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.
It appears to me that these artists aren't actually naive - they have been artists for their entire lifetime and few who know a lot about art think that formal training is required for skill or understanding in art.
It seems rather that this is a particular style of painting. You can see that all the paintings have very similar composition, bright colors, similar subjects.
Probably it started off with some artists with that style being actually naive and discovered by art appreciators and then thousands of people copying that style so that it became its own thing, but it was already called naive.
I think if you really want to find art done by people who are super-isolated from the art world "Outsider art" is a more accurate term these days.
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.
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.
Naive art(I dont think it is naive) is exceptionally good, I really liked it. I have asked ChatGPT to generate image in the style of great artist Niko Pirosmani paintings. The ouput looks amazing, moody aesthetics.
I don't get this comment by a new account and I try to keep this reply in the spirit of HN without harsh critic and open mind but it's like saying real lemonade is awesome, I just got Tang delivered by Doordash.
Sorry, my comment was very ambiguous and seems to have backfired. I want to clarify that I'm not an artist by any means. A few months ago, I saw people littering a beautiful beach. Last week, I explored the paintings of Niko Pirosmani, and they're really good. His use of thick black creates a unique aesthetic that I really liked. When I saw the HN link, I remembered that scene and wondered what it would look like in Pirosmani's style. I know using AI for this isn't ideal, but I'm not an artist myself,I just wanted to visualize it.
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?)
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.
It appears to me that these artists aren't actually naive - they have been artists for their entire lifetime and few who know a lot about art think that formal training is required for skill or understanding in art.
It seems rather that this is a particular style of painting. You can see that all the paintings have very similar composition, bright colors, similar subjects.
Probably it started off with some artists with that style being actually naive and discovered by art appreciators and then thousands of people copying that style so that it became its own thing, but it was already called naive.
I think if you really want to find art done by people who are super-isolated from the art world "Outsider art" is a more accurate term these days.
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.
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.
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%...
I think Antonio Gaudí would like it, too.
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
This gallery is pure enjoyment!
Preved! Where is Bear Surprise?
Naive art(I dont think it is naive) is exceptionally good, I really liked it. I have asked ChatGPT to generate image in the style of great artist Niko Pirosmani paintings. The ouput looks amazing, moody aesthetics.
Credits: Niko Pirosmani
Warning: (AI generated Imagery)
https://chatgpt.com/share/6a53afb8-31dc-83ee-9650-ee0628c75d...
I don't get this comment by a new account and I try to keep this reply in the spirit of HN without harsh critic and open mind but it's like saying real lemonade is awesome, I just got Tang delivered by Doordash.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niko_Pirosmani
https://www.artsy.net/artist/niko-pirosmani
https://louisiana.dk/en/exhibition/niko-pirosmani/
Sorry, my comment was very ambiguous and seems to have backfired. I want to clarify that I'm not an artist by any means. A few months ago, I saw people littering a beautiful beach. Last week, I explored the paintings of Niko Pirosmani, and they're really good. His use of thick black creates a unique aesthetic that I really liked. When I saw the HN link, I remembered that scene and wondered what it would look like in Pirosmani's style. I know using AI for this isn't ideal, but I'm not an artist myself,I just wanted to visualize it.