You remember a few years ago, the little girl that the media called an art prodigy…don’t you? The story got intense coverage back in because 4-year-old Marla Olmstead’s paintings were selling for thousands of dollars. Oprah and 60 Minutes updated us on it weekly, then it quickly faded as if swept under a rug. Inevitably one guy (Amir Bar-Lev) lifted the corner of that rug and over the past few years made the documentary My Kid Could Paint That.
Whether the artwork of Marla Olmstead is genuinely the work of an art prodigy, or a is hoax designed to get her parents rich, is the crux of the film. With the benefit of hindsight, it should be easy to convince the same public that believed the former several years ago that the latter is the far more likely conclusion today. More importantly MKCPT reminds us that it’s about time someone retreaded Orson Welles’ F for Fake footsteps. His brilliant 1974 documentary on professional art forger Elmyr de Hory’s life and involvement with celebrated con-man Clifford Irving is a dense whirlwind of a film from a time before focus groups, the news crawl, and ADHD drugs.
Irving is portrayed as the man behind the curtain, orchestrating the authenticity of Elmyr’s fakes, flooding the art market with “just discovered” works from art masters. Welles’ cameras scrutinize Irving and de Hory at swanky soireés in globe-trotting settings until their eyes betray the unmistakable devilish glint of a child who has lied to his parents and gotten away with it. Amir Bar-Lev has less work to do. Marla Olmstead’s parents exposed themselves to the media’s cameras over and over again in poorly rehearsed interviews. At one point the mother appears on the verge of tears as it hits her that her child will never have a “normal” life.
To add insult to the injury of a little girl’s life being thrust under the microscope of the news media, the resulting paintings are, IMHO, crap. The question of what makes modern art “art” and what makes that art valuable will likely be addressed by Bar-Lev. That’s all academic bullshit. If you can’t tell something is art by the way it affects you personally then you need to go to your doctor and get a refund. The real questions to ponder, I think, are about the media’s complicity. The parents swear that Marla painted the works by herself. How credible is that claim and how deeply did the media research it? Why does the parents’ art dealer appear to be so evasive on that issue? Who is this art dealer? And so on…Should be fun to watch!!!
