Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A POORLY EXECUTED PAINTING AND A NAIVE PAINTING?
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Showing page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2
Message
Posted
On looking through the gallery I see many different styles of painting which is great. But I am seeing an increased number of paintings that now seem to be described as "naïve" style. Is there a difference between a poorly painted piece of work or one described as "naïve". Obviously, as a lot of you will know I am no expert so this is a genuine question and not one aimed to bring any artist's style of painting into dispute. What are your thoughts and if there is a difference, can anyone explain it to me please.
Posted
A naive painter is one who lacks the knowledge tone , composition, pespective drawing etc. but who can produce an attractive or interesting painting,nevertheless.....In the past, farmers got someone to make a painting of their prize cow. The artists effort flattered the good polnts of the cow and of course this is called naive painting.There is a naive painter who is famous and painted a jungle scene and im damned if I can recall his name due to galloping senility. Someone will know and maybe give us a photo here? Syd
Posted
So, do you think Syd, a lot of paintings labelled "naïve" nowadays are not labelled correctly? I recall some paintings of farmers' cows being painted in the past but the qualities were much better than those which are painted today under that genre.
Yes paintk I have also heard the term "whimsical"
Posted
I always consider Alfred Walliis the Cornish painter of marine scenes around St Ives to be a prime example of a naïve painter. His efforts were interesting but technically incorrect. He was discovered by Ben Nicholson the husband of Barbara Hepworth (?) but if he had not been 'promoted by such prominent figures he may have remained in obscurity.
Posted
I think the artist Syd means is Le Douanier Rousseau - forgotten his first name, Le Douanier means the customs official, because that's what he was. He painted marvellously coloured, inventive scenes of jungles and wildlife that he could never have seen.
Other naive artists include the American known as Grandma Moses, and quite a few still exist today. I'm not sure how you'd divide them from bad artists, except that when you see their work you know you want to see more of it: either the colour, or design, or both, appeal to you instinctively, and you feel 'OK, it's wrong, the scale is out, the perspective isn't there, but .... it's good!'; whereas a badly executed painting by an amateur or beginner, or just someone who's not very good; or even by someone who is usually good but this time fell at the first fence, just makes you turn away and reflect that the picture hasn't been painted with enough care, or knowledge, or experience. In other words, the stuff I was doing 50 years ago (I hope there's none of it left out there..) wasn't naive, it was just bad.
Naive painters know their craft, on the whole: they understand the properties of their materials, but are usually completely untrained, or indifferent or resistant to the training they may have received. They vary, like all painters - some work entirely from the imagination, like Rousseau, and don't paint from life but from the picture in their head. As you can tell, I can't define it, really! But you know a naive painting from a bad one when you see it.
Posted
I have just been looking at the gallery and some of today's offerings are not just naïve but downright awful! You probably know the ones I mean. If any of my paintings were that bad I just couldn't put them out there for people to see I would put them in the bin instead!
Ruth your paintings are always lovely and I wouldn't class you as naïve at all!
Posted
Naïve = a painting well executed in the application of paint but ignoring (on purpose or accidentally?) conventional rules (perspective, composition etcetera)
Poorly executed = inexperienced in all aspects.
Well that was my first stab at a definition - the comments in parentheses were added afterwards - and then I thought 'well even that's not always the case' so I gave up.
Showing page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2