Art prodigy poses 'ethical nightmare' for parents

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-23287113

by nekojima • 13 years ago

137 154 13 years ago

bbc.co.uk

jliechti1• 13 years ago

"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?

anug• 13 years ago

Typical YC response.

scribu• 13 years ago

Without describing in what way it's "typical" (I presume in a bad way), this comment isn't helpful at all.

Fishkins• 13 years ago

"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• 13 years ago

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.

sliverstorm• 13 years ago

My conclusion has been that those who are "normal" want some fame- they don't want to be splattered across tabloids everywhere, they just want people to know their name and what they do. People who are super famous probably want the same thing- not to be unknown, but maybe a little less famous.

arjie7• 13 years ago

Everyone seeks normalcy in certain aspects, and fame in others. You'd be hard pressed to find many amongst those who wish to live in the limelight who would want every moment of their lives photographed so that the tiniest of their mistakes can be displayed in full colour in public. And unless you're Perelman, most people want some recognition for the things they do that they're proud of.

Would it be nice for this child to be recognized for his talent? Yes. Would it be nice for his peers to see him as some painting freak? No.

tokenadult6• 13 years ago

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.

lotharbot• 13 years ago

"give them support so that whatever differences they have ... they would still be cherished"

This is so important, even for kids who don't have really obvious differentiating factors.

My wife and I are both educated, white, middle-class background, able-bodied, and so on. But that doesn't make our son "normal" or "average"; he's still different from every other kid. Part of supporting him is encouraging him to embrace differences, and encouraging other kids to do the same.

grannyg00se• 13 years ago

In a lot of places, being seen as "different" results in harassment. Sometimes to the point where families have to move. And other (extreme) times to the point of eventual suicide.

I would definitely encourage exploration and appreciation of differences but depending on one's surroundings, a bit of apprehension is warranted.

MaysonL• 13 years ago

Yes. This.

Personal anecdatum: when I was 5 or 6, I beat my father in a game of chess. That was the last time he ever played me, and the last game of chess I was allowed to play for a number of years (this was about the time Bobby Fischer was getting a lot of notoriety as a maladjusted prodigy). It still rankles after 60 years.

samuelfine• 13 years ago

I'm so sorry you went through that.

I don't know if it's a generational thing or what, but if my child beat me in chess at 5 or 6 years old, I'd be thrilled. Granted, I'm not great at chess, but I'd still get them signed up for lessons pronto, and I certainly wouldn't stop playing with them.

ionwake• 13 years ago

same happened with me and my father

fml

foobarbazqux6• 13 years ago

my beloved and I would marry into an "interracial" marriage
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

You seem to have bought into the fallacy of scientific racism. In terms of population biology, we all belong to the same race, Homo sapiens sapiens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

GhotiFish2• 13 years ago

What genus we belong to is irrelevant, this is more to do with how we look.

You can't collectively judge a race that you cannot tell apart from your own. Like wise, if a subset of your race were to look different from you, you would feel compelled to generalize about them. That's human nature.

The reality is irrelevant. Fine, races don't exist, but they are perceived to exist, and the parent is concerned with how his children will be perceived.

tokenadult6• 13 years ago

You seem to have misunderstood my scare quotes around the word "interracial." I've always been clear that there is one human race, no more, and we are all part of it.

ams6110• 13 years ago

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• 13 years ago

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.

prutschman• 13 years ago

There are a number of activities other than competitive team sports for children that involve socializing in groups, staying active, and working toward a shared goal.

Children already experience far too much pressure to conform to expected norms of social interests, particularly gendered social interests. Parents ought not add to it by implicitly or explicitly telling them there's something wrong with them for their interest or lack thereof in sports.

As for the expectations of adult men, I cannot remember a situation in my adult life in which something like a simple joke along the lines of "baseball.. let's see, that's sports, right?" hasn't been enough to convey that I'm not interested without being hostile or disrespectful to others' passions.

ekianjo6• 13 years ago

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.

I call BS on this. Sports as a way to socialize? As a kid I saw that sports were just another way to bully other kids or ridicule them, or call them names. I never ever saw sports as having any kind of positive aspect on the ones who were already ostracized by their peers.

And who are you to say that kids "Should" do this or that? Why don't you leave out the choice to the kids or the parents in that matter? As for me, I learnt much more by spending time on computers as a kid than joining sports clubs during the weekends.

