[78-L] Everyone Their Own Picasso ^, (was Marsalis makes the world safe for pure jazz^)

[agp]

This discussion reminds me of the debate brought about in the 
documentary My Kid Could Paint That. This film is about Marla 
Olmstead, who was, at the time, 4 years old ands seen as a prodigy 
painter of abstract art

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_kid_could_paint_that

It is alleged there and on a segment on 60 Minutes alleging that her 
father actually painted the works. They are very Jackson Pollock like.

My point in mentioning it is not to determine whether or not she 
painted the works, but rather the works themselves. IMHO, and only in 
IMHO, they look like random splotches of paint throw on the canvas 
and then smeared about. Even that isn't my point though.

My point is that it took the likes of Oprah Winnfrey to purchase one 
and dub her a genius. At that point all of her lap-dogs came running 
and HAD to have one too. They seemingly bought without questioning. 
So can it be said that the general thing of art, whether it be 
painting or music, is highly influenced by the fact the preference of 
celebrities and NOT by artistic merit. In other words, could anyone 
squawk a bit on a sax, release it, and if the likes of Oprah go 
gaa-gaa for it, be dubbed a musical genius?

Could it possibly be that a majority of what we deem to be artistic, 
musical, or cinematic genius is actually crap elevated to a position 
of honour because an influential person likes it,and we just go along 
so that we are seen as being like them?

T