Talk:Naïve art

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Faux bad French?[edit]

Naive art and Naive Art currently point to different pages; these should probably be merged in some way.

Fixed. Chameleon 10:31, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Faux-naïve looks like pretty bad French. Faux-naïf, innit? Charles Matthews 10:37, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I thought that too. It's unfortunate that someone put together two French words like that. For the record, in French it's faux naïf in the masculine and fausse naïve in the feminine. Perhaps "pseudo-naïve" would be better English. Chameleon 10:45, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And "primitive"...[edit]

Isn't "primitive art" the more common name for this? Or is it worried that that would be confused with art of indigenous peoples?--T. Anthony 11:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my 'Oxford Dictionary of Art' is keen to maintain the destinction, describing:
Naïve art - painting produced in sophisticated societies but lacking conventional expertise in representational skills
Primitive - applied to art of societies outside the great Western and Oriental civilizations (even though the paintings or sculptures might be highly sophisticated within that culture's tradition.)
They also go on to say that primitive art was a label that used to be attached to pre-Renaisance European paintings, particularly for Italian and Netherlandish schools such as the Flemish primitives. Whilst also noting that 'Primitive' is often used as a synonym for 'Naïve'.
Of course, Wikipedia would tend to see that definition of Primitive as being somewhat POV. -- Solipsist 12:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why citations are needed for statements that could quite obviously be taken as racist (primitive, applying to other cultures) or inflammatory (primitive in general). I know that if someone called anything I'd made "primitive", I'd be demanding an explanation. 86.150.108.130 (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That list of artists[edit]

Any objection to me removing some red links? - brenneman(t)(c) 05:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oi, and Anatole Jakovsky? - brenneman(t)(c) 05:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The red links do look rather like a distortion with a heavy bias towards eastern Europe. Best to remove them and keep the list as a useful summary of the most significant artists. It might be an idea to create a Category:Naïve artists if that is not too POV, then if any of those redlinked articles were created (assuming notability and non self-promotion) they could then be put in that category.
Not sure about Anatole Jakovsky. At first sight it looked like a candidate for WP:AFD and the external link on that article is hardly compelling. However a general search throws up several references to a Musee International d'Art Naif Anatole-Jakovsky in Nice which would suggest notability. -- Solipsist 11:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Doing the red links now. - brenneman(t)(c) 21:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've also disingenuously resized the image to exatclt fit the number of artists there are now. This should help to make people shy away from adding random artists, as well as making it obvious if they do so carelessly. - brenneman(t)(c) 21:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I put some of the red names back as I found some valid sources, like MOMA, indicating they were legitimate. The reason there were so many Slavic names, I think, is because the Croatians have the main museum online that's dedicated to naive art. Still I decided not to put back all those Croatian names as many of the people they list are more like what we'd folk or outsider artist--T. Anthony 05:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow up to this. There was a further long list of (? Czech) artists added by User:Antidote in August[1]. Antidote has subsequently been banned as a sockpuppet. However two of those links are now blue and both look good, so I'm happy to assume that the others are also somewhat notable in a similar vein to T. Anthony's comment above. -- Solipsist 20:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advertorial link - no content. Removed on 27/10/06. This only links to Claudine Pieters website with no other information so was removed.

I think Grandma Moses should be included in 20th century, not 19th, as she didn't start painting until she was older.


Emerik Fejes[edit]

Why is Emerik Fejes not included in the list of Naive artists?

Also, In studying him, I find that he is described as both a Serb and a Croat. I don't want to offend either country by misrepresenting his origins.

robin wheeler 21:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Robin Wheeler[reply]

Standard for inclusion?[edit]

What's the appropriate standard of notability for determining whether someone should be included on this page? Dce7 01:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've found the answer to my own question. From the WP notability guidelines: "... list articles like List of English writers are expected to include only notable writers." Dce7 20:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is someone talking about the standard for inclusion for English (British) writers on the page for naive artists? It would be nice if people would get their complaints straight. (Jepitts 20:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

My complaints are perfectly straight. I'm talking about the general standard for inclusion on list articles. For example, on the List of English writers article, only notable writers should be included. This article is a list article, so only notable members of that categoory (notable practitioners of naive art) should be included here. Dce7 23:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So who decides who is notable? Do art critics decide? Do journalists decide? Do curators decide? Who decides? (Jepitts 23:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Fair question. See WP:Notability (people) and look at the Creative Professionals section. Dce7 23:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I look through this whole site and I am in the conclusion that the standards have long been gone. We have to decide on who should and should not be entered. Bluetooth954 00:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK--A secondary source exists for me, in fact, a couple. One source is in a major university audio visual collection (documentary and audio recording) and one is a major article on my work published last year. Has the person making these deletions seen or read either one? Nope.

