In light of this movie, this article is extremely funny.
The movie I cited is ridiculous. Well, the movie itself isn't, but the subject matter is. It's about a little girl who is apparently a child prodigy and paints amazing pictures. They look like any kid's finger paintings to me, but people pay inordinate amounts of money for them. That's ridiculous in itself, but the controversy behind the whole thing is that people don't think the kid actually painted them. They think her father was helping her paint them.
*blink blink*
What? Are you serious? Do you really think the kid needs the help to paint something like that? I painted stuff like that all the time when I was a kid, and I didn't get a cent for it. Why? BECAUSE IT'S NOT ART. Did the kid paint them or not? Does it matter? She's not a genius artist either way. She's a kid.
That's why the Daily Mail article is so funny. A woman has given her very young son some paints and canvas and told him to go at it. She took those paintings, made up some incredibly exaggerated descriptions, and put them online for sale. She's not serious, of course, since it's only a 2-year-old's paintings. BUT PEOPLE PAYED MONEY FOR THEM.
Oh my goodness. The joke's on them, I guess.
Posted by Shenlon at December 13, 2007 12:03 AM