This child is only ten and has obviolusly got a skill for painting. Could she be associated with genius?
http://www.artakiane.com/
Akiane, Child Prodigy
That is absolutely amazing. For the accepted notion of what a genius is, I'd say she certainly fits... But from what it seems on this site, the only thing that constitutes what a genius is made up of, is the understanding of cause and effect at the ultimate level... Anything else is considered abnormal talent. It seems the administrators hi-jacked the term and made their own definition of what a genius is.
-
Matt Gregory
- Posts: 1537
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
- Location: United States
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
I'm not that impressed. She's merely an early developer, with some artistic talent, swept up by the fantasies of the New Age religion and Lithuanian mysticism, encouraged by her mother to give full voice to her femininity.
That's the key point. Despite her talents, she is purely feminine through and through. She makes a most excellent woman. Imagine if a young talented boy decided to give full voice to his masculinity and started articulating deep offensive truths about the world, as opposed to this girl's dreamy bits of fluff. He certainly wouldn't be invited onto the Oprah Winfrey Show! It's more likely that he would be marginalized and incarcerated in some kind of school for trouble-makers.
-
That's the key point. Despite her talents, she is purely feminine through and through. She makes a most excellent woman. Imagine if a young talented boy decided to give full voice to his masculinity and started articulating deep offensive truths about the world, as opposed to this girl's dreamy bits of fluff. He certainly wouldn't be invited onto the Oprah Winfrey Show! It's more likely that he would be marginalized and incarcerated in some kind of school for trouble-makers.
-
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Ras866 wrote:
Any movement of genius that is divorced from enlightened consciousness of Reality is not really genius, but blind freakism.
-
It's the other way around. The world has hijacked the term "genius" from wise people and mistakenly applied it to mere craftsmen. I'm simply trying to restore it to its original meaning.That is absolutely amazing. For the accepted notion of what a genius is, I'd say she certainly fits... But from what it seems on this site, the only thing that constitutes what a genius is made up of, is the understanding of cause and effect at the ultimate level... Anything else is considered abnormal talent. It seems the administrators hi-jacked the term and made their own definition of what a genius is.
Any movement of genius that is divorced from enlightened consciousness of Reality is not really genius, but blind freakism.
-
-
Matt Gregory
- Posts: 1537
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
- Location: United States
I guess I just can't tell whether someone is expressing something accidental that sounds profound or if they are expressing something truly profound but in a way that I can't relate with. She seems to say reasonable little bits in her poetry. Plus her paintings seem to exhibit a deep understanding of color and shadow and facial expressions and different styles, although the facial expressions are all blank, she's very good at depicting a blank facial expression, especially of children. I guess that makes sense, though, since she is a child.
DavidQuinn000 said:
I was looking at the etymology of the word "genius". It is a latin-rooted word from about 1400 a.d. and this is what it said:
"1390, from L. genius "guardian deity or spirit which watches over each person from birth; spirit, incarnation, wit, talent."
(http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=g&p=3)
It's original, modern use of the word came in 1649:
"Meaning 'person of natural intelligence or talent' first recorded 1649."
(Same link).
It seems that ever since the term was ever used for conversation, its meaning has only ever had something to do with extraordinary intellect and talent, not the enlightened understanding of the nature of Reality.
How do you know that that was its original meaning?It's the other way around. The world has hijacked the term "genius" from wise people and mistakenly applied it to mere craftsmen. I'm simply trying to restore it to its original meaning.
Any movement of genius that is divorced from enlightened consciousness of Reality is not really genius, but blind freakism.
I was looking at the etymology of the word "genius". It is a latin-rooted word from about 1400 a.d. and this is what it said:
"1390, from L. genius "guardian deity or spirit which watches over each person from birth; spirit, incarnation, wit, talent."
(http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=g&p=3)
It's original, modern use of the word came in 1649:
"Meaning 'person of natural intelligence or talent' first recorded 1649."
(Same link).
It seems that ever since the term was ever used for conversation, its meaning has only ever had something to do with extraordinary intellect and talent, not the enlightened understanding of the nature of Reality.
Last edited by Ras866 on Tue Oct 18, 2005 10:40 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
MKFaizi
She definitely has good technical ability for a child her age. Not to put the kid down or anything but her subject matter and the treatment of her subjects is less than any sort of genius. They are much more illustration than fine art. That is all right. Plenty of room for good illustrators. Her work feels commercial -- like conducive to selling posters of her work. Reminicient of Maxfield Parrish or Norman Rockwell.
