
Art prodigy poses 'ethical nightmare' for parents - nekojima
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-23287113
======
mdda
I just wanted to point out that this is a UK family, talking to the UK press -
so their attitudes (IMHO) may not be being interpreted correctly in
'American'. (I'm from the UK, but have lived in NYC for over a decade).

I strongly doubt they're _pressuring_ their child to be normal : Eccentricity
and 'being interesting' are cherished qualities in the UK. I'm guessing that
what they're saying is that they're making sure he has 'space' so that when he
wants to do ordinary stuff, and that there's no-one whispering in his ear that
he needn't be interesting in playing football (soccer) because he's a genius
with a higher calling.

Also, maybe the art thing is just a childhood phase, and that's Ok by them
too.

From what I see from the people around me in my office, attitudes to children
(and their education, aspirations, etc) are very different US vs UK.

~~~
GhotiFish
There are people who are viewing these parents negatively? That has got to be
luckiest boy on the planet.

~~~
arjie
At the point when I make this comment, there are quite a few others remarking
negatively about the parents' desire for the child to "relate to his peers and
not be seen as different".

While a charitable (and likely accurate) view of this is that they wish him to
just have healthy relationships with his peers, many here seem to view the
statement as indicative of a desire to hammer out any individual creativity in
the hope of creating a child who is average in every way.

~~~
arethuza
"many here seem to view the statement as indicative of a desire to hammer out
any individual creativity in the hope of creating a child who is average in
every way"

Cross cultural miscommunication at work - to me (and I'm from the UK) it
sounds like the parents were handling a tricky situation pretty well.

------
tokenadult
Thanks to the first comment posted here, which pulled out the key quote from
the parents, "The most important thing is that he can relate to his peers and
not be seen as any different."

I hope that is just a journalist quotation of an imprecise statement during
live conversation in an interview. By contrast, as soon as I knew that my
beloved and I would marry into an "interracial" marriage (she is from east
Asia, and I am an American of a mixed assortment of European ancestry), I
figured that my children would have no hope to "not be seen as any different."
(I later learned my children actually look like typical members of the local
population in some central Asian countries that none of us have ever visited.)
I also had Taiwanese friends tell me even before I met my wife that if I
married a local girl and had "mixed-blood" children (that is a polite term
over there, not an offensive term), that the children would surely be smarter
and better-looking than most children.

I'll leave to other people to judge both the intelligence and the personal
appearance of my children. But what I very intentionally did in bringing up my
children was plan to give them support so that whatever differences they have
with other people in their childhood environments--whether height, weight,
hair color, low IQ, high IQ, physical weakness, athletic prowess, or whatever
it would be--they would still be cherished as our children. I haven't wanted
my children to be other than who they are. Yes, everyone should indeed "relate
to his peers" and not be arrogant or aloof. Everyone should cherish everybody
else's differences. But that also means children ought to be able to follow
the life path that fits them best after the shuffle of genes they receive from
their parents, the influences of their early childhood, and the constraints of
their youthful circumstances. A great artist shouldn't have to set aside his
painting to have buddies in the neighborhood. A young hacker shouldn't be told
to set aside the computer and play Little League baseball. To each their own.
It happens that my children grew up in an environment in which most of their
acquaintances are supportive of young people who pursue their own passions,
and they haven't had to be ground into sameness to have peers who like them.

~~~
ams6110
_A young hacker shouldn 't be told to set aside the computer and play Little
League baseball._

I absolutely disagree with this. Kids should start to play sports from about
age 4 or 5. It doesn't have to be intense. It doesn't have to supplant other
interests. Community soccer, basketball, baseball, once or twice a week. It
helps them learn to socialize and work in groups towards a goal, keeps them
physically active, makes them less likely to be bullied or outcasts at school
because they will have a wider circle of friends and will have had more
exposure to dealing with confrontation/competition.

