In the accompanying video, seasoned art supply reviewer Rae boldly declares encountering the single worst art supply kit she has ever used since 2016. This candid assessment zeroes in on the ubiquitous cheap children’s art kits, often seen as an affordable entry point into the world of creative expression. However, as the review meticulously demonstrates, the allure of a low price point—specifically a 72-piece set from Walmart priced at around $14-$15—often masks a profound compromise in quality that can actively hinder, rather than help, burgeoning artists. This deep dive will further elaborate on why selecting the right art materials, even for beginners, is paramount and what makes these budget kits a truly detrimental choice for artistic development.
Understanding the Pitfalls of Ultra-Cheap Art Kits: A Detailed Art Supply Review
The initial appeal of a multi-piece art kit at a rock-bottom price is undeniable, especially for those navigating budget constraints or simply seeking a casual foray into art. However, as articulated in the video, such kits invariably represent a false economy. The core issue lies not just in the subpar performance of individual components, but in their collective failure to provide a foundational, encouraging experience for anyone attempting to create art. Instead of fostering creativity, these art tools often introduce frustration, mess, and an inaccurate understanding of how various mediums *should* perform.
Seasoned artists recognize that while professional-grade supplies carry a premium, there exists a vast middle ground of student-grade or even well-chosen basic supplies that offer excellent value without compromising fundamental quality. The true “worst art supply” isn’t necessarily the cheapest, but the one that actively works against the artist, making the process harder and the results disheartening. Unfortunately, many mass-produced children’s art kits fall squarely into this counterproductive category, making them a regrettable purchase for aspiring creatives of all ages and for any serious art supply review.
The Problematic Paper: More Than Just a Tiny Surface
One of the first and most glaring deficiencies highlighted in the video is the microscopic paper included in the kit. Described as mere cut-up sheets of printer paper, this element immediately signals a fundamental misunderstanding of an artist’s needs. While quantity might seem appealing—contributing to the “72 pieces” count—the quality and size are entirely inadequate for any meaningful artistic endeavor.
For any artist, particularly children or beginners, the canvas or paper is the foundational layer upon which all other art materials interact. Small, flimsy paper severely restricts movement, making it difficult to develop fine motor skills or explore larger compositions. Furthermore, general printer paper, typically 20-24 lb bond, is not designed to withstand the moisture from markers or watercolors, nor the pressure from crayons or colored pencils. It buckles easily, bleeds excessively, and prevents effective layering, compromising the final output before any medium is even applied. Manufacturers often use such tactics to inflate piece counts without adding actual value, prioritizing perceived quantity over genuine utility in their cheap art kits.
Crayons That Crumble: A Lesson in Poor Pigment and Binder Quality
The crayons in this particular kit, and many like it, are a prime example of how low-quality manufacturing can ruin a simple art tool. The video notes their shorter and thinner dimensions compared to standard Crayola crayons, immediately making them more fragile and difficult for small hands to grip. However, the real issues lie deeper, in their physical composition and performance.
The observation that these crayons are “so soft” they look “chewed up” even when new points directly to a wax binder that is either too pliable or an imbalanced ratio of wax to pigment. High-quality crayons, even student-grade ones, possess a firmer wax that allows for smooth application, decent layering, and a relatively clean experience. Conversely, an overly soft wax binder means the crayons crumble excessively, leave unwanted flakes and chunks, and often contain significantly less pigment load, leading to streaky, inconsistent coverage and dull, muted colors. The mess created by these cheap crayons, as highlighted in the transcript, further detracts from the creative process, transforming drawing into a constant clean-up task rather than an enjoyable exploration of color.
Colored Pencils: A Primary Color Fails the Fundamental Test
While the video suggests the colored pencils are arguably the “best” component of the kit, this is a relative assessment, and even they suffer from critical flaws. Their thin, half-size nature again speaks to aggressive cost-cutting, impacting ergonomics, comfortable grip, and overall longevity. More concerning, however, is the issue with the “neon yellow” colored pencil, which the reviewer astutely identifies as a significant red flag regarding the manufacturer’s understanding of basic art principles.
Yellow is one of the three primary colors (alongside red and blue), fundamental to color mixing and the creation of an entire spectrum of secondary and tertiary hues. A vibrant, true yellow is essential for achieving a balanced palette and accurate color representation. A neon yellow, by contrast, is a highly saturated, often cool-toned yellow that can be incredibly challenging to blend naturally with other colors, particularly for creating warm, sunlit effects, realistic skin tones, or naturalistic landscapes. This significant deviation from a standard primary color suggests a profound lack of foundational knowledge in color theory on the part of the kit’s designers, which directly impacts a beginner’s ability to learn proper color mixing and achieve desired artistic effects. This specific oversight underscores why investing in a quality set of basic colored pencils, even student-grade, is crucial for anyone serious about learning to draw and paint effectively. For an art supply review, this is a major misstep.
