Comments on: Marla Olmstead and John Mann are Humbled.

By: Victoria

Victoria — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 18:53:07 +0000

Marla Olmstead is not a child prodigy. She’s simply a little girl who dabbles in paint. I believe Marla’s father coaches her and completed the gallery paintings. Her art reminds me of the adage “A fool and his money are easily parted.” It’s overpriced for what it is but if people want to waste their money on it, so be it.

I believe everyone involved in Marla’s life is out to make money off her. How sad for her. If her paintings had been offered for sale as the work of an adult, no one would have given them a second glance. But because Marla was 4, everyone jumped on the bandwagon.

I believe Marla’s father saw an opportunity to make money off her interest in painting and jumped at it. I believe her mother is naive and doesn’t want to consider the idea Marla is being coached. After all, then her husband would be a liar and her daughter a fake. And there’s no way she can emotionally accept that.

By: jolly

jolly — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 20:57:32 +0000

Peacey – Marla didn’t say ‘i did not paint any of them’. She said she didn’t paint the green one, crediting her brother for it. Anyone who has children will know that they come out with the strangest things at times. You can’t read too much into that.

By: Peacey

Peacey — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 22:52:23 +0000

I just watched this for the second time, this time with subtitles and everything becomes evident. Marla literally says “I did not paint any of them.” in the scene where they are in a hotel corridor but her Dad quickly starts to speak over her. He clearly let’s her start but soon takes over and finish it, which is why she expected him to do the same. He is so overcome with worry that he has been exposed and he starts rambling on about the 60 seconds show. To sell the work on the basis of this lie for thousands of dollars is fraudulent.

By: vikki

vikki — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 22:29:19 +0000

there are so many talented kids out there but no1 every notices it . i think its amazing that her parents did notice the talent shes got & they are only doing whats best for her . so to the haters your all just jeoulse if u dont like her paintings dont look at them or buy them . ive always been in 2 painting/drawing & if i had good parents like her behind me i think i would of done well 4 my self as my parents took no notice in mine i just stopped all 2gether … & im now 23 yrs old & aint done 1 since i was like 6 yrs old …. only thing left 2 say is 2 Marla parents ignore ppl & be there for your little girl its good shes got a talent she can grow with shes amzing x

By: A person

A person — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 18:32:21 +0000

i love this art! It is so beautiful. i wish i had some ! everyone is good art something but this child omg this child has a gift! everybody who says it aint good they are wrong! but everyone has a opinion. but any way i wish you could send me some and people should notice it and they should respect it. I would love it my child could do that. And i think that you should become famous i would but you should do what is best for her and for every one else. Well that all! Bye!

By: unknown.....

unknown..... — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 18:30:18 +0000

I think that marla’s abstract art is beautiful! every kid has talent but only some kids get noticed for there amazing art work. Its a true sham that some people are jumping to conclusins. I think that the people of the world need to except that shes becoming famous and and they need to also stop obsessing that marlas dad is painting them.

By: Paul Davies

Paul Davies — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 02:58:01 +0000

I think her father has created some lovely abstract artworks – and this comes from someone who isnt generally a contemporary abstract fan …

By: Peter

Peter — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 18:07:04 +0000

To the imbeciles that say crap like ” I don’t care if she painted them or not, it looks nice” Or “don’t buy them if you feel its not her painting it”

Those are idiotic comments since the whole thing was based on the claim from the parents that Marla painted them herself. If she did not paint them or had a helping hand then it is all FRAUD and LIES. Otherwise I could have easily painted them myself (I am an artist). Would anybody pay any attention to them? Doubt it.

I am convinced Marla did not painted those works herself. There is simply to much inconsistencies from one painting to another. Also the composition, use of colors and depth on the “polished” versions are in stark contrast to the much simpler, childlike versions that was videotaped.

Very simple…why don’t the parents candidly video tape Marla the whole time without any editing? The video tape versions I see are cut and edited. A moron with a computer can do it.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 02:31:14 +0000

Anyone that liked those paintings deserves to be ripped off. ALL garbage.

The fact that people can’t tell a child’s scribbling from abstract “art” is proof that the art doesn’t have merit itself at all.

And Pollock sucked too.

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 02:16:02 +0000

I saw the documentary and any fool can see that the father painted the more sophisticated ones. 60 Minutes was right on the money. The mother is either very stupid or naive. She states she would never let me husband influence Marla, although they hardly see each other because they work separate shifts. And the father is a greedy lying bastard, who managed to fool the right people. This is a joke. The art is not good, the kid is not gifted, and the people that bought these paintings were ripped off.