The young artist's first show was in China when she was 2 years old. Her parents, who are also artists, her father Michael Andre says, "There is no education, no understanding of art history or art movements....I am so curious to see what she does."
So, is the story in a young 'prodigy' who like many other 4-year-olds produces art for fun? Or is the story that her works of art are being sold at a rapid pace for thousands of dollars. According to the Periscope Post, her art is valued anywhere between $4,000 and $10,000. She has also sold paintings for about $30,000 if not more. The part of the parents, as marketers, have done a phenomenal job in selling art. But is fair to have already labelled the young artist?
Labeling her work as accidentalism and as the father said, "No understanding of art history or art movements," is this really more than just colors splattered on paper? For Picasso and Pollack had painted with meaning and methods, and had an understanding of art history and meant to break rules. Where as for Andre's pieces and lack of intent is where the artistry falters, exactly as her work is labelled, accidental. Does this start to undermine the context of what we know as Modern Art, because buyers are so eager to buy a 'prodigy' just in case?
While there is no doubt that she might grow into an actual artful talent, for now good PR has thrusted her into the spotlight. Now, that she has been able to fund her own savings for college with just a couple of paintings, I wonder how many other parents will start painting with their kids?