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

Huh? You mean like these people behaving like apes in these modern-days arenas, yelling at 20 people running on the grass and hitting drums while drinking beer ? Yeah, what a great way to socialize. I avoid people interested in these sports altogether, and my social life does not suffer from it. You just end up with different people.

mattzito• 13 years ago

I agree with part of what you're saying.

I think that kids should be exposed to a wide range of experiences - it's important that they get to self-direct, but if we let all 4 year olds only eat and do what they wanted, we'd have very limited children.

Along those lines, it's important that children be made to play sports to a certain degree - they might find something that excites them, they might learn to love it after a little while, or later in life, they might regret never having had the opportunity to experience it.

But, I don't buy the less likely to be bullied argument, or the bonding activity argument. I played sports for years, stopped when more artistic interests took over, and I can't talk about what's going on in professional sports at the moment. And my basketball skills have gone to hell, other than a decent hook shot I somehow haven't lost.

So, yes, it's important to expose your kids to sports to a certain degree, in order to expose them to a broader life generally than the one they might choose to experience at a young age. But I don't think sports in and of itself is a requirement for a well-adjusted upbringing.

rdouble13• 13 years ago

I don't think sports like basketball and baseball are even offered to 4 and 5 year olds. (Soccer might be) At the younger ages, team sports do not help much with bullying or friendships or even sports proficiency later on in life. The kids are too small and scatterbrained and uncoordinated to develop the skills needed and all those friendships are forgotten as the kid gets older.

Where I grew up, pretty much all the kids who were awkward and unpopular and got bullied in junior high and high school did the same youth sports as everyone else when they were 9-10 years old. It didn't help them out too much later on.

Kids need exercise and socialization, though. I'd argue that they should learn things where starting very early offers a big advantage. Sports such as surfing, gymnastics, skiing, ice skating, swimming, etc. It seems like if an activity heavily involves balance or the water it helps to learn it as early as possible.

tommaxwell• 13 years ago

I absolutely disagree. I never played sports as a kid, and I turned out fine. Instead, I spent time on my computer and ran around the neighborhood with the kids that lived around me. This is actually another reason why I believe I have a lot of creativity; I came up with new games and things to do for fun instead of working within the barriers of sport.

Children should be allowed to be whoever they want to be, and if our education systems cannot support that, there's a huge problem.

I understand your concern about physical activity, but that's something that should be instilled by parents and through health education classes. As children reach their teenage and adult years, they should understand the importance of exercise and well-being, not just that smashing into people on the football field keeps them fit.

Like it or not, the world doesn't revolve around sports. Some people will enjoy them, and others won't. Simple as that. Have you ever thought of, I don't know, letting the children decide what they want to do for fun? As I said, playing sports is not a requirement to becoming healthy. Those principles can be taught through different methods. I never played sports, but I still go the gym everyday and feel satisfied after a good workout.

tokenadult6• 13 years ago

Quoting myself here to illustrate what you think you are disagreeing about that isn't really a disagreement between us, I wrote,

A young hacker shouldn't be told to set aside the computer and play Little League baseball.

And what I meant there, and thank you for joining issue with this so that the issue is clear to onlookers, is that no child should be forced to DROP something personally important and educational for them solely to fit in with what everyone else is doing. In actual fact (and I think a reader who used the search function on HN could find examples of me saying this) I encourage all of my children to participate in team competitive sports. Because of the healthy developmental nature of our local youth soccer club, all four of my children, from my hacker son who now lives in New York City to my daughter, have played "travel" competitive soccer through that club. All three of my boys have qualified for the Minnesota state championship tournament at various age and competitive levels, and my second son has won a state championship with his teammates. So I by no means disdain sports. I'm very proud of having four children who all have achieved more in sports than either of their parents ever did. (Sports were not emphasized in my upbringing in my family, nor in my wife's upbringing in her family.)

I do indeed promote activities for my children that provide "well-roundedness" and especially activities that provide commonalities with other young people growing up in the same time and place. It's just that I don't do that at the expense of my children having a LOT of time to pursue their own interests. (That's why we homeschool--to have the schedule flexibility to allow a both-and of deep involvement in something meaningful to each child and broad involvement in things that build connections with other people.)

