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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> "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.
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.
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.
"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.
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).
> 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.
"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.""
"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?
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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]
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.
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.
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."
"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."
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.
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.
[+] [-] mdda|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] jamesaguilar|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andrewcooke|12 years ago|reply
i wonder how bad we are at interpreting nuance in american media? maybe honey boo boo isn't a parenting guide?
[+] [-] adam-a|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] GhotiFish|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tokenadult|12 years ago|reply
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|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] MaysonL|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] arjie|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] rdouble|12 years ago|reply
Minnesota and asian countries are particularly bad about that sort of thing, but in Los Angeles nobody would look twice.
[+] [-] lotharbot|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] 6ren|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] grannyg00se|12 years ago|reply
I would definitely encourage exploration and appreciation of differences but depending on one's surroundings, a bit of apprehension is warranted.
[+] [-] arethuza|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] nilkn|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ekianjo|12 years ago|reply
That's a very neutral expression. In Japan, the non-offensive term is "Half", and it's probably worse than "mixed blood" :)
[+] [-] foobarbazqux|12 years ago|reply
> 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
[+] [-] LoveLinux|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bane|12 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Coogan
[+] [-] jliechti1|12 years ago|reply
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|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arjie|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] sliverstorm|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anug|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rdouble|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nostromo|12 years ago|reply
Reminds me of the sad story of Jackie Coogan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Coogan#Coogan_Bill
[+] [-] wmf|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] moocowduckquack|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joshfraser|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rfnslyr|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ForrestN|12 years ago|reply
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|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] xal|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fernly|12 years ago|reply
[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
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|12 years ago|reply
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|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sytelus|12 years ago|reply
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|12 years ago|reply
I can't say I agree with this at all.
[+] [-] alextingle|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Mordor|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RataDeDosPatas|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eshvk|12 years ago|reply
Just because some moron creates a heuristic that crudely models reality doesn't mean that nature has to follow that heuristic.
[+] [-] mehwoot|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] moocowduckquack|12 years ago|reply
Mozart.
[+] [-] fsckin|12 years ago|reply
If he keeps up with this, imagine how good he will be when he's more mature.
[+] [-] rorrr2|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acangiano|12 years ago|reply