Also like it or not, especially for men, sports is a common bonding activity
even when you get into adult life. If you can't at least talk about last
Sunday's football games or play a game of pickup basketball after work, you
are going to be excluded from a lot of networks.

~~~
rdtsc
> I absolutely disagree with this.

And I absolutely disagree with your disagreement.

> Community soccer, basketball, baseball, once or twice a week.

Nope. They can just play together. It doesn't have to be competitive sport.
What if they say they wanted to run around in circles or play spaceship on the
playground, or say help one of the dad in the yard or fix a car. Some might
like to play chess or paint for example.

> It helps them learn to socialize

Just playing together with other kids and making up their own games is good
enough to socialize. They could be kicking a ball half an hour then climbing
trees the next. They don't have to necessarily compete with other teams to get
that.

> makes them less likely to be bullied or outcasts at school because they will
> have a wider circle of friends

They are in the wrong school or adults are not doing their job if they are
bullied because they don't play sports.

> Also like it or not, especially for men, sports is a common bonding activity
> even when you get into adult life.

Well I don't like it. I would rather discuss virtual machine implementations
or sci fi novels. I don't give a shit about who plays in the superbowl or what
hockey teams names are.

> If you can't at least talk about last Sunday's football games or play a game
> of pickup basketball after work, you are going to be excluded from a lot of
> networks.

I am doing pretty well for myself. I can talk about politics, linguistics,
computers, some music, sci-fi, movies, there is plenty of other stuff. If
talking about sports is what is going to exclude me, then please, exclude me.
I don't want to be included in that group to begin with.

~~~
dionidium
All of my anecdotal evidence is that those who played sports as a kid can do
all sorts of varied stuff, too, but they're also (unsurprisingly) better at
athletics. I'm struggling to find the downside in that. In fact, my friends
who didn't play sports as a kid generally regret it, especially when they end
up in a random holiday volleyball game (for example). But, you know,
anecdotal. Feel free to ignore.

~~~
zanny
I never played sports, and didn't like much physical activity past around 12,
but before that I would hike around local forests (you know, random peoples
private property) and we would build tree forts. I would have hated a forced
competitive environment at that age and would have resented my parents for
forcing that on me. It is important to introduce a child to the _existence_ of
sports, in the sense you need to expose them to as broad a spectrum of
activity and skill as possible. But to force it upon them even if they don't
take an interest in it is going against their personal interests, and they
won't enjoy doing it.

------
bane
"As a child star, Coogan earned an estimated $3 to $4 million ($48 million to
$65 million adjusted for 2012 dollars), but the money was spent by his mother
and stepfather, Arthur Bernstein, on extravagances such as fur coats,
diamonds, and expensive cars. Coogan's mother and stepfather claimed Jackie
was having fun and thought he was playing. She stated, "No promises were ever
made to give Jackie anything. Every dollar a kid earns before he is 21 belongs
to his parents. Jackie will not get a cent of his earnings",[5] and claimed
that "Jackie was a bad boy.""

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Coogan](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Coogan)

------
jliechti1
_" He's a very lucky boy, but as parents we just have to say no to a lot of
things to give him a normal life. The most important thing is that he can
relate to his peers and not be seen as any different."_

It's interesting how many people with "normal" lives desire to live in the
limelight, yet those who are already there just seek to be normal.

Is relating to your peers and not being seen as any different the _most_
important thing?

~~~
Fishkins
"relating to your peers" is too narrow of a phrase, but it seems likely having
satisfying interpersonal relationships of some sort is very important. I would
say it's the most important thing after basic necessities for survival. I
don't, however, think "not [being] seen as any different" is necessary for
that.

~~~
robryan
It is possible though that this kid might not relate to the kids in the local
neighborhood that well. With the Internet now though I think this starts to
become less of a problem, if you are an outlier you can now relate to like
minded outliers online or at interest based meet ups.

------
rdouble
I've found this story a bit odd because if a child even just a few years older
made paintings like these, they would maybe win a prize, but certainly not
sell for $70,000 a piece.

~~~
moocowduckquack
Is very hard to make that kind of judgement from low resolution online
photographs of paintings.

~~~
rdouble
It isn't, really. It's typical Bob Ross stuff that doesn't have any market
outside of art fairs and repos for hotel chains.

