Talk:Akiane Kramarik
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
[edit] References
Was this article just written by her publicist? Some citations, for instance, might be nice. Or a more encyclopedic tone.
- This artical is in fact completely lacking in any encyclopedic tone. Its actually less substantial than the CNN blurb about her. It's going to need some work. HumanisticJones 17:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I have to apologize first...cause English is not my native language...however... I am wondering whether "Chines" really means "Chinese"?? Somebody please tell me.... Tsungyenlee 14:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] She may be fake
http://forums.studioproducts.com/showthread.php?t=27656 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.143.240.34 (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
I looked at the link above and found no hard evidence, only second or third-hand insinuation that her art couldn't have been done by her because she hadn't been directly witnessed at work or that different paintings were too different in style to be by the same hand. Nobody doubts that Picasso's Cubist paintings were done by the same hand as the much different, realistic drawings he made of his own young children. And as for the Kitschy aspects of Akiane's work, that seems to me to be a piece of evidence for, not against, their creation by a pre-adolescent. Petersoncello 13:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] No Hard Proof of Talent
I'm noticing a lot of work but I don't see a 'how to' or some other proof of ability. The poetry is hard to see in action, sure, but you would think if she was really this good of an artist she'd have some sort of video of her in action; the official site claims there are videos, but they're not showing them and they sure aren't selling them. If only her parents had a way to spread this proof of her talent without costing lots of money and so lots of people could see for themselves and pass on this information online to other online skeptics . . . oh, I know! YouTube! How silly of me . . .
Furthermore I'm not seeing a lot of range, emotion, or even evolution. A kid who hasn't even hit puberty should be showing at least SOME evolution as her body changes and her arm span gets longer (and especially as the wrist bones change up). She shouldn't even be able to REACH the tops of most of her works, and yet the brushstrokes appear to be consistent, in length, width, and brush-load, AND in spatial perspective? She either has a great eye or a really creative way of getting those little edges of canvas, or something about this isn't right.
The Oprah stuff is from age 9 (and hey, Oprah's been fooled before . . . A Million Little Pieces comes to mind), just a scant year from when she started producing en masse, with very little demonstrated (or documented, for that matter) education. Likewise, her signature in a few places doesn't demonstrate the same care shown in the photos.
It has all the signs of a good marketing blitz, but little more. I'm all for encouraging young artists, but I have a hard time believing this girl when so much of her process isn't available to the public and yet she still has enough time to get this much press and publicity. Veled 00:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- There's a video of her painting here, maybe not as much proof as you wanted but I don't think it's that hard to believe. If you look at her official website you'll see that her paintings have evolved as she's gotten older (ie. they've gotten better). I'm not sure what kind of changes you expected to see in her paintings due to her arms getting longer but surely they would've been minimal? And an experience painter would've been able to compensate for it (by the time she reached puberty she had already been painting for over 5 years.)
- She shouldn't even be able to REACH the tops of most of her works, and yet the brushstrokes appear to be consistent, in length, width, and brush-load, AND in spatial perspective?
- You've studied her paintings that closely? To tell you the truth I've noticed that the perspective in a lot of her paintings weren't perfect, but still, is it so hard to believe that maybe she stood on something to reach the tops of her paintings? Ospinad 19:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- SOMEBODY painted those wonderful paintings. If not Akiane, then who? Don't you think the real artist would want the recognition? jspugh 20:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I seem to remember that 20/20 did a piece on her, and suggested that her father was a failed artist, who may be responsible for much of the paintings. That rings likely to me for several reasons. 1) Paintings of that caliber would not create a stir if an adult did them, because there are many adult painters who can paint like that; 2) the very large portraits were a trend among artists of the period when he would have been a young painter - late seventies and early eighties; 3) the level of skill and maturity needed for this work is simply not conceivable to have been created by a child, unless you bring in religious faith. Basically, you'd have to be a believer of divine inspiration (not as to subject matter, but to produce this level of skill) to be able to suspend skepticism, and that seems a likely reason why religion is invoked in the subject matter, and the story that she is divinely inspired. If the family wasn't selling her "original" works for up to a million dollars, and her reproductions (giclees) for thousands, I would have less reason for skepticism. Catwoman07076 (talk) 08:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