Then I recommend you put reference(s) next to the name and also enter a separate page on the Naïve artist for others to see.Bluetooth954 04:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is making the decisions about quality and notability here? I've just added Jack Vettriano to the links ...with 400,000 google hits and his own Wikipedia entry he's a sure fire candidate, but why delete Sandra Ormiston [[2]] - an outstanding and highly original artist in her own right, just because she doesnt sell millions of prints? Is this about snobbery or objective criticism, and why should anyone bother contributing to wikipedia if someone just vandalises the work we have put into it because they have a different opinion?Excalibur 23:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The standard practice is that people who do not have their own Wikipedia articles should be removed from lists like this one. If you would like to list someone on this page, but they do not have their own article, then you can create one. However, the subject of an independent article must satisfy the Wikipedia notability guidelines. For artists, the guidelines for creative professionals are applicable. See WP:BIO. Dce7 23:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Awien: Hi, you deleted my contribution for other links section and tagged it as spam. It's not a spam. I'm an art enthusiast an contribute time to time to art pages. Have a nice day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.33.252 (talk) 05:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a store, and commercial links are spam. Awien (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Nomer25.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Nomer25.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

redlinks, etc[edit]

i rewrote the lead a bit, removed some redlinks of artists, and am working on turning museums into names with references at bottom, not just ext. links, which is sloppy. some museums were promotional artist sites. i left redlinks of artists with other mentions on WP as a courtesy, although most of these mentions still have no references on those pages. its up to the person adding a name to demonstrate notability. this article can easily become a dump for nonnotable artists, and deserves better.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naive Art to include Music[edit]

My name is Kevin Lajiness; [3] [4]. I consider myself a Naive Artist in all mediums that I work. it is my hope to have Naive Art be extended to include Naive Music as a genre by getting a consensus from the art and music industry and its artist.

"Franz Berwald had already created a style of Naïve musical art in Sweden nearly four decades prior. These two artists’ concepts of what makes art “Naïve” are surprisingly similar, and it is easily discerned what an early twentieth-century Swedish composer would have seen as stylistic inspiration in both the music of Berwald, and the works of contemporary Naïve visual artists" ;NAÏVE ART AND ITS REFLECTION IN SWEDISH MUSIC by ADAM DAVID CORZATThttps://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/case1238767722/inline

"The question arises, then, as to what exactly Primitivism means in terms of both" The term "primitivism" is often applied to other professional painters working in the style of naïve or folk art like Henri Rousseau, Mikhail Larionov, Paul Klee and others.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitivism "defined as attributes of primitive expression: absence of linear perspective, simple outlines, presence of symbolic signs such as the hieroglyph, emotive distortions of the figure, and the energetic rhythms resulting from the use of repetitive ornamental pattern"

In comparison one might say that the use of simple beat matched to the vocals " musical Loops" accompaniments do the same for the music exspecial "energetic rhythms resulting from the use of repetitive patterns" (Loops)68.44.188.39 (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the industry moves farther and farther into the electronic age "As personal computers became faster and cheaper, desktop computers acquired the ability to perform functions that previously necessitated a building full of expensive electronic devices. This fueled a race among software developers to find pieces of sound (could be a loop-KL) that are to be played back in the order we specify regardless of when the pieces were originally recorded. This process is automated and re-callable, so we can make small changes and listen to multiple versions". "One of the major advantages of digital audio is the nondestructive nature of editing and recording. Now we can have as many tracks as the speed and memory of the computer will allow rather than the fixed. Using analog systems, tracks recorded synchronously to tape cannot easily be moved in time relative to each other whereas digitally recorded tracks can be accessed freely and independently "https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/subpages/PublicationsPage.html Publications - CCRMA Center for Computer Research in Music and Acoustics Kadis, J. L. "Electrical Stimulation of Petiolar Action Potentials in Mimosa Pudica". ...Kadis, Jay and Daniel J. Levitin, "How Recordings Are Made II: Digital ... User:Kevin_Lajiness68.44.188.39 (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC) http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-Radio-Age/ElectronicAge-1966-Spring.pdf The art of editing and arranging music by computer programing [[A definition of programming might be: "The art of arranging a sequence of operations so that they will produce the desired result in the most efficient manner."] [By THOMAS I. BRADSHAW;a staff writer at the EDP division of RCA]] http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-Radio-Age/ElectronicAge-1966-Spring.pdf.--68.44.188.39 (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC) it has become common place for Artist to use music "loops" and software to produce their music music produced using electronic means became increasingly common in the popular domain.[[[Electronic_music#cite_note-3]]] to the extent it can no longer be considered "Outsider Art".[Electronic music is music that employs electronic musical instruments and electronic music technology in its production, an electronic musician being a musician who composes and/or performs such music.[reply]

