# 10 year old artist sells $400,000 of paintings in twenty minutes



## Kaickul (Jul 23, 2013)

So far he has earned over $2 million in sales for his artwork. 








A few of his oil paintings.






































http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2366724/Kieron-Williamson-10-dubbed-Mini-Monet-sees-earnings-soar-1-5m-latest-23-works-sell-250K.html?ito=feeds-newsxml


----------



## Nile (Jul 23, 2013)

all my wut


He's good though.


----------



## -42- (Jul 23, 2013)

He's good but my awe at his talent is damped by my hatred of impressionism.


----------



## pink freud (Jul 23, 2013)

That first one is really lifelike but the rest are all blurry.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (Jul 23, 2013)

He's really good. Good luck to him.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 24, 2013)

Talented for sure, but not worth as much as people seem to be paying. 

In fairness I'm not a huge fan of impressionism. These type of paintings are a dime a dozen at a starving artist art show.

[EDIT]

Disclaimer: I'm judging him on his work and ignoring his age. 

Talent may be on a sliding scale when it comes to age, but for music and artwork I shouldn't have to tell someone their age before they call something amazing or a masterpiece. 
I'm not a _connaisseur of art, but I don't see anything particularly unique or distinctive about his work.
_


----------



## flexkill (Jul 24, 2013)

This is very very good!!! And very different. He shows a wide range of skills between these two pieces I think.


----------



## Dooky (Jul 24, 2013)

He's very good. Lucky bastards set for life at the age of 10.


----------



## mcd (Jul 24, 2013)

-42- said:


> He's good but my awe at his talent is damped by my hatred of ten year old millionaires




Fixed for you


----------



## The Reverend (Jul 24, 2013)

Kid's on point. I'm not schooled in art appreciation, but I like what he's created so far. I know I wouldn't pay more than a few hundred bucks for one of his paintings.


----------



## Hyacinth (Jul 24, 2013)

People will pay a lot of money for art even if it isn't "good" because certain paintings speak to certain people and beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and if the beholder has a lot of money, the artist is going to be very happy.


----------



## skeels (Jul 24, 2013)

Kid has a good eye.


----------



## Carver (Jul 24, 2013)

well, looks like its "head in the oven" for me. see you all later.


----------



## crg123 (Jul 24, 2013)

Welp. Time to quit architecture and start painting. I have a little nephew who I could say finger painted them all.... should be worth a couple grand.... lolll


----------



## Kaappari (Jul 24, 2013)

The one with sunset over the field is very beautiful.


----------



## Mexi (Jul 24, 2013)

I think they're all quite impressive, not sure I understand all the underwhelmed feelings; this kid is 10. some of you were probably still wetting your beds by then. Leave the technical aspect aside, very few children have the drive and discipline for a single outlet of creative expression at that age.

I think a lot of the $2 million he's made so far has come art types that expect this kid to become the next monet or some shit. these paintings are *investments* so that 40 years down the line, when the kid is (maybe) even more famous, they will be worth considerably more: man 1:"ohai i have a williamson orig" man 2: "no wai" /pretentious snickering

The thing about the art world is that the money made off art is hardly an objective measurement of of the _quality_ of the art. Oftentimes, pricey art is just bought to be resold in the future when it has increased in value, not necessarily appreciated for its beauty.

This kid has potential, but I foresee him turning out in 2 ways: a) people will lose interest (and so will he) and we won't hear from him again or b) he will go down the classic child artist/celebrity route, making millions and then crashing and burning during his teens: blowing it all on dope and coke and leaving a bloated, nude corpse for police to find in a sleazy vegas motel room on hazy august morning.

I'm thinking a) is more likely but


----------



## MetalBuddah (Jul 24, 2013)

Came in expecting this....





Came out like...






Those paintings are quite good. If people genuinely like his work, then he deserves all this money he is making. My sister is a painter and she is 26....she would probably be equally as impressed with his work as I am


----------



## Eclipse (Jul 24, 2013)

Well damn. Those are quite amazing.


----------



## cwhitey2 (Jul 24, 2013)

I'm impressed 


My only artistic ability is music.... and I'm not even good at that


----------



## flint757 (Jul 24, 2013)

Mexi said:


> I think they're all quite impressive, not sure I understand all the underwhelmed feelings; this kid is 10. some of you were probably still wetting your beds by then. Leave the technical aspect aside, very few children have the drive and discipline for a single outlet of creative expression at that age.



