Naivety in art & contemporary illustration Kieran Blakey Ba (Hons) Illustration – Level 5 Module Code: OUIL501 Studio Brief 1 Word Count: 2861
Naivety in art & contemporary illustration Naïve art is any form of visual art that is created by a person who lacks the formal education and training that a professional artist undergoes [1]. There are two main ways of considering when naïve art originated, the first being when its status as an art form was considered equal to that of other artistic approaches; putting it towards the start of the twentieth century. Such as with the advent in popularity of Henri Rousseau (although many aesthetic parallels still exist today within contemporary illustration). The other would be to look back at a time where all art would be now considered ‘naïve’, many thousands of years ago such as in Lascaux or other prehistoric caves. Naivety can be looked at through many different lenses, with the word implying inexperience, innocence, trustfulness, and as Natalia Brodskaïa (2000) puts it, “has the kind of descriptively emotive ring to it that clearly reflects the spirit of such artists”. Although as a definite term it’s more difficult to pin down, and is open to confusion. Such as Louis Aragon, we can say that ‘It is naïve to consider this painting naïve’. Perhaps art could be considered as a scale, and anything below what is held to be the ‘standard’ is inherently naïve. Today in an illustrative context, ‘naïve’ can be considered anything to which the craft of a piece is not integrally complex, or which strives for technical superiority (such as Jean Giraud). Although, which regardless can still be considered accomplished, with as much value as more traditional artistic styles, which have a more rigid visual language to compete with.
-Tiger in a Tropical Storm, Henri Rousseau
It would also be erroneous to consider cave-paintings as the work of unskilled artists. The characteristic form, movement and subtle colours that still adorn the walls show incredible craftsmanship and as Tedesco (2000) puts it ‘we witness the earliest unequivocal evidence of the human capacity to interpret and give meaning to our surroundings.’ If they were to be considered ‘skilled’ then what of the prehistoric ‘naïve’ artist? The idea that only the
most representational depiction of a subject is vastly outdated and reserved for those who consider creative discipline as an esoteric and erudite occupation. During the eighteenth century at the time of the Enlightenment, the idea of ‘Primitivism’ was first established and coincided with a time of immense European colonial expansion. The providence of new culture to the West. ‘set within a system of unequal power relations which determined that the primitive, or more often in contemporary writings, ‘the savage’, was invariably the dominated partner’ (Rhodes, 1997). Primitivism has long been compared to naïve art, with the main concept fuelling them being the rejection of traditional systems of art representation. It makes a point of staying away from ‘high-class’ art, work which we as a western society have conscribed into our collective consciousness as the ‘standard’ for which we hold ourselves. However, ‘Primitive art means far more than that; it makes a straightforward statement, its primary concern is with the elemental, and its simplicity comes from direct and strong feeling, which is a very different thing from fashionable simplicity-for-its-own-sake which is emptiness’ (Moore, 1941). This feeling of direct energy, its intense vitality is what makes naïve art so captivating. Work that is ‘made for people with a direct and immediate response to life’ (Flam, J. & Deutch, 2003) and is a channel for communicating powerful beliefs, hopes, and fears, before it’s been disguised by technical superiority of surface decoration. To create something that lies so directly within the canon of traditional recognised art (especially up to the ‘discovery’ of Rousseau) could be seen as incredibly dull since nothing would violate expectation, present new or challenging perspectives or create tension. ‘People would provide the proper materials, performers would know just how to interpret the directions given them, museums would have exactly the right kind of space and lighting for the work to appear in, audiences would be able to respond with no difficulty to the experiences the art work created’ (Becker, 2016) and so on. This unpredictability is what continually draws people towards this line of expression and is the reason it still holds so much weight today in contemporary illustration, such as in the line-work of Quentin Blake or Laura Carlin. Naïve art is often considered in a condescending tone. The idea that the real desire of the artist had been naturalistic representation, (such as that of a photograph) but they had not yet learned to do a convincing job, is a popular belief in the broad public. Gotschalk’s 1962 comparison ‘between “disciplined” and “naïve” aesthetic experience provided a conceptual but nonempirical approach to the role of art background’ (Winston, A.S. & Chupchik, G.C 1992) where the naïve viewer is described as treating an artwork “as it were an everyday object elevated momentarily to the purest perceptual level” (Gotschalk, 1962). The key idea being that an uninformed viewer will raise the supposed value of a traditional work of art by viewing it subjectively; whilst ignoring the form, material, and expressive qualities that were utilised by the artist. Looking towards realism and missing the qualities that add themselves towards the naïve, ironically enough. By contrast however, an evaluation of art by a more disciplined viewer (‘having at least 10 lessons in art’) appreciates the work as a “created aesthetic entity” (Gotschalk, 1962), exploring all of the interrelated aesthetic functions and constructing a more critical awareness of the artwork. Neperud also expanded this position, arguing that more “experienced” viewers dynamically process the ‘information available in art-works and use
