Hacker News Reader

Comment by WhATiSCaMeLcaSE | Hacker News Reader

I feel that a disproportionate attention goes towards the chronological age of young achievers. Suppose he's had 3 years of intensive practice. I'd like to live in a world where a 50 year old, who has spent 3 years practising, get the same amount of praise.

IMO, this whole 'Look at what this 15 year old can do!' needs to change to 'Look at what 4 years of practice can get you'.

View on HN

I think you talk out of pure envy, which is understandable, but people are generally interested in prodigies and nature's wonders, it's just the way things are. What matters is that the kid brings a lot of hope and joy to people.

And what comes to old people doing similarly amazing things, there are stories like that: https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/931295/OAP-84-paints-magni...

Funny that you link an article whose title is "OAP, 84, paints magnificent masterpiece - but has never had an art lesson in his life" but inside the article, we have "... Former toolmaker Ken Small worked seven hours a day for three years to produce the extraordinary reproduction of Canaletto's famous work."

My argument is that 'working 7 hours a day for 3 years' should have been the title of the article, not the effortless perfection suggested by "...but has never had an art lesson in his life".

> What matters is that the kid brings a lot of hope and joy to people.

I disagree. The article brings clicks. If we're to bring hope, let the focus on things that people can work with. You can't become 11 years old. But if you learn how the kid practised, challenges he faced, etc, you have something to build on if wish to get to his expertise level some day.

If that sounds like pure envy, then I'm happy to be the villain of this story.

> You can't become 11 years old

Well, I can think of lots of people who can do that, actually.

The story sells the artist. Please don't begrudge any artist that manages to get noticed.

You misunderstand my point. I'm arguing against his age being used as a wow factor. IMO, such articles make older artists, who have managed to put in the same amount of effort, seem less gifted.

Art should be appreciated for what it is. Shouldn't matter if the artist is 11 or 40.

On a related note, I'm a bit annoyed by the attention people pay to rather boring realistic art. I'm actually conflicted about it, because on the other hand, a teenager investing his time and effert into a skill like this is awesome, and I do hope that he pursuits art later in life. But the pictures themselves...

To the untrained eye, this looks much more challenging than something more abstract. I am untrained myself, and I'd appreciate an explanation of why this isn't technically interesting. It's not like every art school grad can do this.

It appears Kareem Waris Olamilekan is working freehand. Very impressive. Drawing (drafting) with charcoal is challenging. Even when you're "just" copying.

The mind reels at what this young artist would do with better tools, materials, mentorship.

Even the master's had their tricks to achieve realism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Vermeer#Theories_of_m...

> To the untrained eye, this looks much more challenging than something more abstract.

Judging art by the challenge to the artist's skill to create it is exactly the 19nth century thinking that I'm talking about. We already have cameras and photoshop and 3d modelling software - if something can be created by a tool, I don't see any value in creating it by hand, except for the skill training in itself.

That's to be expected. We're amazed by the realism of the pictures of pre-photography times, although nowadays anyone can achieve even better results with some simple copy methods and a photo.

Kind of sad to see in every art subreddit just "human-photocopied" pictures being upvoted (extra points if you digitally color-picked all shades of color from the photography, besides the usual tracing of every line) instead of real, creative art...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com