Are you interested in and intrigued by non-traditional forms of artistic expression? There tends to be a belief that this type of artistic expression lacks prior knowledge in fine arts theory, but actually these artists are often well versed in the fine arts methods. Employing these methods may potentially cause backlash from traditional art societies. Do we stay true to our desire for intuitive process or compromise to gain acceptance by a public gallery?
Naïve Art
Naïve art is usually defined as visual art that is created by a person who lacks the formal education and training that a professional artist undergoes (in anatomy, art history, technique, perspective, ways of seeing). When this aesthetic is emulated by a trained artist, the result is sometimes called primitivism, pseudo-naïve art, or faux naïve art. For those who understand the complexity of creating an image in the pseudo-naive style know that “Childlike simplicity” – unaffected, unsophisticated… bold colors” only describes the finished product. Constructing it is a whole different story. It is a specific method that many novices do not use. On the other hand, primitivism can refer to paintings from the pre-Renaissance period as well as art from uncivilized tribes and may have different meaning from Naive Art.
Unlike folk art, naïve art does not necessarily derive from a distinct popular cultural context or tradition; indeed, at least in the advanced economies and since the Printing Revolution, awareness of the local fine art tradition has been inescapable, as it diffused through popular prints and other media. Naïve artists are aware of “fine art” conventions such as graphical perspective (views which show distance through using a smaller size for more distant objects) and compositional conventions (using tools such as dark and light areas to attract the eye), but are unable to fully use them, or choose not to. Rules are generally not approved, not as much as unique presentation. By contrast, outsider art (art brut) denotes works from a similar context but which have only minimal contact with the mainstream art world.
Naïve art is recognized, and often imitated, for its childlike simplicity and frankness. Paintings of this kind typically have a flat rendering style with a rudimentary expression of perspective. One particularly influential painter of “naïve art” was Henri Rousseau (1844–1910), a French Post-Impressionist who was discovered by Pablo Picasso.
The definition of the term, and its “borders” with neighbouring terms such as folk art and outsider art, has been a matter of some controversy. Naïve art is a term usually used for the forms of fine art, such as paintings and sculptures, made by a self-taught artist, while objects with a practical use come under folk art. But this distinction has been disputed. Another term that may be used, especially of paintings and architecture, is “provincial”, essentially used for work by artists who had received some conventional training, but whose work unintentionally falls short of metropolitan or court standards.
Naïve art is often seen as outsider art that is by someone without formal (or little) training or degree. While this was true before the twentieth century, there are now academies for naïve art. Naïve art is now a fully recognized art genre, represented in art galleries worldwide.
Sometimes it is hard to convince the world of fine art that this style is fully recognized.
The characteristics of naïve art have an awkward relationship to the formal qualities of painting, especially not respecting the three rules of the perspective (such as defined by the Progressive Painters of the Renaissance):
Decrease of the size of objects proportionally with distance,
Muting of colors with distance,
Decrease of the precision of details with distance,
The results are:
Effects of perspective geometrically erroneous (awkward aspect of the works, children’s drawings look, or medieval painting look, but the comparison stops there)
Strong use of pattern, unrefined color on all the plans of the composition, without enfeeblement in the background,
An equal accuracy brought to details, including those of the background which should be shaded off.
Simplicity rather than subtlety are all supposed markers of naïve art. It has, however, become such a popular and recognizable style that many examples could be called pseudo-naïve.
Whereas naïve 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 naïve’ or ‘faux naïve’ 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.
Folk Art
In the broadest sense, folk art refers to the art of the people, as distinguished from the elite or professional product that constitutes the mainstream of art in highly developed societies. The term in this comprehensive context combines some quite disparate categories of art; therefore, as a workable field of art-historical study, folk art is generally treated separately from certain other kinds of peoples’ arts, notably the “primitive” (defined as the work of prehistoric and preliterate peoples). Historically, the terms folk and popular have been used interchangeably in the art field, the former being specific in English and German (Volkskunst), the latter in the Romance languages (populaire, popolare); the term folk, however, has increasingly been adopted in the various languages, both Western and Oriental, to designate the category under discussion here. The term popular art is widely used to denote items commercially or mass-produced to meet popular taste, a process distinguished from the manner of the folk artist, as defined above. The distinction between folk and popular art is not absolute, however: some widely collected folk art, such as the chalkwares (painted plaster ornamental figures) common in America and the popular prints turned out for wide distribution, may be seen as the genesis of popular art; and the products and motifs long established in folk art have provided a natural source for the popular field.
Any particular folk art will necessarily share the style of its general cultural area; Chinese folk art is Chinese as well as folk. Thus, analysis of the style and recognition of its folk origin is dependent upon knowledge of the “high art” with which it interacts, as well as of the folk situation that sets it apart. When a folk piece is compared with an adjacent sophisticated one produced at the same time, the differences become apparent, whether in the nature of the object as a whole or in its material, execution, content, or style. Stylistically, the time lag is significant; for example, the Baroque curve survived in simple country churches, and elaborate floral ornament in furniture decoration, long after sophisticated European art had become Neoclassical.
One of the commonly accepted notions of folk style is that it is naive; it is thought to be childlike and fresh, despite the fact that some of its 19th-century critics condemned its “meaningless repetitions” and its “degenerate” forms. Repetitiveness is to be expected in the production of objects needed by all; but the artists saw only a few neighbouring examples, and to the practiced eye their art reveals many variations. Folk art is often associated with bright colour and an appealing charm, qualities sufficiently present to account for a wide popularity but counterbalanced by the somberness and seriousness of many pieces, notably in religious art. In fact, few commonly accepted notions of folk style apply to the entire field.
Conclusion
To conclude, these lesser known forms of artwork are still considered unconventional artistic expressions, but it can’t be said that these artists are without painting skills.
Perspective Example – Buildings in the distance are very small, trees in front are very large.