stored knowledge in the form of propositions or prototypes to make sense of them’ (Winston, A.S., 1992). That they have trained themselves to possess “more elaborate and complex categorizations of art” (Neperud, 1988). This can be used to analyse a ‘naïve’ painting but the value of that work, and of the artist, lies not in the confirmation of a governing status but in the enigmatic and transcendent experience that the art offers the viewer. Goldfish, as painted by Henri Matisse is a fantastic example of how a nonrepresentational image can inspire and present a harmonious whole which doesn’t rely on pre-ordained systems of communication. It remains in the world of the physical, and avoids embellishing to the point of surrealism but retains the bright colours and strong linear patterns associated with Fauve works of art although more subdued than earlier works. Its composition is balanced in a harmonious unity of colour, shape and arrangement.
.
-Goldfish, Henri Matisse
Giorgio de Chirico once said, ‘To become truly immortal, a work of art must escape all human limits… But once these barriers are broken, it will enter the realms of childhood visions and dreams’. The idea being that to transcend normal expectations, a return to simplicity and naivety will present an unmatched creative force. Naïve artists are sometimes referred to as modern primitives, ‘the category also overlaps with what is called outsider art, or in France art brut’ (Tate.org, 2017). Monika Kinley, one of the founders of the outsider art collection in the Irish Museum of Modern Art, describes outsider artists as ‘…artists who are untrained and work for and by, themselves. They know little of cultural history of the tradition of Fine Art’. The same can be said of a lot of contemporary illustrators who started their career outside traditional art schooling such as Keith Haring, or Jean-Michel Basquiat but whose work has since been widely celebrated. What makes outsider art exceptional is that it’s created by people with little to no training, and who are generally so removed from ‘normal expectations ‘that they may not even think of themselves are ‘artists’, let alone as ‘Outsiders’’ (Maclagan, 2009). It is special, for it’s art that’s created for its own sake, by people interred in institutes, the mentally ill, and those so
far removed from traditional art. This integrity to the process and repeated trial and error created by these ‘outsiders’ makes their work inimitable and unique, something that draw people towards contemporary naïve art today and is what makes it so hard to define. Many descriptive expressions have been suggested to make the term more precise, Wilhelm Uhde called the 1928 exhibition in Paris “les Artists du Sacré-Coeur” (Brodskaïa, 2000) to mean ‘the artists of the sacred heart’. He wanted to emphasize not a location (Sacré-Coeur) but the pure, unspoiled nature of the artist’s dispositions. There is a huge disparity in what can be considered ‘naïve’ especially when work from the masters such as Matisse and Picasso are so expertly crafted. It is difficult and maybe even impossible to quantify the influence of Henri Rousseau, Ivan Generalić, and Giorgio de Chirico on contemporary illustrators and artists. Being that ‘naivety’ belongs to no specific school or works to any specific system of art. Finding consistent threads or factors uniting them is hard since it combines such a massive diversity of elements, ‘the term has thus taken on a broadness that renders it, as a definition, all too indefinite.’ The singular definition of ‘’primitive’ is simply no longer precise enough to apply to the works of untaught artists.’ (Brodskaïa, 2000). Nevertheless, it is an unmistakable influence upon the works of contemporary illustrators such as Laura Carlin, Tracey Emin, and Luke Best which provides a beautiful harmony of the unexpected and the undesignated. The constant quest for new and original forms of creativity is intrinsically linked to the acquisition and information of different forms of representation, character and culture. Art Brut can be seen as ‘the continuation and intensification of a widespread and typical feature of modernism’ (Maclagan, 2009), drawing on the previous influence of modernism and channelling that into a separate outlet for a new generation of artists. Drawing on influence from past artistic merit can also be seen today in the more abstracted painting style of Charlotte Mei, or the twisted, monolithic forms present in Palefroi’s combined work. The landscape of modern naïve art is constantly changing with each wave seeking to embody a new kind of artistic creativity which claims to be radically different from the previous. As Debuffet said, ‘True art always appears where we don’t expect it, where nobody thinks of it or utters its name. Art detests being recognised and greeted by its own name’, to avoid pinning a concept down because then it loses its ability to be interpreted or placed within a personal context. When Debuffet set up the parameters form Art Brut it was a more clearly distinguishable product with key differences from the mainstream art world. However, ‘more than fifty years have elapsed since then, and many of the characteristics that were once peculiar to Outsider art can now be found in the world of artist who would never qualify for that title. Imitation or pastiche – is perhaps a more frequent ingredient in Art Brut that its discoverers like to admit’ (Maclagan 2009)