When I was in art school, I was overwhelmed by people with astonishing technical ability. You see a lot of that in freshmen year in art school. By the time you get to be a senior, you don't see that anymore. People start to struggle with what they are doing. Drawing or painting a very realistic picture of a candy bar or glowing pictures of fairies and whatnot is not enough. No matter how well you might be able to draw a picture of Jesus -- well, that is nothing. Such ability may impress non-artists but that's about it. Oprah will be impressed.
Certainly, if I knew that little girl, I would not discourage her but I would not gloat and make over her as though she is a genius. If she was able to combine her technical ability with far more sophisticated subject matter and method, I would be more impressed. But her work, despite her ability, looks like the work of a little girl. If she had the sensibility of -- say -- Courbet or Manet -- I would be more impressed.
Unfortunately, all the attention she is getting now may stunt her development. I kind of doubt that she will ever develop mentally more than she is now -- in terms of painting. I think her work may always be merely decorative.
There is nothing wrong with decorative art but that is all that it is -- decoration.
This girls work is not great art. It's illustration.
Faizi
When I was in art school, I was overwhelmed by people with astonishing technical ability. You see a lot of that in freshmen year in art school. By the time you get to be a senior, you don't see that anymore. People start to struggle with what they are doing. Drawing or painting a very realistic picture of a candy bar or glowing pictures of fairies and whatnot is not enough. No matter how well you might be able to draw a picture of Jesus -- well, that is nothing. Such ability may impress non-artists but that's about it. Oprah will be impressed.
Certainly, if I knew that little girl, I would not discourage her but I would not gloat and make over her as though she is a genius. If she was able to combine her technical ability with far more sophisticated subject matter and method, I would be more impressed. But her work, despite her ability, looks like the work of a little girl. If she had the sensibility of -- say -- Courbet or Manet -- I would be more impressed.
Unfortunately, all the attention she is getting now may stunt her development. I kind of doubt that she will ever develop mentally more than she is now -- in terms of painting. I think her work may always be merely decorative.
There is nothing wrong with decorative art but that is all that it is -- decoration.
This girls work is not great art. It's illustration.
Faizi
-
MKFaizi
The Prince of Peace dude looks like he used a blow dryer. He kind of looks like a Breck Girl with a beard.
I don't mean to sound so negative and I kind of feel like I am beating up on a little girl.
Damned if I would have let a four year old brat convert me -- and the entire family -- to Christianity either, as her mother claims.
There is something Jon Benet smarmy about the thing. Kind of feels like they are dressing this girl up a bit in that way -- just not as a beauty queen.
I don't think that I would do that to my child -- make her a "famous artist" at such a young age. Reeks of the Jacksons and the Osmonds.
I think that if I was the mother of a prodigy, I would want her to develop her ability in private. I don't think I would want her exhibiting her work at such an early age.
But what do I know?
Faizi
I don't mean to sound so negative and I kind of feel like I am beating up on a little girl.
Damned if I would have let a four year old brat convert me -- and the entire family -- to Christianity either, as her mother claims.
There is something Jon Benet smarmy about the thing. Kind of feels like they are dressing this girl up a bit in that way -- just not as a beauty queen.
I don't think that I would do that to my child -- make her a "famous artist" at such a young age. Reeks of the Jacksons and the Osmonds.
I think that if I was the mother of a prodigy, I would want her to develop her ability in private. I don't think I would want her exhibiting her work at such an early age.
But what do I know?
Faizi
-
MKFaizi
David and his use of the word Genius. Yes it is a hijacking of the word. It should be prefixed with the word spiritual.
Art v illustration – I don’t really believe the word ‘art’ has much meaning. Art is always a personal thing not subject to the values of others. In a way Art is all activities we undertake – it is the product of human creativity. It is interesting that she is a realist – apparently most child artistic geniuses are far more abstract.
Akiane – Reading her history there is definitely something more to her than those above are accepting due to her reactions to things other than just her art and her dud poetry. I think she may have had a mild form of autism when very young which lead her to develop a mind capable of genius (seems common among ppl with early developed skills). Of course, genius of the type the QRS favour would have required experiences that mentally lead her towards reality, rather than this god business. Probably too late now, god has set in too deeply and she has become too feminised (as David indicated) – but you never know. The family seems to be trying to make her into a saint.
Extracts:
“She was also fascinated by anything relating to human anatomy, health, and behavior. While shopping or visiting friends, she would insist on touching each person's clothing, and feeling the different textures of skin, paying extraordinarily close attention to textures, fabrics, movements and facial expressions.