~~~
moocowduckquack
"typical Bob Ross stuff that doesn't have any market outside of art fairs"

Well, you would seem on the face of it to be completely and utterly wrong on
that score, at least according to the people buying his paintings.

Out of interest, do you paint much?

~~~
jacalata
You seem to be missing the point. He is saying that the paintings have little
intrinsic worth, but gain it from the external circumstance of being created
by such a young artist. Your response that people buy the paintings therefore
they have value is completely orthogonal, because that doesn't prove either
way whether the value is intrinsic or extrinsic (and art is a market know for
extrinsic value, such as a painting going up in price once the formerly
unknown artist is discovered, etc).

~~~
moocowduckquack
The comment "typical Bob Ross stuff that doesn't have any market outside of
art fairs" is directly talking about perceptions of market worth, not
intrinsic value.

Well done for using the word orthogonal though. I like that word. It isn't as
good as susurrous however.

------
joshfraser
I'm glad that my parents never pushed for me to be "normal".

~~~
rfnslyr
What superpowers do you possess?

~~~
joshfraser
Just the confidence to know it's okay to think outside the box and color
outside the lines.

~~~
arjie
I daresay this kid will grow up with that confidence as well. The normalcy
they're speaking about is likely normal human interactions with other children
his age.

A friend of the Culkin family recounted in an interview how people would stare
at the young Macaulay Culkin on the street, and the actor himself has
expressed a desire to have had a more 'normal' life.

The normal they want for their child is unlikely to involve suppression of his
creativity, and is likely to involve supporting him as he deals with his fame
and his peers' reaction to it.

------
ForrestN
Just a bit of context from a person who works in contemporary art: the
question of "exploitation" is complicated by the fact that a career like this
is probably based in some part on exploiting people who don't understand the
state of art or the mainstream art market.

The notion, for example, that he is comparable to Monet is absurd, not only
because this kid isn't a good painter but also because it would be impossible
to make Monet-like paintings today and be anything like Monet was during his
time. The questions Monet was answering are no longer the questions anyone is
asking art to answer.

If people are being told that this boy is a genius, or that he is likely to be
an important artist in the future, they are being defrauded. Whether his
parents are participating in the fraud or are being misled themselves probably
has some bearing on how much we should trust them as parents I think (neither
being a great endorsement but the former being much worse than the latter).

~~~
jrs99
What I find really interesting is that he says he prefers oils because they
are more "forgiving" than watercolors. Yet his style of painting doesn't
really need "forgiving." His handling is pretty loose and abstract. Almost
perfectly suited for watercolors.

And his paintings are very formulaic. Lots of abstract passages with bits of
crisp realism showing up here and there. Almost like a solid painter that has
been painting for many years and is popping these babies out for a show on the
boardwalk where they'll go for $500 apiece. I wouldn't be surprised if someone
was "coaching" him.

~~~
ForrestN
Agreed. Even the use of language, "forgiving," is how teachers talk about
media, not children.

Unfortunately, if you look closely, the paintings are actually quite awkward
(the portrait of his grandfather especially) and are worse for trying to echo
a loose, confident style. Even if we accept this hyper-conservative, even
regressive approach to art, it's unfair to expect him to have much skill at
such a young age (and he doesn't have much at the moment).

------
fernly
Prodigies are extremely rare but do legitimately happen: kids who on first
touching a piano or other instrument, play complete tunes etc. Kieron
Williamson is in a list of visual arts prodigies[0]. Nevertheless the maturity
and use of sophisticated technique, esp. in the painting of the grandfather,
is startling. The list of musical prodigies is longer.[1] W.A.Mozart made his
performing debut at 4 and wrote compositions at age 5. [2]

[0][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_child_prodigies#Visual_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_child_prodigies#Visual_arts)
[1][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_music_prodigies](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_music_prodigies)
[2][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart)

------
ChuckMcM
I find the stories of kids who sue their parents for misusing their funds
quite sad. I never could figure out what the right way to deal with that was,
put the money in t-bills and while 'safe' you get sued for being a poor
financial manager. Put it into a fund and have it lose value and find yourself
in trouble again.

You can ask your child's wishes but if they want to spend it all on candy do
you?

The whole live a normal life thing is pretty straight forward if all the money
gets whisked away into some trust account somewhere. When you start trying to
use it to "improve" things where it often causes problems.

