you found on the beach or a priceless Picasso. What should matter is that it should make you FEEL something.

I admit, I would much rather enjoy the Monet-like colours in Marla’s ‘At the Lake’ than look at “Voice of Fire” in our National Gallery and be angry that our government paid $1.8 million for it. But hey, I’m a ‘peace-loving Canadian’ and I respect everyones right to their own opinion of what constitutes great art.

(Well…maybe not the post above mine from ‘Someone’….I’m not so sure if I agree with ‘exploding’ children!!!)