Although her atheistic family rarely talked about spiritual matters, one morning sometime when she was four, Akiane began sharing her visions of heaven. Because Akiane was home-schooled, and had never been out of their sight, the parents were certain that no one else could have influenced Akiane's sudden and detailed visions about the spiritual realm.
These dreams and visions, which to Akiane seemed to be actual life experiences, began occurring every week, sometimes every day. She started describing details about life in heaven and the future of the earth. The family knew she was not exaggerating or imagining such events, because she did not like to fantasize like other children her age. She never initiated pretend games or talked with imaginary friends. She always took play and work very seriously, preferring everything to be real. Now she shared her new experiences which were unlike anything the parents were accustomed to hearing: the smallest details, the prophetic speech and the sense that she spent more time away in the spiritual world than with her family were hard to ignore or to be taken lightly. Sometimes she sounded like an older woman--not so much because of her voice, but because of her total sincerity, her strangely compelling comments and her vocabulary. But despite her amazing stories, her family still saw her as a fairly typical little girl.
There were few things harder to understand than Akiane's love of music.
For her first five years, she would start to cry or complain every time any kind of music was played. No one had the slightest clue why. One evening as her confused mother was sobbing, Akiane apologized, "Mommy, please, don't cry. I'm sorry I act this way, but the music that I hear in heaven is better than here. This music hurts my ears and my head really bad, but heavenly music is always gentle and wonderful.†Only when she grew older she felt more and more comfortable with melodies she heard around her.
The father assumed that a religious school would be most suitable for his daughter's spiritual inclinations. Akiane, however, did not think so. Unenthusiastically, Akiane began first grade at a parochial school and, although occasionally she seemed to enjoy the structure, the studies and her friends in the school, she often complained of the noise and loneliness there. At home she mostly rested, without any of her vibrant energy left for her art.
Interestingly enough, Akiane was never drawn to read the works of other distinguished writers. "It is not time yet," she would remark whenever the parents offered to buy her a book of poetry.
She would scribble a poem down and sometimes fly them to her mother in the form of paper airplanes. What she loved about poetry was that she could so quickly and effortlessly express ideas she didn't have to discuss-- fully conceived ideas that nobody judged and that came to her effortlessly.
Seeming to receive her instruction from some higher guidance, Akiane paid little attention to anyone else's comments or criticism. She worked with an authority far beyond her years, and quickly progressed to larger and larger canvases, painting allegorical scenes, images of nature, and portraits from imagination, study, observation, models and reference materials. She experimented with different style–expressionistic, symbolical, rapid sketches, and with different media, including oils.
Art v illustration – I don’t really believe the word ‘art’ has much meaning. Art is always a personal thing not subject to the values of others. In a way Art is all activities we undertake – it is the product of human creativity. It is interesting that she is a realist – apparently most child artistic geniuses are far more abstract.
Akiane – Reading her history there is definitely something more to her than those above are accepting due to her reactions to things other than just her art and her dud poetry. I think she may have had a mild form of autism when very young which lead her to develop a mind capable of genius (seems common among ppl with early developed skills). Of course, genius of the type the QRS favour would have required experiences that mentally lead her towards reality, rather than this god business. Probably too late now, god has set in too deeply and she has become too feminised (as David indicated) – but you never know. The family seems to be trying to make her into a saint.
Extracts:
“She was also fascinated by anything relating to human anatomy, health, and behavior. While shopping or visiting friends, she would insist on touching each person's clothing, and feeling the different textures of skin, paying extraordinarily close attention to textures, fabrics, movements and facial expressions.
Although her atheistic family rarely talked about spiritual matters, one morning sometime when she was four, Akiane began sharing her visions of heaven. Because Akiane was home-schooled, and had never been out of their sight, the parents were certain that no one else could have influenced Akiane's sudden and detailed visions about the spiritual realm.
These dreams and visions, which to Akiane seemed to be actual life experiences, began occurring every week, sometimes every day. She started describing details about life in heaven and the future of the earth. The family knew she was not exaggerating or imagining such events, because she did not like to fantasize like other children her age. She never initiated pretend games or talked with imaginary friends. She always took play and work very seriously, preferring everything to be real. Now she shared her new experiences which were unlike anything the parents were accustomed to hearing: the smallest details, the prophetic speech and the sense that she spent more time away in the spiritual world than with her family were hard to ignore or to be taken lightly. Sometimes she sounded like an older woman--not so much because of her voice, but because of her total sincerity, her strangely compelling comments and her vocabulary. But despite her amazing stories, her family still saw her as a fairly typical little girl.