~~~
nknighthb
When I've heard about such lawsuits, they've involved objectively unreasonable
actions. Junk bonds, the latest get-rich-quick scheme from a loser brother, or
just plain extravagant spending for the benefit of the parents would be
examples. Putting everything in t-bills, not so much.

------
sytelus
Article doesn't describe the most interesting part: Does these abilities
appear spontaneously at early age? How child gets in to something so
intensively? Was there any training and how much? But another article from
Guardian does shade some light on this:
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/29/boy-
paint...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/29/boy-paints-like-
old-master)

 _The truth is far more innocent. Two years ago, a serious accident had forced
Keith to stop work and turn his hobby – collecting art – into an occupation.
The accident also stopped Keith racing around outside with his son. Confined
to a flat with no garden, surrounded by paintings and, like any small boy,
probably influenced by his dad, Kieron decided to take up drawing. Now, father
and son are learning about art together.

At first, Kieron's art was pretty much like any other five-year-old's. But he
quickly progressed and was soon asking questions that his parents couldn't
answer. "Kieron wanted to know the technicalities of art and how to put a
painting together," says Michelle. Hearing of Kieron's promise, one local
artist, Carol Ann Pennington, offered him some tips. Since then, he has had
lessons with other Norfolk-based painters, including Brian Ryder and his
favourite, Tony Garner.

Garner, a professional artist, has taught more than 1,000 adults over the last
few decades and Kieron, he says, is head and shoulders above everyone. "He
doesn't say very much, he doesn't ask very much, he just looks. He's a very
visual learner. If I did a picture with most students, they will copy it but
Kieron is different. He will copy it and then he will Kieronise it," he says.
"It might be a bit naive at the moment but there's a lovely freshness about
what he does. The confidence that this little chap has got – he just doesn't
see any danger."_

------
banachtarski
"He's a very lucky boy, but as parents we just have to say no to a lot of
things to give him a normal life. The most important thing is that he can
relate to his peers and not be seen as any different."

I can't say I agree with this at all.

~~~
alextingle
You think it would be better if his whole life/personality was fucked up by
the freakish success in his early years?

~~~
banachtarski
The opposite extreme is not always better than the current extreme. Nobody
said to indulge him completely. I am just saying that complete fear that your
child will be perceived as "different" is stupid.

*edit: By the way, I charge you guilty of employing the "black-and-white" logical fallacy and request that you stop in the future.

------
Mordor
There is another option - don't sell the paintings.

------
RataDeDosPatas
This kid is a genius. Which at the same time raises some flags. Makes me
wonder if it really is him creating the paintings. What happened to the 10,000
hour rule and all that saying that there are no real instant successes? How
did he get this good? How long did it take? Well, I'm off to answer my own
questions in google.

~~~
moocowduckquack
"What happened to the 10,000 hour rule and all that saying that there are no
real instant successes?"

Mozart.

~~~
duskwuff
I'm not sure he was a counterexample. He started playing musical instruments
at the age of 3 or 4, and began composing some pieces when he was 5. While
Mozart was undoubtedly a musical genius, he had an early start and lots of
exposure to music.

~~~
rodgerd
There are barely 10,000 hours of awake time in two years. Nor does the 10,000
hour theory explain, e.g. a friend's son who can decode text lightly encrypted
into abstract symbols at normal reading speed - a little over a year after
after he started to read English.

The 10,000 hour theory occupies the same niche as every piece of self-help
snake oil, whether it is intended as such: a comforting feeling that the
formula will bring success to the reader.

------
rorrr2
First world problems.

~~~
acangiano
Which are valid problems. See the related informal fallacy, "Appeal to worse
problems":
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_worse_problems](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_worse_problems)

