Prime Time 7, Coursebook plus Semester Self-checks

(a circle with lines coming off it to represent beams) and then declares it done – with the majority of the canvas unpainted and no layering of paint. This happened when she was being filmed with no supervision from her father. When her father is there watching her, he cannot keep the frustration and anger out of his voice when she just squirts paint on the canvas and rubs it all over with her hands. He then makes the excuse that she only does that when she’s on camera – off-camera she would be using a spatula. In the hidden camera footage, which is supposed to prove what she does, you can hear Marla’s dad directing her – telling her what colour to use and where to use it. He’s possibly telling the truth when he uses very carefully chosen words – that he never puts paint on the canvas himself. That isn’t, however, the same as the paintings being done 100% by Marla with no interference from him. Marla is a happy kid painting away and has no concept of what is really happening, except her dad tells her how to paint and she does it to please him. Even if she doesn’t do all the painting, she isn’t a fraud – she’s a little girl who enjoys painting. Period. Anything done with the paintings afterwards, any money made, any claims made for it, are completely beyond her control. If this is a scam, it’s her parents doing it, not her, and her parents who would have to answer it, not her. 20 25 30 35 40 c) Summarise in your own words how Marla and her parents are described. d) What do you think about the writer’s view? e) With a partner, brainstorm ideas related to the issue of stage parents – parents who want too much from their children or even exploit them. Think about: • reasons for the parents’ ambitions • proper childhood • possible consequences for the child Writing: Abstract art is a sham?! You like art and follow a blog run by a group of young artists you personally know. The latest post in their forum catches your attention. by artcritic33 24 April, 1:05 a.m. Once upon a time a popular art hoax involved getting critics to praise a work of art, and then revealing that the work was really created by a monkey or a child, thereby proving what poor judgement the critics had. But I don’t think that kind of hoax would work today because critics seem to be voluntarily lining up to heap praise on works by animals and infants. Paintings by Asian elephants are fetching thousands of dollars, and now a four-year-old girl in New York, Marla Olmstead, is creating a buzz in the art world, having just had her own gallery show. The owner of the gallery said it was his most successful show ever. The New York Times reports that “Marla has sold 24 paintings totalling nearly $40,000, with the prices going up. Her latest paintings are selling for $6,000. Some customers are on a waiting list.“ I guess this proves that art is whatever critics say is art. It also proves that I’m definitely in the wrong line of work. Maybe I should branch out as the art manager for my six-year-old nephew, Louis. He’s done some very good work if I may say so myself. For instance, his work shown above (titled: “Dialogue of green and blue on a face”) not only daringly uses his own face as a canvas, but also clearly evokes echoes of Picasso and Gauguin. You have decided to comment on this blog post. In your blog comment you should: • comment on Marla as an example of a child prodigy • discuss the need for basic technique/to be able to paint realistically • examine the value of pieces of art Write around 250/400 words . 5  115 Nur zu Prüfzwecken – Eigentum des Verlags öbv