There were few things harder to understand than Akiane's love of music.
For her first five years, she would start to cry or complain every time any kind of music was played. No one had the slightest clue why. One evening as her confused mother was sobbing, Akiane apologized, "Mommy, please, don't cry. I'm sorry I act this way, but the music that I hear in heaven is better than here. This music hurts my ears and my head really bad, but heavenly music is always gentle and wonderful.†Only when she grew older she felt more and more comfortable with melodies she heard around her.
The father assumed that a religious school would be most suitable for his daughter's spiritual inclinations. Akiane, however, did not think so. Unenthusiastically, Akiane began first grade at a parochial school and, although occasionally she seemed to enjoy the structure, the studies and her friends in the school, she often complained of the noise and loneliness there. At home she mostly rested, without any of her vibrant energy left for her art.
Interestingly enough, Akiane was never drawn to read the works of other distinguished writers. "It is not time yet," she would remark whenever the parents offered to buy her a book of poetry.
She would scribble a poem down and sometimes fly them to her mother in the form of paper airplanes. What she loved about poetry was that she could so quickly and effortlessly express ideas she didn't have to discuss-- fully conceived ideas that nobody judged and that came to her effortlessly.
Seeming to receive her instruction from some higher guidance, Akiane paid little attention to anyone else's comments or criticism. She worked with an authority far beyond her years, and quickly progressed to larger and larger canvases, painting allegorical scenes, images of nature, and portraits from imagination, study, observation, models and reference materials. She experimented with different style–expressionistic, symbolical, rapid sketches, and with different media, including oils.
-
MKFaizi
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Ras866 wrote:
It doesn't really matter what non-geniuses think with regards to this matter. They are merely speculating in the dark.
Religious nutters always like to depict God as some kind of loving super-human, but this doesn't mean we have to pay any attention to them. The mere fact that lots of people might say the same thing over and over isn't necessarily significant.
Zero multiplied six billion times still equals zero.
-
Because only a genius can properly articulate what genius is - and only one that is fully conscious and mentally undeluded. No one else is in a position to do this.DQ: It's the other way around. The world has hijacked the term "genius" from wise people and mistakenly applied it to mere craftsmen. I'm simply trying to restore it to its original meaning.
Any movement of genius that is divorced from enlightened consciousness of Reality is not really genius, but blind freakism.
Ras: How do you know that that was its original meaning?
Clearly, the non-geniuses had already hijacked the term by then.I was looking at the etymology of the word "genius". It is a latin-rooted word from about 1400 a.d. and this is what it said:
"1390, from L. genius "guardian deity or spirit which watches over each person from birth; spirit, incarnation, wit, talent."
(http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=g&p=3)
It's original, modern use of the word came in 1649:
"Meaning 'person of natural intelligence or talent' first recorded 1649."
(Same link).
It seems that ever since the term was ever used for conversation, its meaning has only ever had something to do with extraordinary intellect and talent, not the enlightened understanding of the nature of Reality.
It doesn't really matter what non-geniuses think with regards to this matter. They are merely speculating in the dark.
Religious nutters always like to depict God as some kind of loving super-human, but this doesn't mean we have to pay any attention to them. The mere fact that lots of people might say the same thing over and over isn't necessarily significant.
Zero multiplied six billion times still equals zero.
-
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
James wrote:
In many ways, I wonder what is going to happen to her. She has already reached the pinnacle of feminine bliss - where to now? Does she keep repeating herself over and over until she dies? It's perhaps no surprise that many of these "female child prodigies" end up giving it all away and become ordinary housewives when they are older. They can't keep pushing themselves higher and higher, for that would mean eventually entering into the stresses and strains of real genius. So they are condemned to stagnate where they are, or to step back down into ordinary life.
-
That's a crucial point. Through her naivity, and at the encouragment of the incredibly deluded people around her, she is grossly misunderstanding her own insights and altered states. Had she the benefit of wiser heads counselling her, she might have developed the potential to really get somewhere with her thought. But as it stands, I don't hold much hope for her.Of course, genius of the type the QRS favour would have required experiences that mentally lead her towards reality, rather than this god business.
