The term na´ve art is often seen as outsider art which is without a formal training or degree. While this was true before the twentieth century, there are now academies for na´ve art. Na´ve art is now a fully recognized art genre, represented in art galleries worldwide.
The characteristics of na´ve art are an awkward relationship to the formal qualities of painting. Difficulties with drawing and perspective that result in a charmingly awkward and often refreshing vision, strong use of pattern, unrefined color, and simplicity rather than subtlety are all supposed markers of na´ve art. It has, however, become such a popular and recognizable style that many examples could be called pseudo-na´ve.
Whereas na´ve art ideally describes the work of an artist who did not receive formal education in an art school or academy, for example Henri Rousseau or Alfred Wallis, 'pseudo na´ve' or 'faux na´ve' art describes the work of an artist working in a more imitative or self-conscious mode and whose work can be seen as more imitative than original.
"Primitive art" is another term often applied to art by those without formal training, but is historically more often applied to work from certain cultures that have been judged socially or technologically "primitive" by Western academia, such as Native American, subsaharan African or Pacific Island art. This is distinguished from the self-conscious, "primitive" inspired movement primitivism. Another term related to (but not completely synonymous with) na´ve art is folk art.
One Naive Artist
Pirosmani was born in the Georgian village of Mirzaani to a peasant family in the Kakheti province. His family owned a small vineyard. He was later orphaned and put in the care of his two elder sisters. He move with them to Tbilisi in 1870. In 1872 he worked as a servant for wealthy families and learned to read and write Russian and Georgian. In 1876 he returned to Mirzaani and worked as a herdsman.
Pirosmani gradually taught himself to paint. One of his specialties was painting directly onto black oilcloth. In 1882 he opened a workshop in Tbilisi which was unsuccessful. In 1890 he worked as a railroad conductor, and in 1895 worked creating signboards. In 1893 he co-founded a dairy farm in Tbilisi which he left in 1901. Throughout his life Pirosmani, who was always poor, was willing to take up ordinary jobs including housepainting and whitewashing buildings. Although his paintings had some local popularity (about 200 survive) his relationship with professional artists remained uneasy; making a living was always more important to him than abstract aesthetics.
In April 1918 he died of malnutrition and liver failure. He was buried at the Nino cemetery; the exact location is unknown as it was not registered.
No, it used to be that it was a derogatory term for people that had no proper art training so were "not real artists!".... However, it became a style on its own to mean a tyle that is innocent of defined taught style. A pure art if you like.
No, digital does not fall under this umbrella.
Folk Art does however, but will get a 'WHAT IS' all of its own later.
style is not taught - style is the natural expression or way one makes images/marks...no two people write alike - even forgers are caught because of little tell-tale differences the just naturally exude from one's "hand".
Yep. I think it is the word 'culturally'. In England that word means many things to do with cultured society. I dont think that has anything to do with naive painting. Art culture perhaps but not a rounded statement encompassing all culture and cultured people. It was statements like that that gave naivety its bad name in the first place.
David, I think you can digitally make naive pictures, but not because you are naive. After all, you have mastered digital art, and thereby have become beyond naive. Hope this is clear and you take it how I mean it: you're too sophisticated to be naive, I guess.
I understand what your saying. I could produce pseudo naive art, but I have taught my self too much to naturally produce it. Thanks for saying I have masterd digital art. I still feel like I'm at the grasshopper stage.
A lifetime ago, when I knew nothing, but painted furiously, my sister-in-law, highly educated arty person, looked and my then work and called it beautifully naive: I did NOT take it as a compliment....that is because I am/was not ever naive intuitively or in reality, and though she had to say something, I didn't much like the tag. Hope I've improved, seeing as I'm such a sophisticated girl now!!
David you may not have mastered Digital Art yet (it is a life long pursuit - but know you come with all the tools needed) but your general awareness and learnedness has removed your naivete.
Beth and I were starting to dance around this subject - the general understanding/mentation state of an individual will spill over into all they do, see or interact with.
This does not mean mastering neuro-surgery will automatically lead to being a master carpenter, chef or pilot but that awareness of the impact of the little things on the shape of the outcome of any endeavor will be present as will the ability to sense or "read" the whole for subtle/intuitive influence or impact...not to mention the innate knowledge one should read about a subject and get familiar with it before setting forth in it.
Those that have what I refer to as "culture" or some degree of understanding of the humanities and exposure to them... I mean plays, dance, theater, music (all genre - in particular Jazz & Classical), literature, history, science, and of course painting, sculpture, drawing and now digital Art...will know too much to produce truly Naive Art.
They may well produce stinky junk from no skill capacity but their mind will be way too busy to be Naive.
or so I think.
Some find Naive Art refreshing - I don't but that is just a personal response from one who has spent their life pursuing Art.
But that refreshing aspect is the innocence of ignorance - not stupidity - and won't last long in most cases if they have any natural curiousity - they will teach their self enough to no longer be Naive.
I disagree there is a Naive style (it is an individual thing) - no matter what a bunch of suited up clerks type on their keyboards - the other stuff they refer to is nothing more than faux cotton-candy for suckers in my opinion.
I don't think that Naive necessarily means one has to be incompetent . Think it does refer to an element of innocence. Also think that you can not genuinely produce naive art once you have mastered perspective, color, light and shade. I think if after knowing all this you set out to produce naive art that it's incorrectly named, it could be simplistic, minimalist or abstract but not naive . You can't be naive when you know.
I'm capable of painting scenes in any genre or style in which I desire to paint, including 'naive,' because I have mastered the art of painting, but I doubt that a genuinely naive painter could ever paint in my genre, imaginary realism, or anything other than 'naive,' for that matter, because a naive painter would tend to rise to his level of incompetence and no further: aka, The Peter Principle.
Otherwise, these are artists posing as naive painters - hence the expression, pseudo-naive - and should be considered 'con' artists.
I just finished a work shop with a master artist... a mind blowing experience. I do like what I learned and plan to use the tools. However, mostly I like to create art, to help me release the need I have to make art in the first place.
Cave art would be a naive art in my judgement but even then with no schools or master artists man would find a way to express art.
Cave art is in all the art history books timeless and beautiful.
( just my two cents thrown in)
Ancient pre-history (written word) Art is not all of just a few French caves and even in the common ones shown in the major Art History books I can easily argue they are not "Naive Art", at least not all of it. There were some very visually sophisticated folks painting and doing sculpture with stone...there is much more than the fat little woman "Venus".
Naive by definition is not Ancient Art I argue - first because of the quality of some of the Ancient Art but more importantly because to be Niave is to be less than your cultural surroundings.
How my direction in life was taken by my high school,will always bother me. I was excluded from art classes because of overcrowding back in 1970. My Jr. high Art teacher even went to the high school with my carved squirrel and a few drawings, to show them natural talent, and nothing could be done. I had 4 yrs of home economics. I can sew and am a damn good cook! (restaurant work FOH 26 yrs). I have never lost my love of art. I will post something different in a minute......naive?? very!
Naive is a term art historians apply to primitive and un-educated artist's and their simplified works so there is obvious limitations of skill present as in Grandma Moses and many 19th century itenerant painters in America.
I have several people comment on my art work saying it was Naive I didn't know how to take it . I have only been painting a year with no school but I fell in love with it.I know the difference now but I still paint the same.Thanks.