Markers That Misfire: The Frustration of Faulty Design and Poor Ink Flow
Markers are a common source of complaint in cheap art kits, and the ones reviewed here are no exception. Beyond the physical discomfort of the ridged caps—a basic ergonomic design flaw—the functional performance is simply abysmal. The description of them being “so streaky” points to poor ink flow, inconsistent saturation, or inadequate nib construction. Quality markers, whether alcohol or water-based, are meticulously designed to provide smooth, even coverage, allowing for consistent coloring and seamless blending. Streaky markers, conversely, create uneven patches, making it impossible to achieve professional-looking results or even simple, clean areas of color.
Perhaps the most damning indictment of these markers is the incident where the red marker’s “sponge part” (the nib) catastrophically shot up into the barrel. This total failure is not merely an inconvenience; it represents a fundamental defect in the manufacturing process and an utter disregard for product durability. It renders the tool practically unusable and exemplifies the shoddy construction prevalent in many cheap art kits. Such issues are not just frustrating; they actively disrupt the creative flow and can be deeply discouraging for someone trying to learn how to use art tools effectively. This vividly demonstrates a severe lack of quality control in the production of these cheap art kits.
The “Watercolor” That Isn’t: A Case Study in Chemical Contamination and Mislabeling
The watercolor component of this kit is unequivocally labeled the “worst of the worst” by the reviewer, a sentiment easily understood by anyone familiar with true watercolor techniques and expectations. The included brush, permanently bent and far too large for its packaging, is a minor yet telling detail of poor design and packaging. The real catastrophe, however, lies in the “paint” itself, which fundamentally fails to behave like actual watercolor pigments.
True watercolor is characterized by its transparency, its remarkable ability to flow and blend seamlessly across paper, and its capacity to “stain” the paper, allowing light to reflect through the pigment and paper surface. The kit’s offering, described as behaving more like gouache—an opaque, heavier body paint that sits on the surface—immediately sets it apart from traditional watercolor. While gouache is a legitimate and valuable medium in its own right, mislabeling it as watercolor is misleading and actively prevents users from learning proper, distinct watercolor techniques, thus undermining art education.
Even more concerning are the reported issues of “weird flaky white crust powder,” mysterious “floaty things” in the water, and a distinct “grainy, sandy, dirty texture” upon drying. These observations are indicative of severe formulation problems and manufacturing defects. They strongly suggest inadequately ground pigments, significant issues with the binder (the substance that holds the pigment particles together), or even outright chemical contamination. Pigment should be finely milled and evenly dispersed within the binder to create a smooth, consistent application. Flakiness, chunks, and gritty textures imply impurities, poor mixing, or an unstable binder that separates as it dries. Such defects not only ruin the aesthetic quality of the artwork but also raise questions about the safety and archival stability of the art materials, making this particular “watercolor” a truly awful art supply.
Choosing Quality Over Quantity: Investing in Your Artistic Journey
The comprehensive breakdown of this specific cheap art kit serves as a powerful cautionary tale for aspiring artists, parents, and educators alike. While the initial minimal investment might seem appealing, the reality is that such a purchase often leads to profound frustration, wasted money, and a skewed, negative perception of the artistic process. For those navigating budget constraints, the optimal solution is not to opt for the cheapest, most expansive art kit available, but rather to thoughtfully select a few high-quality, student-grade basics that genuinely perform as intended.
For instance, instead of a 72-piece collection of unusable items, consider purchasing a small set of reputable student-grade watercolors (like Cotman or even basic pan sets from trusted brands), a few decent quality colored pencils with strong lightfastness, and a pad of watercolor paper or drawing paper truly suited for multiple mediums. These carefully chosen art materials, though fewer in number, will provide a far superior experience, allowing artists to learn proper techniques, understand how mediums truly behave, and, most importantly, genuinely enjoy the creative process. It empowers them to create satisfactory results and build confidence, rather than battling with every single component of a truly awful art supply.
Diving Deeper into Disappointing Supplies: Q&A
What is the main issue with very cheap children’s art kits?
The main issue is that these kits often hinder creativity and cause frustration due to their poor quality, rather than helping new artists learn and enjoy art.
Why is the paper included in many cheap art kits not good for art?
The paper is often too small and thin, similar to printer paper, which can buckle easily, bleed with markers, and make it difficult to create meaningful art.
What are the common problems with crayons in budget art kits?
Crayons in cheap kits tend to be too soft, crumble easily, leave a messy residue, and have dull colors because they contain less pigment.
Why are the markers in low-cost art kits often frustrating to use?
Markers in these kits frequently have poor ink flow, resulting in streaky lines, and can even break apart, making them difficult or impossible to use properly.
Is it better to buy a large, cheap art kit or fewer quality art supplies?
It’s much better to invest in fewer, higher-quality, student-grade art supplies because they will perform as intended and provide a more encouraging and effective learning experience.