Young Prodigies Dazzle The Art World

Submitted by: fancylad 4 years ago in

Meet art prodigies Victoria Yin, age 14, and her younger sister Zoe, age 11, who were painting before they could walk.
There are 29 comments:
Male 406
@SPrinkZ you would be talented if you where not breathing... go ahead give it a try.
0
Reply
Male 44
Meh, I could paint that good if I wanted to.I just don`t have time.
0
Reply
Male 674
SPrinkZ, that prick did not die poor! He was doing cocaine and pounding back bottles of wine like no tomorrow when his ticker stopped ticking.
Bla bla bla...Dude, you know jack!
0
Reply
Female 4,359
horrible s hit. i`ve seen elephants who paint better.
0
Reply
Male 2,293
He`s talented the same way* sorry lol
0
Reply
Male 2,293
Pollock gave art a place to go the same way that my toilet gives a place for my **** to go. He`s not talented the same way that I`m talented for breathing.

I`ve heard a lot of contradictory stuff about Picasso. I`ve heard he had to burn his paintings to keep his house warm. But, I guess I could be wrong.
0
Reply
Male 646
"Pollock was crap. Piccasso is something to be in awe of...he was a true artist. He lived for it, and died a poor man and now we revere him. "

- Y`all need some art lessons. Picasso was incredibly successful, even when he was young. Other artists joked with him b/c of how much money he made from his art. He may have dressed like poor man, but he sure as hell wasn`t poor

Pollock came into being at a time when photography had finally become reliable. People could take photos, cheaply and quickly, and so didn`t need to spend money on sitting for hours for a painting. Pollock`s work gave painting a new place to go, that photography couldn`t follow.

I think these girls are okay, but not worth what people are paying. They still have a ways to go.
0
Reply
Male 2,293
@Ollie

You at least grasp what art is truly about. An intentionality--a story--a message--that is all wrapped up in every color, shape, size, and face...etc.

The entire thing is a system that can be explored over and over and over again. These girls are little more than crap. Sucks they are being told they are so clever just because they can push a paint brush around.
0
Reply
Male 2,293
I know it sounds like I`m being a hater, and I am. I don`t think they deserve multiple thousands of dollars because they can paint. I believe they deserve it if they fix something, or help someone, or do something that changes the world--not just makes someone think for a moment or two about how a 14 year old could paint that.
0
Reply
Male 2,293
Pollock was crap. Piccasso is something to be in awe of...he was a true artist. He lived for it, and died a poor man and now we revere him.

These girls are just putting pretty colors and shapes on a canvas and we freak out because it looks nice. Who cares?

I want to see the `prodigy` that can make a jet-engine when they come out of the womb, or starts building a new type of capacitor. It`s not impressive to be able to use sound or visual means to create. All `art` prodigies are just lucky. They aren`t truly talented in the way that others are who develop their skills. If I was born with an innate ability to transcribe what I see in my head I could be a great artist too--but I have a disconnect between what I want to draw and how it appears via my hand. It`s a talent the same way that having two hands is a talent. They just have an extra "something" but it won`t cure world hunger or fix much. They just are getting ridiculous money for a talking piece.
0
Reply
Male 650
"When i was around kids my own age sometimes I felt a bit like kind of alien." 4:55.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
@r66, I meant to say I didn`t much care for Picasso`s impressionistic works, but I certainly appreciate that he was a master of his medium who was able to put on canvas exactly what he intended.

Pollock, on the other hand, was a no-talent hack who randomly slopped mass quantities of paint onto a canvas, and managed to convince a bunch of self-important f***tards that it was art. His crap is virtually indistinguishable from "art" created by elephants.

http://tinyurl.com/cv696p
0
Reply
Male 674
Ollie, did you just put down Pollock and Picasso? OMG! That is pure nuts man! Art is each to own and those two dudes came up to the top of the table in the past 100 years. For you Ollie to discount that...well, you discount yourself! Pollock most can do away with, understandable as he had a limited display of limited selection and scope over a relative short period(made him very collectable), but Picasso was a renaissance man beyond belief! To put Picasso down as a painter is not to be understanding of any art. He rolled it all in there. You need to get back to school bro! Picasso gave birth to many other famous painters/sculptors! Even Rick Mastersthinks yer a dick!
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]oh, and they`re not even good for their ages either. The 14 year old`s skill is on par with a "good" 10 year old artist.[/quote]
..says the 18-29 year old who can`t even figure out how to delete a double post.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]they should be able to prove they can paint, rather than just throw some poo up on a canvas and call it art[/quote]
I`ve said this myself many times before. The most basic requirement of art is that it must be deliberate. I`m not a fan of Picasso, but he proved what he did was deliberate, not like, for instance, that fraudulent hack Jackson Pollock.

They`re both good, but Victoria has gone a lot farther to prove her mastery of the medium than has Zoe.
I think
0
Reply
Male 3,061
Real artwork

0
Reply
Male 802
Hilarious.
0
Reply
Male 674
botfly is not far off, I tip my hat to you. turdburglar was way out there on that one. I`m thinking `Pedo` on that bro! Can-o-worms! Not good 4 nobody :-O
0
Reply
Male 2,384
the thing about art is that it is subjective, i mean i respect picasso because this is picasso but this too is him, they should be able to prove they can paint, rather than just throw some poo up on a canvas and call it art
0
Reply
Male 936
oh, and they`re not even good for their ages either. The 14 year old`s skill is on par with a "good" 10 year old artist.
0
Reply
Male 936
oh, and they`re not even good for their ages either. The 14 year old`s skill is on par with a "good" 10 year old artist.
0
Reply
Male 936
these girls are horrible lol. I cant believe people pay what they do for their work.
0
Reply
Male 120
It`s all nothing new, a person with basic knowledge of arts can easily find all the inspirations. Neither these paintings are great technically. Sure they are good for 14 and the girls may be great in future but calling them genius is not a favour. Why should you learn anything when you are already genius? Actually there`s a lot to learn.
0
Reply
Male 1,442
@turdburglar
0
Reply
Male 616
Cute kids. I would like to show them how a real man paints. Starting with painting their tonsils white.

Just kidding. HA!


Please ban this a$$hole, Pedo hammer style.



0
Reply
Male 674
Wait `til they discover acid, cocaine, weed and booze? Making cash selling paintings is a long stretch in this world, good for them. Not my cup of tea.
0
Reply
Male 1,442
Their stuff does look a lot better then a lot of crap labeled as art these days... I think their age does play a part into how populer it is too.

I kinda want to see what a 1 year old could draw that sells for 15-20K...
0
Reply
Female 6,381
Well... I know what I like, and this ain`t it. I think the big break for these girls was someone with a name in the gallery world calling their work "genius," after which everyone had to agree, lest they be thought philistines.

0
Reply
Male 20,111
Link: Young Prodigies Dazzle The Art World [Rate Link] - Meet art prodigies Victoria Yin, age 14, and her younger sister Zoe, age 11, who were painting before they could walk.
0
Reply