Because art should stand on its own. Yes, the kid is extremely talented and shows a lot of potential. The art reflects this. However, the art on its own, while quite good (hell of a lot better than I could do ) does not leave me thinking he is the next Monet. Maybe someday and that may be enough reason for others to invest in his art, but as of now it does not reflect in his current work IMO. It doesn't look any better or worse than what I've seen locally. It's only when you take age into account that people are impressed to the level people are expressing. That reflects on him, though, not the work itself. I'd be impressed if I saw a 4 year old playing Van Halen Eruption, that doesn't mean I'm going to pay to go see him play. See the difference?

Ignore me I'm just being a cynical bastard. 



Mexi said:


> This kid has potential, but I foresee him turning out in 2 ways: a) people will lose interest (and so will he) and we won't hear from him again or b) he will go down the classic child artist/celebrity route, making millions and then crashing and burning during his teens: blowing it all on dope and coke and leaving a bloated, nude corpse for police to find in a sleazy vegas motel room on hazy august morning.
> 
> I'm thinking a) is more likely but



Agreed.

[EDIT]

I take issue with taking age into account because then we end up giving too much or not enough credit for something just because of someones age. When people are young we excuse mistakes and when people are old (older) we are too critical. If something is good it's good and if it's bad then it's bad as far as my perspective goes. I firmly believe in work speaking for itself.


----------



## gunshow86de (Jul 24, 2013)

Somebody send these to Maddox.

I Am Better Than Your Kids - Page 1


----------



## Mexi (Jul 24, 2013)

flint757 said:


> I take issue with taking age into account because then we end up giving too much or not enough credit for something just because of someones age. When people are young we excuse mistakes and when people are old (older) we are too critical. If something is good it's good and if it's bad then it's bad as far as my perspective goes. I firmly believe in work speaking for itself.










This looks fairly generic no? The work speaks for itself does it not? What if I told you that it was painted by a blind man (Ersef Armagan) Does your appreciation of it not increase knowing that its creator has never "seen" anything in their life? That they have no way of grasping fundamental artistic techniques that require vision to understand? (if it doesn't then damn you ARE cynical man, ) I think that when it comes to art, we need to take all variables into consideration in order to truly establish its merit.

As a result, I think the amount of years it takes to master an art form or profession is important and as such, age tends to be a factor. I know people that have spent their entire adult lives that cannot paint as well as this Williamson kid. That is not to say that they are not talented at some level, but it says a lot more about this kid being naturally gifted. Whether it is music or painting, kids like these often have an easier time creating this stuff than most adults because they have a natural gift for it. Honestly, I think he'll get exploited by his parents for the monies and he'll get burned out in a couple years.


----------



## jonajon91 (Jul 24, 2013)

I think he definitely has skill, but I still want to punch him in his stupid face!


----------



## KevHo (Jul 24, 2013)

Hopefully this dude's parents aren't complete d bags and don't rob him blind like most of the child star cases you see.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 24, 2013)

Mexi said:


> This looks fairly generic no? The work speaks for itself does it not? What if I told you that it was painted by a blind man (Ersef Armagan) Does your appreciation of it not increase knowing that its creator has never "seen" anything in their life? That they have no way of grasping fundamental artistic techniques that require vision to understand? (if it doesn't then damn you ARE cynical man, ) I think that when it comes to art, we need to take all variables into consideration in order to truly establish its merit.
> 
> As a result, I think the amount of years it takes to master an art form or profession is important and as such, age tends to be a factor. I know people that have spent their entire adult lives that cannot paint as well as this Williamson kid. That is not to say that they are not talented at some level, but it says a lot more about this kid being naturally gifted. Whether it is music or painting, kids like these often have an easier time creating this stuff than most adults because they have a natural gift for it. Honestly, I think he'll get exploited by his parents for the monies and he'll get burned out in a couple years.



Like I said, I can appreciate that fact and I think, in both cases, it is damn impressive. I even think, in both cases, they are worth buying. Ignoring who did it though, it isn't so jaw dropping that it NEEDS to be owned or come with a ridiculous price tag. 

I don't take umbrage with his skill, his art or the fact that people want it. My issue is when something generic, mediocre, average or even just above average (not implying the art in question is) gets skyrocketed into the 'masterpiece' category simply because of the person who did it (be it fame, age, situation, etc.). That is more about the drama around the art than the art itself IMO. In such a situation I'd be impressed with the individual more so than the art itself which is fine, but there is a distinction.

We shouldn't give people credit for something they haven't even done yet. He may plateau or spiral down and this is the best we get from him. When he gets there, whatever age he may be, is when he should be given the credit he deserves. That's not to say he doesn't deserve credit for some great pieces in such a short career, but Monet he is not.


----------



## Mexi (Jul 24, 2013)

well then the problem is with the people who elevate mediocrity to perfection, i.e everyone in the art world that wants to make a buck off anyone. 