In many ways, I wonder what is going to happen to her. She has already reached the pinnacle of feminine bliss - where to now? Does she keep repeating herself over and over until she dies? It's perhaps no surprise that many of these "female child prodigies" end up giving it all away and become ordinary housewives when they are older. They can't keep pushing themselves higher and higher, for that would mean eventually entering into the stresses and strains of real genius. So they are condemned to stagnate where they are, or to step back down into ordinary life.
-
-
Matt Gregory
- Posts: 1537
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
- Location: United States
Well, I'm impressed! I don't know squat about art, though. I spent some time looking through that Mark Arden's Artchive site--that's about the extent of my art education--and there's very little in there that's very realistic, so it made me think that it was a difficult skill to master or something, but maybe it isn't.MKFaizi wrote:When I was in art school, I was overwhelmed by people with astonishing technical ability. You see a lot of that in freshmen year in art school. By the time you get to be a senior, you don't see that anymore. People start to struggle with what they are doing. Drawing or painting a very realistic picture of a candy bar or glowing pictures of fairies and whatnot is not enough. No matter how well you might be able to draw a picture of Jesus -- well, that is nothing. Such ability may impress non-artists but that's about it. Oprah will be impressed.
-
Rynarlah Syanah
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 7:47 pm
The fact she has a strict Christian upbringing makes this more interesting in my opinion. Her beliefs are the result of this environment. I think its quite possible that this enviroment holds her back of even more potential because Orthodox Christianity in my opinion is a slave mentality, include her parents and agents moulding her into what they want her to be for promotional purposes. At such a tender age, it would be difficult for her to have her own say on this.
Imagine her potential if brought up in environment that encourages the more rational/logical side of spirituality. A much different outcome would manifest i think.
Imagine her potential if brought up in environment that encourages the more rational/logical side of spirituality. A much different outcome would manifest i think.
-
Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
I'd even go further, it takes a genius to properly articulate any name or definition - they are the original name givers, the conceivers of meaning being able to see quite undistorted how the proper term in its context can reflect in a certain way the reality of being it describes. The rest of us are only very good parrots, floating around on seven seas of echoes.DavidQuinn000 wrote:Ras866 wrote:
Because only a genius can properly articulate what genius is - and only one that is fully conscious and mentally undeluded. No one else is in a position to do this.DQ: It's the other way around. The world has hijacked the term "genius" from wise people and mistakenly applied it to mere craftsmen. I'm simply trying to restore it to its original meaning.
Any movement of genius that is divorced from enlightened consciousness of Reality is not really genius, but blind freakism.
Ras: How do you know that that was its original meaning?
It could be interesting then if we study the words from an ancient genius about the matter, Socrates in Plato's Cratylus:Ras866 wrote:I was looking at the etymology of the word "genius". It is a latin-rooted word from about 1400 a.d. and this is what it said:
"1390, from L. genius "guardian deity or spirit which watches over each person from birth; spirit, incarnation, wit, talent."
(http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=g&p=3)
And notice also:And I say too, that every wise man who happens to be a good man is more than human (daimonion) both in life and death, and is rightly called a demon.
(Excerpts taken from: Cratylus by Plato, 360 B.C.E)Soc. My dear Hermogenes, the first imposers of names must surely have been considerable persons; they were philosophers, and had a good deal to say.
Her. Well, and what of them?
Soc. They are the men to whom I should attribute the imposition of names. Even in foreign names, if you analyze them, a meaning is still discernible.
-
Foresta Gump
Genius Sees Genius!
I agree with one thing that David says, that is "because only a genius can properly articulate what genius is" these are my words rearranged in your own style. I've repeated this term over and over again.
You believe genius can only be male orientated, I disagree. This young girl who is not a woman yet, has developed her visual concept, to her degree of her understanding it. I'd say she is consciously enlightened to a large degree considering no other child has produced what she has. Consider how developed her mind is now at the tender age of ten, look at what she has created from her visual ability, look even further into what she will produce, when her mind is even more fully developed. Look at what her femininity has produced! A masculine production might be that of solar system stuff, or trucks, whatever, the production whether it be from masculinity or femininity, is that of a partially developed mind at that young age of ten.
You believe genius can only be male orientated, I disagree. This young girl who is not a woman yet, has developed her visual concept, to her degree of her understanding it. I'd say she is consciously enlightened to a large degree considering no other child has produced what she has. Consider how developed her mind is now at the tender age of ten, look at what she has created from her visual ability, look even further into what she will produce, when her mind is even more fully developed. Look at what her femininity has produced! A masculine production might be that of solar system stuff, or trucks, whatever, the production whether it be from masculinity or femininity, is that of a partially developed mind at that young age of ten.