Thanks for checking. I FULLY agree with you, based on my own experience, that men growing up in the United States are well advised to have sports involvement. That helps them have a lot to talk about with other men. It's not strictly necessary, but sports involvement is awfully helpful.

jrs997• 13 years ago

If you don't play D&D you might be excluded from some networks. Like the Dallas Gaming Mafia.

zachlatta• 13 years ago

I lived that. Back when I first started hacking, my parents forced me to play Little League Baseball. I feel it did nothing besides hold me back. I dreaded going to practice. I dreaded going to games. It made me hate life for a while.

kunai3• 13 years ago

If you can't at least talk about ..., you are going to be excluded from a lot of networks.

Not only do I disagree intensely with your post, but I'm a male high-school student, and trust me, I wouldn't want to be included in those "networks" you speak of anyhow. Sports aren't for everyone. Every single positive you have named about sports can just as easily be attributed to other activities. Socialization? What are we doing here on HN? What do kids do when they go to school and talk and gossip? Working in groups toward a goal? What about them tackling a computer programming project together?

I found your comments about bullying and friendships downright belittling. A wider social circle does not mean better friendships, in fact, it tends to be quite the opposite. My wounds are still fresh; it is wiser to have fewer and closer than more and shallower. Physical activity also doesn't have to involve sports per se -- lots of outdoor time is wise. Also, why can't competition be encouraged through academic competition? Or, for that matter, anything intellectual?

This overarching, sexist, and patriarchal view that men have to resort to primal physical exertion in order to be accepted in society is quite insulting, so if you would please broaden your outlooks, we'd be all the better for it.

doktrin• 13 years ago

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.

This may be true, but I'm curious what you feel the value of these "networks" has been or will be in the future.

I can only relate my own experience, which is that of supreme disinterest in just about every American team sport. I'm quite capable of following last Sunday's game, I just don't give a damn.

Thus far in my adult life I haven't felt the need to slither my way into a social group. Should I start? If so, why? I obviously haven't felt significant pressure to do so yet, or I would have already. This is actually a genuine question, although I'm obviously biased towards my own answer.

barry-cotter• 13 years ago

Team Sports Suck.

Physical activity has much to recommend it but I never gave a shit about watching or playing team sports and my various school's focus on team sports over any other physical exercise put me off exercise for a long, long time. If all of your experience of "exercise" is that it is one or all of boring, unpleasant or full of wankers it does rather put one off it.

I'm glad I found jogging and later weightlifting and if my friends are going to be drinking while watching some sports game, awesome, I'll come to the pub too. But I'm not going to pretend interest in sports for the same reason I do not moderate my political opinions though I do censor them. I do not care about this shit and am unwilling to pretend to care, and if you prod me I will tell you I. just. do. not. care.

EDIT: If you feel like taking part or you enjoy it, fine, whatever. Exercise and bonding are both generally good. I'm just glad my father gave up when he saw I was more interested in seeing the gravel trickle through my fingers than watching the rugby game he was watching. Forcing people who are not interested in team sports to play or watch just leads to many having a negative association with exercise, which is a pity.

mrexroad• 13 years ago

if for nothing else, learning at a young age to play (and function) as part of a team is extremely important; moreover, even if you suck at the sport, it's an important life lesson to find a way to best contribute to the team's success. imho, it's even more important for gifted kids, who are otherwise 'better' than everyone else and generally have a tendency to go it alone.

i was one of the youngest kids in the class and a pretty dorky kid growing up but, without a doubt, playing sports throughout elementary school made all the difference between being the subject of an occasional joke and being picked on continuously. i was bored to death, and was honestly pretty bad, but i'm glad my mom signed me up each year.

i have two sons, my oldest heading into 1st grade, and i can already see the same effect.

nilkn• 13 years ago

It seems to me this is about finances and has nothing at all to do with whether or not he is allowed to pursue his passions (which he obviously is allowed to do).

rdouble13• 13 years ago

as soon as I knew that my beloved and I would marry into an "interracial" marriage ... I figured that my children would have no hope to "not be seen as any different."

Minnesota and asian countries are particularly bad about that sort of thing, but in Los Angeles nobody would look twice.

joshmn• 13 years ago

Can I ask what Minnesota has anything to do with this statement? I mean, as a native Minnesotan, I know what you're talking about, but there are MUCH further extreme states than here. Montana, Utah, Idaho, the Dakotas, Iowa, Wisconsin, I feel are all much more critical of interracial marriage. Minnesota has the highest hmong population in the US (IIRC) and with that comes a significant number of interracial marriages (can't remember the number off the top of my head). If you want to put aside interracial marriage and look at another factor that deals with race, we voted in the first Muslim into congress. Keith.

