Bizarre, International, Society

What Do You Think of This Painting?

Do you like this painting? Well, it was painted by a six-year-old named Kieron Williamson.

Called the next Picasso, Williamson is now 7 and has amazing talent as a painter. At seven, I recall trying to control embarrassing drooling and cursive writing.

Williamson’s paintings are selling like hot cakes and attracting considerable buzz on the Internet, here and here and here.

With a religious nut attacking a grandfather and granddaughter with an axe this week and other extremists pushing our species to extinction, young Williamson reminds us that we are capable of so much more — and perhaps there is hope after all.

For 19 paintings by the young master, click here.

For the full story, click here.

48 thoughts on “What Do You Think of This Painting?”

  2. Do you mean for example, that Picasso was an awful human being? I agree with you. What do you mean when you say, “they kick mud in our faces and ask us to grovel in the gutter with them”?

  3. Jill:

    I do not dislike art that is not realism, I have a very beautiful picture of Mexico City painted in abstract with water color. It was given to me by my grandmother and it was given to her by an artist friend of hers who had painted it while on his honeymoon in Mexico. It is happy and colorful and full of life and I think it is a great work of art.

    Artists like Picasso and Pollack kick mud in our faces and ask us to grovel in the gutter with them.

  4. Elaine,
    I admit that I went to Catholic grade schools and the Benedictine Nuns were not impressed by my artistic skills! I am not sure if either of our transgressions went beyond Venial sin level. I do not remember getting in trouble for talking at lunch, but I do remember spending a large amount of time in the hall and under my teacher’s desk. When I was under the desk, she could kick me easily without having to get out of her chair!

  5. Byron,

    You’re a hoot. Look, children are musical prodigies, dancers, etc. why can’t they be painters? Picasso was an excellent artist in the sense that you consider someone to be an artist–which is, skilled in realism. He just moved on from there. I was trying to think of a way to make sense of Cubism to an engineer. Here’s a try: just like blueprints are not a photograph of a building, the cubists were looking at things and deconstructing them into their “blueprints”. Art is very subjective and if you don’t like an artist you don’t like them. For example every time a Kincade comes into my friend’s frame store, we all hope secretly that it has an “accident”. Kincade is to art what Pastor Rick is to spirituality. That’s my opinion! If you love Kincades you should hang them in every room. Go ahead, frighten small children and animals, I don’t care! 🙂 But cubists were trying to do some very specific things with their works as was Pollock. They could draw in the style of realism, it just wasn’t what they were trying to do.

  6. Mespo:

    I have a couple of Pollacks I have been trying to sell, would you be interested?

    Give me at least a weeks notice so I can make sure the paint is dry.

  12. lottakatz–

    Van Gogh is my favorite painter. His paintings almost seem alive on the canvas.

    Thomas Kinkade! LOL!!!

    ************

    rafflaw–

    I take it you’re a fellow survivor of a parochial school education. I spent twelve years under the tutelage of the Sisters of Notre Dame. I sometimes wonder if I developed my zany sense of humor as a survival mechanism.

    Wasting paper–such a naughty child you must have been!

    I once had to spend a week eating my lunch in the hallway because I had talked to a friend during a lunch period when our teacher was out of the room. The nun had put a classmate/junior Nazi in charge of the class when she wasn’t there.

    I wonder which is worse–wasting paper or talking to a friend during lunch? Do you suppose our transgressions would be considered venial sins?

  14. rafflaw,

    Your nun experiences are LOL!

    Byron,

    You are lovably ignorant or art 🙂

  15. Byron,

    Picasso could draw and paint realistically at a very young age. Like him or not, he and this boy are of the same ilk – prodigy. There is no telling what he’ll turn into as an adult artist. Picasso’s entry into cubism is related to the fact he’d spent much of his life in a more realist school of art. He was bored. That being said, I can take or leave many of his paintings and statuary and some are just plain unpleasant. But he could do it all. He had, as the young ‘uns say, “mad skillz”.

    And Jackson Pollack? His paintings actually have an odd mathematically symmetry to them. It’s one of the ways professional curators distinguish a real Pollack from a fake. That being said, Pollack is also the same guy who told Harlan Ellison, “Want to see me make twenty grand before we go to lunch?” Symmetry or not? Not a fan of Pollack. But there is more going on there than just thrown paint. Not much. But something.

  16. Wow! At that age the Nuns wouldn’t even let me participate in art class because they said I wasted paper! What a talent.

  17. I doubt a 6 year old could paint like this, but if he can I hope he aspires to something better than Picasso, a no talent hack who turned to cubism because he had no real artistic talent. He and Jackson Pollack.

    Hopefully the child will be taught in the style of the old masters and eventually develop his own style, if he is indeed as gifted as the pictures indicate.

    It would be a shame to waste talent like that on something as trivial artistically as a Picasso. It amazes me that people are willing to pay millions of dollars for his pieces.

  19. “young Williamson reminds us that we are capable of so much more — and perhaps there is hope after all.”

    We can only hope so.

  20. This kid is great. Wow, the New on Line does in deed have great articles. His father is an art dealer and mom is a nutritionist. Question is this one of the newspapers that the CIA has an interest in?

Comments are closed.