RoR: Forum

That may be the case, Michael, but the concern, I think, has more to do with the propaganda issue. First, she's touted as having the ability to "convert" atheists. What's next? She's the second coming? And it's not just that she can paint, but the "message" of her painting.
Nobody says "it doesn't matter that he's a Nazi doctor, keep that kid operating!". The child is being promoted for the message, not just the skill. And what's the guarantee that she'll come around later, especially if she's praised by the likes of Oprah for her "spirituality"?
(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 11/11, 7:14pm)

Post 21

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 7:36pm

Joe,

I agree with not liking the propaganda stuff, but that would occur on our end if she were an atheist. That's just what happens to child prodigies.

She's a child suddenly living in a very adult world right now. That is her context.

I don't see her mind as a battleground for an intellectual tug-of-war between adults. Sill, you want a guarantee that she will think for herself later? Would you substitute one type of brainwashing for another?

I don't know of anyone - not even us normal folk - who come with that guarantee built in. And most of us come from pretty religious backgrounds.

I say, may this lovely little girl paint on. She fills the world with beauty every day, which is more than most adults ever do even once in a lifetime.

What she believes pales in the brightness of her talent.

Michael

Post 22

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 8:00pm

Michael: "I don't see her mind as a battleground for an intellectual tug-of-war between adults. Sill, you want a guarantee that she will think for herself later? Would you substitute one type of brainwashing for another?"

Are you suggesting that criticizing the Christian bent to her work is a form of brainwashing? Of course that's not what I'm suggesting. I'd rather see her taught to think critically so she WON'T be brainwashed, but I don't see how a Christian upbringing, where one is taught to have "faith", is going to accomplish that. It's the Christian upbringing that is guilty of brainwashing.

"I don't know of anyone - not even us normal folk - who come with that guarantee built in. And most of us come from pretty religious backgrounds."

So the ones who learn to think critically are exceptions to the rule, often under heroic circumstances involving breaking with family and society. Of course it's not guaranteed.

"I say, may this lovely little girl paint on. She fills the world with beauty every day, which is more than most adults ever do even once in a lifetime."

You're making an emotional appeal...what is it that is beautiful? Her appearance? Her skills? Was Mother Theresa spreading "beauty?"

"What she believes pales in the brightness of her talent."

REALLY? Why seperate the two? What about the potential that her religious ideas may bring darkness to her talent? Rand could appreciate a writer's ability while condemning the content. '

I'm not trying to be mean, I just don't want to see her talent used as a justification for a philosophy of sacrifice.

Post 23

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 8:05pm

Michael: "She's a child suddenly living in a very adult world right now. That is her context."

True, too true. And she's NOT ready. She should not be made a mouthpiece for religion, (the same way little kids have no place singing of lost love). Has she critically examined Christianity for herself? Has she studied comparitive religion? Has she examined the arguments against Christianity?

The kid is a pawn, a manipulated chess piece in a desperate gambit by Christians, and god help her if she starts to question her faith. Do you think her parents, promoters, Oprah will be supportive if she changes her tune?

Post 24

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 8:22pm

The reason, Joe, that I raised that point was that to most non-artists, even among many artists who should know better, there is a notion that some of the arts are easier to do than others [and note, here, am referring to fine arts - music,literature, painting, sculpture]... whereas I maintain that - in terms of conceptualizing, the fundamental issues are the same, just done with different senses as primaries...

Post 25

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 8:23pm

Joe, you just wrote:

"The kid is a pawn, a manipulated chess piece in a desperate gambit by Christians..."

My whole point is that she would be a manipulated chess piece in a desperate gambit by whomever the adults around her are and according to whatever agenda they were touting (even by the reason-based). That's one of the realities of child prodigies.

I emphatically do not approve of using children as manipulated chess pieces by anybody.

Please reread my previous post from that angle.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 11/11, 8:25pm)

Post 26

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 8:35pm

Robert: "The reason, Joe, that I raised that point was that to most non-artists, even among many artists who should know better, there is a notion that some of the arts are easier to do than others..."

Ok, Robert. I would quibble that certain arts may be easier for some people, but that doesn't make the art itself easy or hard. But if one wants to excel, even the most naturally gifted artist is going to have to push himself to a level of difficulty.

Post 27

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 8:40pm

Michael: "My whole point is that she would be a manipulated chess piece in a desperate gambit by whomever the adults around her are and according to whatever agenda they were touting (even by the reason-based). That's one of the realities of child prodigies."

I DID reread your post, sorry if I attributed to you anything you did not mean. I think what I take exception to, though, is the idea of manipulation by "the reason based" (not that it isn't a possibility). I agree that "atheists" can be guilty of the same, but I would hope that reasonable people would NOT be prone to such manipulation PRECISELY because of the importance of reason. I'd hope that they'd be more prone to teach the child to think for themselves. Of course, even the most reasonable person can fall prey to irrational uses of a child, but then, are they acting reasonably ;)

Reminds me of an anecdote N. Branden wrote of when he talked of convincing someone that they could murder their mother given a "rational" reason...:(

Post 28

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 9:38pm

Why do I have the feeling that when this child hits her teen years she's going to rebel and go through a drug-induced hippie phase? Is it just me?

Post 29

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 9:49pm

LOL, Pete. Just keep her away from STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND!

Post 30

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 10:27pm

Robert: "whereas I maintain that - in terms of conceptualizing, the fundamental issues are the same, just done with different senses as primaries..."

I wonder how well a musical prodigy like Mozart could verbally conceptualize what he was doing at age 7 or 8? Considering that many musicians claim to be "inspired by muses" and such...Rand wrote of the tragic artist who gets by on a natural gift but never conceptualizes what they are doing, and when the "gift" is gone, they don't produce the way they use to, if at all.