Interestingly, this problem is not specific to the art world, but to our society as a whole. we encourage the superficiality of everything, condensing things down to their most basic or headline-inducing wording. We focus on inane bs like someone's age or handicap/background in some way to invariably make up for the lack of substance of the thing/person that we're praising. 

society _man_...

edit:



flint757 said:


> We shouldn't give people credit for something they haven't even done yet.



hahaha, this instantly reminded me of Obama's nobel peace prize.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 24, 2013)

Mexi said:


> well then the problem is with the people who elevate mediocrity to perfection, i.e everyone in the art world that wants to make a buck off anyone.
> 
> Interestingly, this problem is not specific to the art world, but to our society as a whole. we encourage the superficiality of everything, condensing things down to their most basic or headline-inducing wording. We focus on inane bs like someone's age or handicap/background in some way to invariably make up for the lack of substance of the thing/person that we're praising.
> 
> society _man_...



Yep, happens all the time and everywhere. Not a fan either.



Mexi said:


> edit:
> 
> 
> 
> hahaha, this instantly reminded me of Obama's nobel peace prize.



I was thinking the same thing when I wrote it.


----------



## ilyti (Jul 24, 2013)

I prefer Marla Olmstead.











But that's because I like abstract more than impressionism. Seriously, it's OVER, gone and dead for at least a hundred years. Anyway, I like Marla's work even after the controversy about whether her dad helped her with her paintings, because I love the final product, no matter who did what. If anyone here is genuinely interested in the business and meaningfulness of painting as an art form in the modern world (spoiler: it's completely obsolete), I definitely recommend this documentary. My Kid Could Paint That - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## flint757 (Jul 24, 2013)

I like that better as well honestly. Could also care less if the father did in fact help too because I like the product not the artist.


----------



## flexkill (Jul 24, 2013)

That is fvcking amazing!!!!


----------



## ilyti (Jul 24, 2013)

Yeah but like, a kid could do that! It's just throwing paint at a canvas and mashing your hands into it, right?


----------



## Choop (Jul 24, 2013)

Regardless of any other details about the artist, those paintings are pretty swell. I'm an art student (have taken 3 painting classes, wish I could justify taking more) and there is a lot going on in those paintings that really make them work. I should preface that I like impressionism (but not only, don't get me wrong). It's very cool to me that one can make a painting utilizing everything that makes a great photo-realistic painting work, without implementing every level of the detail. In a way I think it takes more skill, in a sort of "less is more" kind of way. After you nail the major elements of a piece that will make it unified, the detail you put in is all really just a matter of time spent. It can also help to emphasize a certain mood, or other elements of a work even. He seems to be able to create a sense of depth and atmosphere (among other aspects) that is quite good. I say "awesome" that he could be so lucky as to sell his stuff for so much.


----------



## Mexi (Jul 25, 2013)

ilyti said:


> Yeah but like, a kid could do that! It's just throwing paint at a canvas and mashing your hands into it, right?



funny how the title of the documentary about her takes a jab at those sorts of characterizations

My Kid Could Paint That (2007) - IMDb


----------



## ZeroS1gnol (Jul 25, 2013)

Beautifully crafted, but still all aesthetics and technique - no substance. Looks like a classic idiot savant. I don't want to hate on this, because the paintings look good, but to be able to simply reproduce an art style doesn't make you an artist - it's only mechanical.


----------



## ilyti (Jul 26, 2013)

Mexi said:


> funny how the title of the documentary about her takes a jab at those sorts of characterizations
> 
> My Kid Could Paint That (2007) - IMDb


Lol dude I just posted a link to that documentary.


----------



## guitareben (Jul 28, 2013)

Kid can draw  

Especially like the one with the hay bails.


----------



## asher (Jul 28, 2013)

ZeroS1gnol said:


> Beautifully crafted, but still all aesthetics and technique - no substance. Looks like a classic idiot savant. I don't want to hate on this, because the paintings look good, but to be able to simply reproduce an art style doesn't make you an artist - it's only mechanical.



I think you can see, style copping or no, that the kid's got a pretty good eye (for composition and such and all the other things the phrase refers to). That's much harder to teach and carries over between style and medium.


----------



## jonajon91 (Jul 29, 2013)

jonajon91 said:


> I think he definitely has skill, but I still want to punch him in his stupid face!



Seriously? I get repped for this? LOOK AT HIS SMUG LITTLE FACE!



Liquid Rage said:


>


----------



## pink freud (Jul 29, 2013)

jonajon91 said:


> Seriously? I get repped for this? LOOK AT HIS SMUG LITTLE FACE!


----------

