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.
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.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Cheval#Palais_id%C3%...
For fairly bad, may we present MOBA?
https://museumofbadart.org
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.
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.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niko_Pirosmani https://www.artsy.net/artist/niko-pirosmani https://louisiana.dk/en/exhibition/niko-pirosmani/