And everyone loves Keith.

jrs997• 13 years ago

Any interracial couple is going to get stares. Even in LA.

6ren• 13 years ago

My observation of people I know is that "euroasians" (mixed eurporean and asian) are better looking than average. The ones I know are also smarter than average, but that's harder to be sure of.

It seems it's simply "hybrid vigour" - when you cross strains, you can get the both of both pools. But there's a logical dark side - you can also get the worst of both. (In nature, hybrid vigour is a net positive, because the weaker ones are selected against...) I say "logical" because I haven't actually ever observed this in reality.

Anecdotally, Elvis Presley, Keanu Reeves and Tiger Woods seem to demonstrate this with other gene pools - but I have no idea of the statistics with respect to other actors/athletes. And there are other factors, such as non-standard features being considering more striking, the parents being strong-willed, self-determined and courageous enough to go against the norm, the other being considered so attractive and valuable to be worth the hassle, etc.

ekianjo6• 13 years ago

There's probably a lot coming from the fact that the kid would have exposure to two cultures in the first place. Maybe this helps the kid to be more "open" in the first place, more "curious" subsenquently, and therefore potentially more successful in the end. Who knows. I don't think it's so much about genes, honestly speaking.

ekianjo6• 13 years ago

"mixed-blood"

That's a very neutral expression. In Japan, the non-offensive term is "Half", and it's probably worse than "mixed blood" :)

Amadou• 13 years ago

The modern american term is "hapa" - comes from Hawaii were all kinds of races blended (japanese, chinese, filipino, portugese, hawaiians and whites just for starters). Originally it was "hapa haole" which meant, roughly half-white. That's probably still the most common meaning even without the haole on the end, but it is being used for other blends more and more too.

And, FWIW, in hawaii, hapa kids are generally considered the cutest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hapa

arjie7• 13 years ago

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.

I'm truly astonished by the West that this sort of thing is worthy of remark. I studied all my life in India, both in government schools and in different private schools, and every kid who did something that was atypical was always cool for it.

You're the tennis star? Nice, everyone loves you. You're the guy who plays Golden Axe better than anyone else? Damn, nice. You top the math class or are good at building things? "Wow, I wish I were that smart".

I would never have suspected that in the land that ostensibly worships individuality, not being "ground into sameness" is worth mentioning.

rdouble13• 13 years ago

I would never have suspected that in the land that ostensibly worships individuality, not being "ground into sameness" is worth mentioning.

The UK has always seemed to have some respect for eccentricity but I wouldn't say they've been known as a place that "worships individuality." They have had a historical reputation for merciless bullying at the grade school level, though.

megablast5• 13 years ago

People love talking themselves up, especially when it comes to,their kids. The fact is it is not even up to this guy, his kids could see their upbringing completely differently.

walesmd• 13 years ago

American here. As a parent, I don't want my daughter to believe she's better than anyone else and, for the most part, I don't want others treating her differently than any other kid. It's because we value individuality and "forging your own path" that we protect their innocence at a young age; I don't want her doing something because I think it's a good idea.

arethuza2• 13 years ago

"The most important thing is that he can relate to his peers and not be seen as any different."

I think you are reading far too much into that one statement - to me, from reading the whole article, it sounds like the parents are being supportive and responsible.

joshfraser2• 13 years ago

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

rfnslyr• 13 years ago

What superpowers do you possess?

joshfraser2• 13 years ago

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

RataDeDosPatas• 13 years ago

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.

eshvk2• 13 years ago

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

Just because some moron creates a heuristic that crudely models reality doesn't mean that nature has to follow that heuristic.

w1ntermute• 13 years ago

Gladwell is certainly a polarizing figure, but in no way does he deserve the epithet "moron".

mehwoot• 13 years ago

Mozart began composing at the age of five. By the time he was 8 he had written around 16 pieces that survive to today, including a Symphony.

moocowduckquack5• 13 years ago

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

Mozart.

duskwuff• 13 years ago

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.

clicks• 13 years ago

The 10,000 hour rule is not just about 10,000 hours. If you read Gladwell's book (or better, the research that Gladwell seems to cite), you find that there are important things that go along the 10,000 hour rule, probably the most important being a great teacher with a great teaching technique being there for you all the time (such that he/she can give you instantaneous feedback), who keeps pushing (vs. sticking to basic things for too long), deliberate practice, etc.