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Foresta wrote:
There have been plenty of child prodigies in human history, both male and female, and very few of them ever develop into enlightened sages.
Being a child prodigy can too easily be a curse around your neck. Certain areas of your psychology develop too fast and become out-of-sinc with the rest of your development. Your ego becomes too attached to the praise and attention which is showered upon you because of your out-of-sinc development. Instead of growing into a well-rounded genius, you happily develop into a one-sided freak.
This is what I see happening with this poor little girl. Already, her mystical and romantic side has developed so much, to the neglect of her intellectual development, that she resembles a Hare Krisha devotee. She is in complete la-la-land at the moment. She really needs to step back into reality and develop her cold-hearted intellectual side, but how can she begin to do this without going against everything that her parents have carefully built up around her? Already, her celebrity is working against her. She doesn't stand a chance.
-
Unfortunately, this doesn't preclude the possibility of fools imagining they are geniuses.I agree with one thing that David says, that is "because only a genius can properly articulate what genius is" these are my words rearranged in your own style. I've repeated this term over and over again.
You believe genius can only be male orientated, I disagree. This young girl who is not a woman yet, has developed her visual concept, to her degree of her understanding it. I'd say she is consciously enlightened to a large degree considering no other child has produced what she has.
There have been plenty of child prodigies in human history, both male and female, and very few of them ever develop into enlightened sages.
Being a child prodigy can too easily be a curse around your neck. Certain areas of your psychology develop too fast and become out-of-sinc with the rest of your development. Your ego becomes too attached to the praise and attention which is showered upon you because of your out-of-sinc development. Instead of growing into a well-rounded genius, you happily develop into a one-sided freak.
This is what I see happening with this poor little girl. Already, her mystical and romantic side has developed so much, to the neglect of her intellectual development, that she resembles a Hare Krisha devotee. She is in complete la-la-land at the moment. She really needs to step back into reality and develop her cold-hearted intellectual side, but how can she begin to do this without going against everything that her parents have carefully built up around her? Already, her celebrity is working against her. She doesn't stand a chance.
-
-
Matt Gregory
- Posts: 1537
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
- Location: United States
Yeah, and her parents are perverts, too. They had four kids and couldn't even afford to take care of them. He should have been bonking her in the butt instead.Rynarlah Syanah wrote:The fact she has a strict Christian upbringing makes this more interesting in my opinion. Her beliefs are the result of this environment. I think its quite possible that this enviroment holds her back of even more potential because Orthodox Christianity in my opinion is a slave mentality, include her parents and agents moulding her into what they want her to be for promotional purposes. At such a tender age, it would be difficult for her to have her own say on this.
-
MKFaizi
But according to the blurbs on the site, her family only became Christian because the brat converted them when she was four years old -- due to her beatific visions and whatnot. God knows -- and I mean that -- if one of my kids had tried to convert me to Christianity when he/she was four years old -- or any age -- I would have whooped 'im.
I have not been a strict parent but I do have some limits and having a four year old kid trying to convert me to Christianity is one of 'em.
I can deal with rap and death metal -- I like it -- but damn. I don't allow Christianity in my house. That's where I draw the line. Mama don't do that. Prodigy be danged. I mean, if my kid started painting blow dried Jesuses, there would be a reckoning of some sort. Maybe, a baptism.
By fire.
Faizi
I have not been a strict parent but I do have some limits and having a four year old kid trying to convert me to Christianity is one of 'em.
I can deal with rap and death metal -- I like it -- but damn. I don't allow Christianity in my house. That's where I draw the line. Mama don't do that. Prodigy be danged. I mean, if my kid started painting blow dried Jesuses, there would be a reckoning of some sort. Maybe, a baptism.
By fire.
Faizi
-
Foresta Gump
David.....I'm Seeking You!
David
Quick cover your head, there's a woodpecker above.
Kidding
All joking aside
I have a few questions, I know I put you on the spot, but I'm deliberately cold-hearted sometimes.
What does conscious enlightment mean to you?
And please feel free to ask me anything.
Can you determine if 'your' thought is delusional or not, and how can you be certain of your answer?
Bare with me there's only two more
Do you believe you possess genius presently? Yes or No
One more!
How do you feel about these questions?
Dr. Donna Thompson leaves the room
Quick cover your head, there's a woodpecker above.
Kidding
All joking aside
I have a few questions, I know I put you on the spot, but I'm deliberately cold-hearted sometimes.
What does conscious enlightment mean to you?
