My problem with Naive Art is that it is quite repetitive and limited.
It is a bit like punk rock. After you've heard one or 2 songs from Ramones then you've heard them all. Surely, Ramones, once in a while, can be fun. But after the 3rd song I feel that all they're saying is "we wish we were the Beatles".
Similarly, naive art can be fun, almost as much as Brueghel. But after the 100th 3rd World village with rivers and palm trees I just want to go back to Rembrandt.
In every context I know of, "naive" is a condescending term when applied to an adult. Do artists in this "genre" appreciate their work being labelled this way? "Unconventional" was right there. It means roughly the same thing, but without the side helping of implied... deficit.
Can an artist who submits their work to this gallery -- which features the word in its very name -- really be called "naive"?
I can't tell that the works are "naive" in any sense -- they look no better or worse to me than other artwork -- and I feel no desire to change that by "educating" myself on how "non-naive" art is supposedly better.
There's Naïve Bayes (although it's sometimes labeled in more explicit terms).
The problem with “unconventional” is that these works are anything but. As far as I can tell, the most of the paintings presented on the site follows a particular style. I don't think someone who is inspired to paint after watching the Joy of Painting would necessarily end up with something like this, so it's not just about being amateurish. It's also quite likely that some of the painters are anything but self-taught and have chosen to paint in this particular way.
In case you were wondering like me, this is visual art by an artist without formal training - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_art
Thanks. The website itself has the most infuriatingly long and vague description (Menu->Naive art?)
One of my favorite piece of art is also regarded as naive art, even though it is a quite unique one, it's the Palais idéal [0] from Cheval.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Cheval#Palais_id%C3%...
This seems to be fairly good. It's a different style than mine, but I wish them well.
For fairly bad, may we present MOBA?
https://museumofbadart.org
My problem with Naive Art is that it is quite repetitive and limited.
It is a bit like punk rock. After you've heard one or 2 songs from Ramones then you've heard them all. Surely, Ramones, once in a while, can be fun. But after the 3rd song I feel that all they're saying is "we wish we were the Beatles".
Similarly, naive art can be fun, almost as much as Brueghel. But after the 100th 3rd World village with rivers and palm trees I just want to go back to Rembrandt.
But not all naive art comes from 3rd world. I remember learning about famous naive artists from Northern Europe which were quite amazing.
This gallery is pure enjoyment!
In every context I know of, "naive" is a condescending term when applied to an adult. Do artists in this "genre" appreciate their work being labelled this way? "Unconventional" was right there. It means roughly the same thing, but without the side helping of implied... deficit.
Can an artist who submits their work to this gallery -- which features the word in its very name -- really be called "naive"?
I can't tell that the works are "naive" in any sense -- they look no better or worse to me than other artwork -- and I feel no desire to change that by "educating" myself on how "non-naive" art is supposedly better.
There's Naïve Bayes (although it's sometimes labeled in more explicit terms).
The problem with “unconventional” is that these works are anything but. As far as I can tell, the most of the paintings presented on the site follows a particular style. I don't think someone who is inspired to paint after watching the Joy of Painting would necessarily end up with something like this, so it's not just about being amateurish. It's also quite likely that some of the painters are anything but self-taught and have chosen to paint in this particular way.