Perhaps the reason why Mozart immediately sticks out is it's hard to conceive in your mind someone becoming that good so quickly. The reality is, with Mozart and probably this prodigy, he has parents who're exemplary in their respective domains (music and art), and they both live in a nurturing environment that served them well. (Oh, and as for Mozart: he didn't become good that quickly. He started composing early, but the compositions that solidified him as a genius came much later on).

fsckin• 13 years ago

Search his name on YouTube and he paints in a few interviews. Seems legit. I think he still needs 10k hours to master the art, but due to natural talent he skipped the first few thousand hours.

If he keeps up with this, imagine how good he will be when he's more mature.

mdda2• 13 years ago

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.

andrewcooke• 13 years ago

yeah, this seemed quite a decent approach from the family to me (english). the idea that they're not being supportive of their kid seems way off the mark. they're just trying to find the right balance, as far as i can see.

i wonder how bad we are at interpreting nuance in american media? maybe honey boo boo isn't a parenting guide?

GhotiFish2• 13 years ago

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

mdda2• 13 years ago

The top comment at the moment (by tokenadult) expresses the hope that the story misquotes the parents when they say "The most important thing is that he can relate to his peers and not be seen as any different."

My guess is that is exactly what they said, and they didn't mean that they'd do anything that discouraged their child at all. It's just a case of cross-cultural mis-communication going on.

Another case in point : I'd say that his paintings are 'pretty good' (which is high praise in the UK), whereas in the US 'genius' gets handed out far too easily (to my ears).

arjie7• 13 years ago

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.

jamesaguilar• 13 years ago

I also think it's marvelous that they've engaged solicitors to handle his affairs. It is good that there is an impartial party whose primary professional interest is in the wellbeing of their son. So many parents lose their way in situations like this by confusing their goals with their children's goals, and having a third party in the children's corner is a great way to control for that.

Daniel_Newby2• 13 years ago

It is also mercenary: establishing a trust fund in the child's name shields the money from liability claims against the parents.

adam-a• 13 years ago

As another brit, I want to echo this. I suspect the treatment by his peers would be different in the US then in the UK. Not so much the talent part, but definitely the wealth aspect - in my experience a kid who was ostensibly much more wealthy at school than the others would likely be a target for bullies and find it easy to become an outcast.

I think it stems from jealousy, but also a relic of old class divides. Wealthy people, especially in less well off areas, are not usually admired for their hard work, but sneered at for their (assumed) inheritance or abuse of the system.

rdouble13• 13 years ago

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.

moocowduckquack5• 13 years ago

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

rdouble13• 13 years ago

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.

nostromo• 13 years ago

Which makes the parent's handling of the money even more important, in case the novelty fades as he ages.

Reminds me of the sad story of Jackie Coogan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Coogan#Coogan_Bill

wmf• 13 years ago

Like all famous artists, I suspect it's equal parts talent, marketing, and information cascade.

fernly• 13 years ago

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_... [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_music_prodigies [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart

rorrr2• 13 years ago

First world problems.

acangiano• 13 years ago

Which are valid problems. See the related informal fallacy, "Appeal to worse problems": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_worse_problems

bane• 13 years ago

"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

banachtarski2• 13 years ago

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

alextingle2• 13 years ago

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

banachtarski2• 13 years ago

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.

ChuckMcM• 13 years ago

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.

nknighthb3• 13 years ago

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.

ForrestN3• 13 years ago

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).

xal• 13 years ago

So how do you square that with the financial success?

ForrestN3• 13 years ago

Easily: customers who have lots of money, who have a predisposition to prefer "traditional" artwork, and who believe the plausible idea that a child who is being recognized (according to the dealer) as a "prodigy" is likely to be only more recognized the older he gets, which would mean higher prices.

In reality, there are no more "prodigies" in the field of art because it has been completely de-skilled. Likewise no one who paints in this genre and with this perspective (see the "blobs on canvas" quote) will ever be included in the way that is necessary for his career to develop and his prices to be justified by the larger art market. He won't be able to show in mainstream museums, he won't be represented by credible dealers, and he will exist to whatever extent he can in an economy built mostly around exploiting people who don't know anything about the field.

jrs997• 13 years ago

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.

ForrestN3• 13 years ago

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).

Mordor• 13 years ago

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

sytelus• 13 years ago

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...

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."

Art prodigy poses 'ethical nightmare' for parents

Related Stories