And please feel free to ask me anything.
Can you determine if 'your' thought is delusional or not, and how can you be certain of your answer?
Bare with me there's only two more
Do you believe you possess genius presently? Yes or No
One more!
How do you feel about these questions?
Dr. Donna Thompson leaves the room
-
MKFaizi
Matt Gregory,
Thanks for the Mark Arden site. Definitely, you can get a lot from that site.
Yes, you are impressed by technical ability. I am, too. When I was in art school, I was amazed by the technical ability of some people to render a person's face or other things in perfect replication. I am certainly not saying such ability is a bad thing. But, on the whole, it is a given that an artist will have talent. Just like it is given that a guitarist will have talent.
But not every guitarist is a Jimmy Page or a Jimmy Hendrix or a Steve Vai, though many guitarists are talented. My son has a thirteen year old friend who started guiitar when he was four. He is a regular Johnny B. Good. I am certainly not going to say that his skill is a bad thing. He is very talented. For all that I know, he may be the next Hendrix.
As you pointed out to me in another post, Vai is the technical wiz while Hendrix's ability was a a notch above that.
It's the same thing with art.
There are thousands of talented people who can paint an exact two dimensional replica of an apple or a person. I lived next door for many years with a woman who possessed that sort of talent. But she did not have an a thought in her head. Pretty well brainless. All she cared about was men -- women to you. But, damn, she could paint. According to you, you would be impressed by her ability, even though she was brainless and would have loved to get in your pants. Are you so easily seduced?
What is talent without a brain?
I do not think that anyone mentioned on the Artchive was brainless. I do not think that art can ever approach philosophy but the premise is similar. The idea of art is one of mental evolution; investigation; interest in the mind. Technical ability is beside the point.
Philosophy, as you know, is full of technical "greats."
As you mentioned, none of the artists featured on the Artchives are realistic. However, some of them render human beings and other subjects in a non abstract mode -- believable as depictions but somewhat psychedelic.
I like Vermeer. Paints human beings as though they are apples or pumpkins or pears. His human beings are still life. Nice disinterested detachment there.
I also like Francis Bacon. Good sense of humor coupled with xray vision. I like his depictions of human beings stripped down. His vision seems to be one of investigation of flesh but the desire to stip apart flesh is desire to know the mind.
I admire Aubrey Beardsley for his spareness in his illustration. He was illustrator for Oscar Wilde. I think it is rather amazing that he had the discipline to stop himself. Given his talent for design, he could have gone crazy with it. But he did not.
I do not think he could have been Wilde's illustrator had he been a frivolous man.
I like Goya. Kind of the artistic equivalent of Kafka.
I kind of like Freud's portraits of depravity.
I like Manet's depiction of the 'ho in his Olympia. She looks like many a fifteen year old girl anywhere. I don't think that Kevin Solway or David Quinn or even Nietzsche or Weininger could have described "Woman" in any more explicit terms than Manet's Olympia.
I admire Andrew Wyeth's depicition of a depraved woman. A photograph could not have done that. Amazing. Part technical skill and part intense desire to portray human depravity -- which is quite common.
I cannot say that this little girl's paintings compare with these small genius painters. Fortunately, these painters spent their childhoods in privacy. They each matured. One thing about art is that it demands maturity before reward. Indeed, many artists are long dead before they are recognized.
Even minor artists do not reach gallery status in a serious -- i.e., non-buttfucking way -- until they are forty.
I am impressed by abilility. I think this little girl has ability. I think my son's thirteen year old guitarist friend has ability.
I know that many a thirteen year old kid could dazzle you with a painterly rendition of a Snickers wrapper. According to you, you would be impressed.
I think that is kind of an insult to Vermeer or Michaelangelo or Van Dyke or Eakins or Manet or Courbet or Bacon or Bosch.
I do not believe that an artist is a pet. This girl is a pet. Her rendition of her blow dried Prince of Piece impresses you. I cannot imagine how you can compare her poster art to Rembrandt, et.al.
My guess is that she will end up being a housewife or teacher. Because her youthful efforts are being exploited by adults, her mental development is bound to be stunted.
A child prodigy who succeeds as an adult is rare. Mozart was such a prodigy. He was profoundly gifted but died as an immature asshole. Pretty good for a child prodigy.
So, how can people on Genius even begin to praise this girl as genius?
I think her case perfectly illustrates idiocy. Kind of pathetic that "Genius" can be so easily impressed.
Causes me to wonder, considering the shallowness, whether any discussion is worthwhile here.
