James Absolon explains how this Pope-themed film, despite its risky premise, works
Alex Pollard reviews Hollywood's biopic of the controversial Margaret Thatcher
The documentary by Amir Bar-Lev is ultimately a very sensitively and objectively-shot piece of work. With footage from art critics, collectors and the family of the child in question, the story is unveiled as Bar-Lev covers all angles in this intriguing story. The viewer gains insights into the family’s dynamics and the parents’ reflections on the situation.
During the course of the film, I went through a series of opinions regarding the origin of the child’s work. I started out cynical, I changed my mind and then predictably agreed with Bar-Lev’s opinion that although Marla may have had some artistic input, the bulk of the work was given some form of direction by her pushy father. When Marla’s mother claims: ‘Mark [father] always wanted to be in the spotlight’ every suspicion is confirmed; the father’s own ambitions to be a famous artist have gotten the better of him and resulted in a rather aggressive direction of his daughter’s ‘work’. As the story unfolds and the public’s outraged reaction to the scandal rips the family to shreds, the issues of media exploitation and the nature of our rise-and-fall celebrity culture are raised for question. The fact that this is a child, regardless of the question of parental guidance, opens questions about the nature of art and closes the question about whether our society is as ruthless as purported; clearly so.
If the intrinsic value is due to the exposition of talent and conveyance of deep meaning, then does it matter who actually did the painting?
In Ye Olde Days, painting was about conveying a narrative says a New York Times art critic in the documentary. Today tables have turned; the spotlight is on the artist and not the art itself. The narratives are the lives of the artists; the personas they create. Think Tracy Emin, think Damien Hirst. It seems that modern art does not need to incorporate any real talent. Give it a Unique Selling Point and the ‘work’ will sell itself. Modern art is portrayed in this film to be about the fame and capital it creates rather than what it is supposed to mean. If the intrinsic value is due to the exposition of talent and conveyance of deep meaning like many art collectors would have us believe, then does it matter who actually did the paintings?
This search for meaning abstract art supposedly promotes is ridiculed by this child’s ‘talent’ for this emotionally-wrought genre of painting. If a normal child, with no concept of the meaning that adults place upon scribbles on a canvas, can paint equally well or better than the ‘professionals’, then do the traditional attributed meanings still hold their credence?
When a spectator says: ‘This is where she starts to get a little more figurative’ and a painting is named ‘Ode to Pollock’, the sense of pseudo-intellectualism is almost unbearable. These adults place an over-analytical aspect onto the works, that if genuine, are valuable due to their naturalistic youthful charm.
When Michael Kimmerman from the New York Times says “Your documentary on some level is going to be a lie,” he is referring to the subjective and representational element of art. Art is not about truth; it is not about conveying some kind of otherwise unobtainable message. It is in some respects about producing aesthetic brilliance in a distanced world, for sheer entertainment. This is what Marla’s painting and to some extent the documentary simultaneously achieve.
The only other question left in respect to Marla, and is still left to be answered is: at what cost?
You must log in to submit a comment.
