Would you take a guess at the age of this artist?

Question

http://www.photohost.alexzander.ro/uploads/57a17c1617.jpg

I'll reveal the true age at the end of this question and the closest person will be awarded the 10 pts for best answer.

Guess the age of the artist based upon the sophistication of the art.

Answer 1

Hmmm...sofistication of the art? There is no true age for any level of art. A 4 yr old could paint that, and it would be dismissed as 'very nice hunny, do another one' and maybe hung up on the fridge for a while. A teenage might do that and see something 'cool' in it . and an adult might conceive that to be a quick painting of maybe berries on a branch or whatever.
Art is always in the eyes of the beholder...everyone sees things differently...I am also a painter and totallly emmerse myself in a work. ...wishing I could take a lighter approach and create art as innocently as the piece you show here. Its quite likely that this piece was painted by an elderly artist as well, wanting to express some emotions, a wild side maybe...some suppressed avant garde flair he or she may have. Just enjoying the colours, and textures and flow of the paint. I always tell people who say they can't paint 'you don't know until you try' ....and whatever comes out still is a work of art. Its a great way to see into yourself...whats in you heard and mind and soul. No matter what age you are. Thats my story, and I'm stickin' to it!!!

Answer 2

3

Answer 3

4

Answer 4

Why not ask how much the artist weighs? Chronological age has little to do with sophistication. Length of time learning and practicing plus a little voodoo for latent talent, and a big dose of desire...that adds up to sophistication. Judging from the tiny image, I'd guess between 12 and 82. But you probably want that narrowed a bit.

OK...my guess is 16.

Answer 5

20

Answer 6

Is there anything sophisticated about borrowing heavily from an already famous style? Perhaps for a very young artist. But not of an adult.

Like your other painting, I'm not picking on the art itself, but on it looking way too much like a 'been-there-done-that' Jackson Pollock.

Answer 7

I'd guess between 18 and 22, or the first few years of college for someone. It's definitely not by a kid because even though it's unorganized, it's systematically unorganized like it was meant to look like that. Older folks, usually, not always, tend to stick more to non-abstract work which leads me to think it's some kind of experimental youth fresh in college.

So, I guess 20.

I could be full of crap and it's either a kid or a 60 year old.

Answer 8

Isn't that your signature on the painting? I like your work, looks like your having fun just like Jackson Pollock did. Keep going don't stop. Keep laying on the paint, try more colors, you've got a lot of rhythm in this one. If your using a stretched canavs let the paint dribble around the sides, then you won't have to frame it.

I would say the age of the artist based on the sophistication of the art would be 34 the same age as Jackson Pollock when he was at the height of his career.

Or maybe I could answer it like this; the age of the artist, period. Then I would say somewhere around 73.

Check out some of Pollock's work here: http://images.google.com/images?q=Jackson+pollock&hl=en&lr=&client=safari&rls=en-us&sa=X&oi=images&ct=title

Answer 9

28

Answer 10

This is kind of a trick question. Really it is a blown up photo of a fly that has been smashed on paper by a fly swatter.

So, that would make the fly the artist. And I would guess the fly to be about 2 weeks old. Or at least he was 2 weeks old before he got smashed.