I mean, I could just post some painting of a candy bar or Jesus and you all would be impressed.
Amazing it could be that easy.
Suckers.
Faizi
Thanks for the Mark Arden site. Definitely, you can get a lot from that site.
Yes, you are impressed by technical ability. I am, too. When I was in art school, I was amazed by the technical ability of some people to render a person's face or other things in perfect replication. I am certainly not saying such ability is a bad thing. But, on the whole, it is a given that an artist will have talent. Just like it is given that a guitarist will have talent.
But not every guitarist is a Jimmy Page or a Jimmy Hendrix or a Steve Vai, though many guitarists are talented. My son has a thirteen year old friend who started guiitar when he was four. He is a regular Johnny B. Good. I am certainly not going to say that his skill is a bad thing. He is very talented. For all that I know, he may be the next Hendrix.
As you pointed out to me in another post, Vai is the technical wiz while Hendrix's ability was a a notch above that.
It's the same thing with art.
There are thousands of talented people who can paint an exact two dimensional replica of an apple or a person. I lived next door for many years with a woman who possessed that sort of talent. But she did not have an a thought in her head. Pretty well brainless. All she cared about was men -- women to you. But, damn, she could paint. According to you, you would be impressed by her ability, even though she was brainless and would have loved to get in your pants. Are you so easily seduced?
What is talent without a brain?
I do not think that anyone mentioned on the Artchive was brainless. I do not think that art can ever approach philosophy but the premise is similar. The idea of art is one of mental evolution; investigation; interest in the mind. Technical ability is beside the point.
Philosophy, as you know, is full of technical "greats."
As you mentioned, none of the artists featured on the Artchives are realistic. However, some of them render human beings and other subjects in a non abstract mode -- believable as depictions but somewhat psychedelic.
I like Vermeer. Paints human beings as though they are apples or pumpkins or pears. His human beings are still life. Nice disinterested detachment there.
I also like Francis Bacon. Good sense of humor coupled with xray vision. I like his depictions of human beings stripped down. His vision seems to be one of investigation of flesh but the desire to stip apart flesh is desire to know the mind.
I admire Aubrey Beardsley for his spareness in his illustration. He was illustrator for Oscar Wilde. I think it is rather amazing that he had the discipline to stop himself. Given his talent for design, he could have gone crazy with it. But he did not.
I do not think he could have been Wilde's illustrator had he been a frivolous man.
I like Goya. Kind of the artistic equivalent of Kafka.
I kind of like Freud's portraits of depravity.
I like Manet's depiction of the 'ho in his Olympia. She looks like many a fifteen year old girl anywhere. I don't think that Kevin Solway or David Quinn or even Nietzsche or Weininger could have described "Woman" in any more explicit terms than Manet's Olympia.
I admire Andrew Wyeth's depicition of a depraved woman. A photograph could not have done that. Amazing. Part technical skill and part intense desire to portray human depravity -- which is quite common.
I cannot say that this little girl's paintings compare with these small genius painters. Fortunately, these painters spent their childhoods in privacy. They each matured. One thing about art is that it demands maturity before reward. Indeed, many artists are long dead before they are recognized.
Even minor artists do not reach gallery status in a serious -- i.e., non-buttfucking way -- until they are forty.
I am impressed by abilility. I think this little girl has ability. I think my son's thirteen year old guitarist friend has ability.
I know that many a thirteen year old kid could dazzle you with a painterly rendition of a Snickers wrapper. According to you, you would be impressed.
I think that is kind of an insult to Vermeer or Michaelangelo or Van Dyke or Eakins or Manet or Courbet or Bacon or Bosch.
I do not believe that an artist is a pet. This girl is a pet. Her rendition of her blow dried Prince of Piece impresses you. I cannot imagine how you can compare her poster art to Rembrandt, et.al.
My guess is that she will end up being a housewife or teacher. Because her youthful efforts are being exploited by adults, her mental development is bound to be stunted.
A child prodigy who succeeds as an adult is rare. Mozart was such a prodigy. He was profoundly gifted but died as an immature asshole. Pretty good for a child prodigy.
So, how can people on Genius even begin to praise this girl as genius?
I think her case perfectly illustrates idiocy. Kind of pathetic that "Genius" can be so easily impressed.
Causes me to wonder, considering the shallowness, whether any discussion is worthwhile here.
I mean, I could just post some painting of a candy bar or Jesus and you all would be impressed.
Amazing it could be that easy.
Suckers.
Faizi