Today electronic music includes many varieties and ranges from experimental art music to popular forms such as electronic dance music. Electronic music was once associated almost exclusively with Western art musicElectronic_musician

To distinguish one from a "Electronic Musician" and a "Naive Musician" is to say that one who produces Electronic music but is not a musician and does not create experimental work (meaning he predicts the outcome)is a Naive Artist and the emphasis here is Artist for he is arranging and sequencing the music simply by computer or other electronic means that can be considered Musical Art thus associating Electronic music back to it Western "Art" heritage

One like myself can have completely no musical training in my back ground yet familiarize myself with "The Software" and produce some music that is both complex yet simple. and at times cannot be distinguished from traditionally produced music.--68.44.188.39 (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The characteristics of naïve art are an awkward relationship to the formal qualities [5]

As strictly defined as any Song or Melodic composition publish as such to include as the accompaniments "music loops" that are loosely and simply attached to the song as in Beat matched or other computer aided or electronically or digitally altered. As an example I use almost all of my music that has been published by me. With Two links at my user Page >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kevin_Lajiness

even though the Lyrics or depth of instrumentation may not be simple the style and composition is. all of my music is simply beat matched accompaniments

This Naive Art Edit is to put the Encyclopedia and the industry on notice and a call for consensus, this is not meant to be self promotion unless you consider it and attempt to further and recognize Naive Art [[Special:Contributions/Kevin Lajiness 04:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)Kevin Lajiness 11:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Chris Chan and Sonichu[edit]

I think there should at least be a reference to Chris. Chan's "Sonichu". It is a classic example of. Naive art to me. I'm not sure where notability comes into this, but he seems to be big on Youtube and 4Chan. Should this be mentioned in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.36.66.31 (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical[edit]

As requested, the list is now in alphabetical order. I removed the massive messages about it from this page. Celestialghost (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Naïve art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was don't merge. DMT Biscuit (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging Naive art into Outsider art. I think the content in Naive art can easily be explained in the context of outsider art; various sources note a close relationship between the two terms - even does our articles - some stating outsider art as the sovereign term. A merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Outsider art. DMT Biscuit (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:

  • Oppose. As the Tate page linked here suggests, there is overlap but the two are not the same. Henri Rousseau and Camille Bombois are routinely described as naïve but not as outsiders; Adolf Wolfli and August Natterer are outsiders and not likely to be described as naive. The linked Roger Cardiinal article defines outsider art as art brut, a form of expression "shunning the public sphere and the art market". In his book Outsider Art, Cardinal specifies that he "is not concerned with" self-taught "naïve" painters who "attempt to become the colleagues of professionals. In their efforts to create works that will if not rival at least belong in the same category as the works of those who command high fees and paint in spacious studios, the naïves are in a very real sense creating to order." (p. 35) The Elkins essay goes against the tide by saying that "outsider art ... does not exist. At least I would like to say that, but actually I can’t: outsider art does exist, and it has been an object of continuous interest since the beginnings of modernism." That is why it's a subject worthy of a Wikipedia article. Rousseau, Bombois, Grandma Moses and the like would be misplaced in the outsider category. Ewulp (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think they're sufficiently different to warrant two separate pages. Totorotroll (talk) 11:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ewulp. I had intended to say the same, but they got to it first, and frankly sourced and explained it better than I would have. Even if the categories were not distinct, the intent behind them is. (Naïve vs primitive is a more interesting argument though.) — HTGS (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Naïve_art&oldid=1200952796"