-Palefroi Generally, with having little to no official training, or having bare contact to the artistic world, naïve artists have likewise not learned the traditional vocabulary and reasoning behind their work. They find it hard to explain why or what they’re creating in conventional art terminology, or give an explanation behind their justification. Since they are not ‘legitimised by any authentic connection to an established art world’ (Becker 2016). Art or constructions such as Rodia’s ‘Watts Towers’ in Los Angeles, have been turned upon by intrigued critics who now require explanation, something that the makers can’t provide (Cardinal, 1972). This can appear as visible signs of madness or supreme eccentricity and once again lead to a depreciation of the culture of naïve art. This can be evidenced by Cheval (1968: 11) who, whilst describing how he began collecting stones for the Palais, says, “Before long, local tongues began to wag… People actually thought I was mentally ill. Some laughed at me: some reproached or criticized me.” Similarly to how nonconformist art made by a trained artist lies in relation to the conventional art world, so does the unrefined and primitive quality of naïve art. ‘It is not the character of the work itself, but rather that it has been made without reference to the constraints of contemporary convention, that distinguishes naïve art’ (Becker, 2016). This can create an interesting dichotomy when naïve art is displayed in a professional scenario; can the work still be classed as inherently naïve even after it’s been addressed with critical acclaim? It also presents the question of whether aesthetic naivety and structural naivety should even be classed similarly.
-The Watts Towers, Simon Rodia
Neperud ( 1988) expanded the comparison between “disciplined” and “naïve” art by arguing that “experienced” ‘viewers actively process the information available in art-works’, the idea whereby viewers use stored knowledge in the form of ‘propositions or prototypes’ to make sense of the art. The visual journal experiences a shift from representative illustration into much more naïve representations of the same image. As Gotschalk (1962) would argue, the journal could be described as a “created aesthetic entity” to disciplined viewer, however an inexperienced viewer would only be able to appreciate it at face value, the concept being that experience helps dictate how representations in art can change to a viewer. Art is extremely subjective and naivety being utilised as a visual device can easily be mistaken for inexperience. Going through the visual journal, experimentations of composition, colour, abstraction, and tone can all be observed with the objective of finding a conclusive point when naivety crosses over from an academic study. Naïve art’s most captivating quality is its intense vitality, ‘It is something made by people with a direct and immediate response to life, a channel for expressing powerful beliefs, hopes, and fears, before it’s been masked by technical superiority or surface decoration’ (Brodskaia, 2000). I observed this more so within the second half of the journal. As the desire to represent something became less of a focus, the straightforward goal of painting, of creating an illustration, came to the fore-front and dictated the visual response on a much more primitive level (primitive to mean coming from direct and strong feeling rather than “savage”). There’s a reason that genuine scholars of naïve art are rare, since as Brodskaia (2000) puts it ‘after all, it is hard to find any basic element, any consistent factor, that unites their art and enables it to be studied as a discrete phenomenon’. To discern within the journal when the plant becomes “naïve” would be impossible since every illustration is coming from an informed and consistent source. To decide when the work becomes aesthetically “naïve” would also be redundant since, although the images become less complex the further the
series progresses, observation is relative and a trained viewer could consider every illustration within the journal to be untrained and naïve. However, the attempt at creating this experiment using influence from naïve/folk artists is valid since, ‘paradoxically, it is their independence that determines their similarity. They tend to use the same sort of themes and subjects; they tend to have much the same sort of outlook on life in general’ (Brodskaia, 2000), which translates into a similar painting style. I suppose the visual journal would not be so much an experiment to see when a painting becomes naïve, rather when the visual quality and aesthetics resemble those of past practitioners such as Matisse, Wallis or Rousseau. It can also be looked at within a contemporary setting as well with practitioners such as Carlin and Palefroi who draw on influence from past practitioners such as Clementine Hunter. By looking at these examples It’s easy to see how naivety has solid footing within contemporary illustration and goes a long way to showing how different forms of representation will always have a market within their subcultures.
