About the Museum
The Museum of Hoaxes is dedicated to promoting knowledge about hoaxes. (Click here for opening hours, etc.) On our blog we post about dubious- sounding claims, and whatever else strikes our fancy. The site is also home to the Hoax Photo Database, the Hoax Forum, and the Hoaxipedia.

Web Hoax Museum

RUDE ROVER
The Christmas dog with no class! He sings and toots Jingle Bells.
INFLATABLE TREE
Who needs the hassle of a real Christmas tree?
FARTING SANTA
Go ahead and pull his finger!

Well, we can hope this money she's getting for her paintings is going towards college tuition or a nice car for her. I sure wouldn't mind being pushed like that 12 years ago if it meant I'd have a new toyota today.

It's good to live in hope. There is however the danger that this child's earnings will end up in a trust fund, which will eventually be used to pay for her parents' divorce, thus leaving the child with nothing (as happened to McCauley Culkin). Or that it'll just be frittered away on improvements to the house etc.

If this turns out to indeed be a hoax concocted by the girl's father, I truly pity them. To exploit such a small child like that is just awful, especially if the father has done most the work, and they are teaching her to lie and claim it as her own. What great lessons this girl will have to grow up with.

I just think it sucks b/c this means MY kid is gonna grow up to be in this kid's society. I'm doing everything I can to teach right & wrong to my daughter...and 10 minutes after she meets this girl in a college dorm...the damn nut will have corrupted my sweet, intelligent, young adult.

This is all well and good, but how does everyone feel about the new Dusty girl ad??...

If it's ever discovered or proven that the paintings aren't the childs own creations as claimed, then any buyers of her art should sue the shit out of that guy. He came off to us as a lazy asshole, who wants to support his family in the easiest manner possible. Not only did his body language seem off to us but the whole hidden camera thing was the clincher. Yelling at her from off camera like that! Even if they are her creations, would you want one that was the result of a child getting yelled at by her father like that? There are plenty of other more frivilous lawsuits out there so why not this one? This guy is USING his child to carry his ass, I'd bet when she turns 18 there'll be nothing at all left from this venture. The "buyers" of this art should get their money back so this scam can die out, and hopefully that kid can lead somewhat of a normal life... and perhaps not do too much damage to Maegan's child at college.

Hmm, if the kid didn't really do the paintings, then her parents aren't really exploiting her work, are they? They're just lying about her, and exploiting the naive art buyers.

Anybody want to buy one of my cat's drawings?

I'm not saying their exploiting her work, I'm saying they're exploiting the girl herself by subjecting her to the burden of being a "creative genius" for a quick buck, something a child this young shouldn't have to experience.

Funny thing, is that people were saying how good the paintings were regardless of who did it. So if it turns out that her dad made the paintings, does it mean that he's a great artist instead of her?

The 60 minutes story said:
Her paintings were even compared to those of Jackson Pollock, the legendary abstract expressionist who was famous for dripping paint freely on his large canvases. Others said her bright colors and shapes reminded them of another modern master, Wassily Kandinsky... “It’s beautiful. It’s absolutely beautiful. You could slip it into the Museum of Modern Art," says Winner. "I think you could fool people. They're good. They're good."

If they billed the artwork as done by the child, charged more than $1,000 and in fact it was then determined to not be done by the child then at the very least they're guilty of fraud and grand larceny. Possibly more, possibly less depending on what state your talking about. But at these prices, I would imagine that it's at least felony fraud and grand larceny. Or am I mistaken... any lawyers on here?

Here's a question: does anyone know how the girl got started, how her work was recognized originally?

The article answers both your questions, but that would mean reading it. She saw daddy painting and wanted to paint, then was discovered from a painting hanging in a cafe that sold, or something to that extent.

Says that the father is an amateur painter himself. My guess is that he's probably had his work rejected before and by making like his daughter is this prodigical kid it would surely gain more publicity than if he were to push the paintings as his own. Don't know why, but such things always seem so much more "special" if the genius in question is a "sweet, adorable little kid". There wouldn't be so much fuss if it were the other way around. That, of course, is just my opinion.

If he is indeed making all of this up, that poor wee ankle biter is going to have some serious issues when she's older. Pity.

To Maegan:
If you teach right & wrong to your daughter, and she grows up to be an honest, upstanding person, she will have come across a lot of crap already by high school. College won't do her any more damage. Plus, you should be able to trust her. She should make the decision to not be friends with people who are dishonest. As this 4 year old will turn out to be because of the parents that are raising her. Even if they get sued. Even if they stop exploiting her. If they were corrupt enough to do something like this to a 4 yr. old (assuming the pictures are not really hers) then, they can only teach her bad things. It would take a lot for them to change, and most people never change.

I've never really considered if this Marla-thing was a "hoax" or not. I personnally hope it isn't. I think this whole mentality of being surprised of a four year old painting "Modernist" works stems from the fact we take abstract works by other artist "geniuses" Pollock, Kandinsky, etc, for granted. Marla doesn't fit their stereotype (middle aged male, struggling artist, etc), so we automatically cast doubt on her. That being said...

In the parent's interview, they admitted to being nervous with the hidden camera on their daughter. I felt they were being honest when they explained why they coached Marla. I wish wish wish they had other cameras around filming the rest of the room or something. Maybe that would help sort this out.

When I sketch for example, I prefer sketching at any place I want, without someone looking over my shoulder. These things can easily distract someone very easily! (Anyone see "The Final Cut" with Robin Williams? ) Can you imagine how it could be for a four year old girl!? No wonder the work she made with the hidden camera was so different formally than her other works. She was forced to make it in a place she didn't want.

I wonder what she's say years from now when she learns she was secretly filmed and it was nationally aired. I would (probably) be discusted if it were me. Although, I can see obvious benefits to it (ie, study the artist's mentality when they're making a work and what not). I'm pretty sure this sort of thing is done for research.

It was because of this girl that I found out about this site. Some time ago I saw the story on a newspaper and I thought "You got to be kidding! This must be fake!" So I went to the Internet to look for some site that would say something on this being a hoax. And that's how I found out about Museum of Hoaxes!

Now, about Marla. I don't know much about American laws, only what I see in TV and movies, but I was thinking if "getting advantage" of one's child is not a public crime. I mean, can anybody say "hey, I think these parents are taking advantage of their child, the Police or some public institution for the protection of children should investigate"? Is it possible? Are there any official authorities investigating? Aren't there enough suspicions for someone to investigate? Not to mention fraude as someone else already said. Many, many people are concerned with the education that this girl is getting from her parents, can't anything be done?...

Sil, there's a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in buying.

Tornado said:
" ... such things always seem so much more "special" if the genius in question is a "sweet, adorable little kid"...."
I'd prefer art made by a bizarre, neurotic kid. But that's just me.

I don't get what you mean Gary, lol.

If the works are so widely accepted as "great modern art" and are done by a 4-year-old, what does that say about other "great modern artists" or indeed the concept of modern art in general? Could modern art be a gigantic hoax that has been going on for decades? Most of the modern art I see does nothing for me, or anyone else I know. With few exceptions, modern art is a waste of time/paint/stone/metal/etc as far as I can tell. Abstract and Expressionism work best for me as far as the non-realistic styles although some of the older stuff, realistic, really moves me. I keep trying to find pictures by Adam Henderson, his sea storms especially. The few of those I've seen really stir me. But that may be because I'm a relative. I do wish I could afford some of the Masters such as Van Gogh (sp?) or some of the old Dutch Masters but I'm broke.