I'm surprised at how few parents understand what it takes to create a great artist. You need to start when they're 5 (or preferably younger), put them in a workshop with great artists/pedagogues etc. (costly!) where they work full time (forget school), evaluate potential and there is a tiny chance they themselves will become great. Annoyed by parents talking about their 5 year olds as "too young" or when they recommend their teenager to 'pursue their dream' when they don't provide a fraction of above. It's still possible but odds go down dramatically.
Contrapoint is that you do not need to pressure kid ever since they are 5 for them to be good artist as adults.
And the second point ... why should parents to do that with their random kid before that kid even shown interest? It is not like art represented some kind of career or lifetime security or even happiness in life.
Many of the comments here are expressing disbelief that this could have been created by a 12 year old, but people fail to recognize that, not only did Michelangelo have tremendous natural talent, but grow up in a world where, as a child, he was allowed to spend enormous amounts of his time and energy studying with professional artists.
He wasn't being dropped off a school at 7am, squirming in a chair until 3pm, playing video games before dinner and then doing homework until bed all while squeezing in a bit of time for sketching.
The vast majority of people probably benefit more from our current structure, but it does make it much less likely to have "genius" of the type we see in Michelangelo, Mozart, etc.
> at the age of 13, Michelangelo was apprenticed to Ghirlandaio. The next year, his father persuaded Ghirlandaio to pay Michelangelo as an artist, which was rare for someone that young
He was literally getting education in art. It is not like there was no structure.
The apprenticeship was after this was painted. Prior to engaging in formal training he largely ignored school and spend his time painting and seeking out other painters to learn from:
> As a young boy, Michelangelo was sent to the city of Florence to study grammar under the Humanist Francesco da Urbino. Michelangelo showed no interest in his schooling, preferring to copy paintings from churches and seek the company of other painters. [0]
You can search other sources and you'll find the same: prior to apprenticeship he was not formally enrolled in any form of art education.
> The apprenticeship was after this was painted. Prior to engaging in formal training he largely ignored school and spend his time painting and seeking out other painters to learn from:
He WAS in schooling and parents sent him to that city literally for education. And then he got into apprenticeship for a vocation that was well paid and supported back then.
He was very much dropped to school and squirmed there to the forced extend. And very much, boys of his age could slack on school work in variety of ways - they did not played videogames, but they did played games in little gangs of theirs, hanging around and generally wasting time to the extend adults allowed it.
Boys and girls who draw well, have talents and spend some freetime doing that exist. They usually learn from youtube (today equivalent of him meddling with artists). They may be put into extracurricular classes, but no one sane will put them into apprenticeship for art - because art is unlikely to feed you.
Burden of proof is on the other party. In one sentence the opinion can be summarized as "if you want increased probability of child becoming a great artist you need great commitment." That's a null hypothesis.
No. Your claim is “great commitment and pressure by parents will increase the probability of their child becoming a great artist”. The null hypothesis would be “great commitment and pressure by parents will not do anything about the probability of their child becoming a great artist”.
Don't have a book but here's some quick thoughts: 1. Biographies on, e.g., Chinese pianist Lang Lang. When he was ~9 he 'retired' (it's an extreme case but telling, can recommend). 2. If you want formal/mathematical/CS perspective, study Reinforcement Learning (e.g. Rick Sutton).