-Laura Carlin All the time the works of previously obscure naïve artists are becoming known, some from the early days of naïve art, and some relatively contemporary. ‘Their art may add to our understanding of the phenomenon of naïve art or may change it altogether’ (Brodskaïa, 2000) and it is for this reason that it’s impossible to come to an exact ‘appreciation of naïve art that was tightly-defined, complete and static’ and why it’s such a fascinating subject for future study. It can be seen as the work of common or untutored people, but that is the very thing that lends it authority as a form of direct expression. Naivety will always be present within the contemporary illustration scene as it will forever appeal to a much more direct, intangible, and raw desire. The value of the artist’s work lies not it its confirmation of a governing status quo but in the transcendent experience the work offers the viewer, and can be considered one of the purest forms of expression. “The essence of all genuine art is ultimately naïve if we understand this to mean purity of heart and thought”. How we develop further is ambiguous but it would be fair to say naivety within representation is the backbone of our artistic culture, and something practitioners will constantly refer back to. Bibliography Books/journals: Rhodes, C. (1997) Primitivism and Modern Art, Thames and Hudson Ltd, London
Gotschalk, D. W. (1962). Art and the social order. New York: Dover. Winston, A. S. & Cupchik, G. C (1992). The Evaluation of High Art and popular Art By Naïve and Experienced Viewers Tedesco, Laura Anne, (2000) “Lascaux (ca. 15,000 B.C.).” In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art Neperud, R. W. (1988). A propositional view of aesthetic experiencing for research and teaching in art education. In F. Lindauer, M. S. (1990). Reactions to cheap art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 8, 95- 110 Cupchik, G. C. (1992). From perception to production: A multileveled analysis of the aesthetic process. InG. Cupchik & J. Laszlo (Eds.), Emerging visions of the aesthetic process. New York: Cambridge University Press. Moore. H. (April 24, 1941): 598-99. The Listener. Flam, J. & Deutch, M. (2003) primitivism and twentieth-century art. University of California Press, Berkeley and L.A., California McGonagle, D. & Marshall, C. (1998) Art Unsolved. Irish Museum of Modern Art, Dulin. Calinescu, M. (1977). Faces of modernity: Avant-garde, decadence, and kitsch. Bloomington, IN: University of Indiana Press. Varnedoe, K., & Gopnik, A. (1990). High and low: Modern art and popular culture. New York: Museum of Modern Art. Rhodes, C. (1997) Primitivism and Modern Art, Thames and Hudson Ltd, London Victor Hugo, (1996) Notre-Dame de Paris, Gallimard, Paris p.156 Maclagan, D. (2009) OUTSIDER ART: From the Margins to the Marketplace. Reaktion Books, London Becker, H.S. (2016) Art Worlds and Social Types, Northwestern University Cheval, F. (1968) ‘The fantastic palace of Ferdinand Cheval.” Craft Horizons 28, 1: 8-15.908 Cardinal, R. (1972) Outsider Art. New York: Praeger
Websites: [1]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_art https://www.jstor.org/stable/20715763?seq=4#page_scan_tab_contents http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/000276427601900603 http://www.artistdaily.com/blogs/the-artists-life/naive-art-the-best-art-genre-you-dontknow-about http://www.tate.org.uk/learn/online-resources/glossary/n/naive-art http://uk.complex.com/style/2015/12/famous-artists-who-made-it-without-artschool/miranda-july http://www.m.theartstory.org/artist-de-chirico-giorgio-artworks.htm https://www.moebius.fr/Accueil-actuaites-moebius http://theoria.art-zoo.com/mystery-and-creation-giorgio-de-chirico/ http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/lasc/hd_lasc.htm (October 2000)