The hallmark of a developing mind is a process of visualization to verbalization. Witness the child in "show and tell", who presents the object visually while learning to describe it verbally (abstractly.) Musicians do the same, they present the work aurally, while learning to express what they do verbally. Rand elaborates on this in the AYN RAND ANSWERS, in regards to shapes like triangles and such as a "mystic language". I don't have a copy here to quote, but her point is that until one is able to think in WORDS they remain on a pre-conceptual level. (I could be quoting wrong, and remembering wrong; does anyone have the book handy to reference? I'd be much obliged...)

To keep on topic...at any rate, I think that where the fundamental issues are the same, even with different senses as primaries, is the grasp of forms and relations. A musical prodigy will grasp the relations between tones, and a visual prodigy will grasp the relation between shapes and color. In essense, they are natural spaceplayers. ;) Now, the catch here is that her promoters are hyping her religious aspect, but does she grasp the relations between man, god, and faith well enough to convert atheists to Christians, or are the converts converted by the mere fact that the child is painting religious themes? Has she presented a reasoned argument or appealing to emotions?
(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 11/11, 10:34pm)

Post 31

Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 1:55am

I don't know about you guys, but I'm convinced any child saddled by her parents with the unenviable moniker "Akiane" has probably been fed a line of crap ever since she was able to understand the spoken word.

Post 32

Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 2:03am

You know, I tried finding the origins of the name, and so far, can't find anything...is it one of those made-up names with no history or is there any other Akiane's in the world?
After looking at the website, and seeing her art "branded" (she even calls her philosophy "Akianism"!), I'm starting to think the name was more than sheer randomness.
(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 11/12, 2:25am)

Post 33

Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 2:29am

Akiane writes about her poetry: "Imagine you are entering a garden and there grows your most beautiful flower. When you come closer you see an ant. A small black ant. The blossom is my art, the ant is my poetry...the ant is work, suffering and hardship that I write about in my poetry."

Though the bio claims that she experience health problems and poverty early on, she claims that this is not the inspiration for her poetry. So what is the origin of the work, suffering, and hardship in her poetry?

"How do you write your poetry?

Effortlessly...After a prayer, I wait for an answer from heaven, then I see dozens of snap shots of pictures, words, actions, and events. And a lot of time I feel that God includes me in other people's lives. Through Him I feel other people's suffering and happiness, but soon I forget everything I speak and write. If you asked me to explain what I was writing about a few weeks ago I would not know. I forget even the meaning, and after a while I must figure out as everyone else.

Who taught you how to write?

The words just come to me. I would say ideas somehow have been planted in me.

I do not write from what I know, but from what the Spirit shows me. Before I pray, I am empty and have absolutely nothing to write about. But then I know, if I am silent, I start seeing pictures and words.

What is the meaning of your poems?

I feel that poetry is a puzzle, and everyone needs to solve the puzzle by themselves. And if I shared my own interpretation, others would be prevented from imagination. One poem can mean the whole book. I did not choose the poetry. God chose the poetry for me."

I'd probably be more sympathetic if her own hardship was the source of such poems than a claim of effortless inspiration from "God." (Hell, if she is really gifted, it could be a subconscious manifestion of giving form to her hardships; and even the best artists have attibuted their ideas to God...but how many 8 year olds give it a brand name?)

Post 34

Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 3:35am

     A fascinating thing, here.

     The name's in no on-line dict other than wikipedia (and that only if you 'google' to it), and, in a Google check, the 1st 4 page-listings refer only to her re the name.

     I think I'll do a little more 'alternative'-site checking, just for the...um...heck of it.

     Bissell implies an interesting point: Why did her parents choose the UNUSUAL (unique?) name of "Akiane"?

LLAP
J:D

P.S: 'Her' poetry shows one hell of a depth of conceptualization...even at 7.

(Edited by John Dailey on 11/12, 3:46am)

Post 35

Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 5:34am

     Maybe THIS is where Akiane's future lies...(Akiane's mentioned at the end of the article). Anyone ever hear of this Olivia Bennett prodigy?

     http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2004-09-30/news/feature.html

     I wasn't aware that 'child prodigies' have become such a PR buisness!

LLAP
J:D

Post 36

Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 6:27am

I wasn't all that impressed with her paintings, but I was impressed with her ability to bring light out of the darkness, which is very nice. A lot of them remind me of velvet "Elvis" paintings, though...

I'm more impressed with that little kid Jay Leno had on that could recite every amendment to the Constitution, and all kinds of historical facts. What a cutie!

Oh, and the "underwater birthing" thing was dreamed up by a Soviet researcher then a French OB who thought it would make an easier transition for infants coming into the world. No reference to Christianity in it's history, but that won't stop some Christians from adopting it as some kind of whacky ritual.

http://www.anestesia.com.mx/articulo/waterbrt.html

Post 37

Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 7:18am

How does one get 'manipulated' by reason - that is like saying one is 'biased' by reason...? [biased, of course, means one is favored in spite of or in opposing of reason]

Post 38

Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 5:45am

John Daily: Thanks for that link - I just read the article and found it very interesting. I had no idea there was a whole business but it makes me lean further toward believing that Akiane is really the artist, after all.

From the article:

"Child painter's gift draws skepticism over genius tag," reads a 1996 London Times headline. The article about Alexandra Nechita features a couple of scathing quotes from a British art critic, who said, "Most 10-year-olds can copy. If you dump them in front of a Picasso, they will make a Picasso, of sorts. If you put them in front of something difficult such as a Leonardo, they will find themselves stymied." Art critics, for the most part, left the prodigy business to human-interest feature writers clamoring for an inspirational story. Critics view the paintings as primarily profit-driven, if they view them at all.

Post 39

Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 9:47am