This is certainly part of Art History, although it doesn’t really have much to do with the professional, philosophical and profound aspect of art. After all Art is an academic subject one studies at university, right? Well, a lot of these artists said they did not need that, all they needed was some paint, a canvas and a couple of brushes. Would Engineers, Medical Doctors, Dentists, Lawyers and other professions say that amateurs pretending to be engineers, doctors, dentists and lawyers be the same as the ones that have suffered through 4 to 6 years of uni training?
And don’t get me wrong, I love Grandma Moses and Henri Rousseau. I don’t think much of some of the others, especially Frida Kahlo. You see, she is taken as an icon of women’s liberation, or feminism, but if you read her published diary and any other articles or books…very few…written about her, you will realise that she was definitely no feminist. She was a submissive woman who suffered gratuitously at the hands of an abusive husband and she still held him at the highest standard. That is not what a feminist believes and it is not how a feminist acts. So, especially if you are a fan of this artist, let me know what you think…
Well, here is my version of Naive Art. I do enjoy a lot of it…
Let me know what you think…
Cheers…
JaZzArt en València 
This is such an engaging and thought-provoking reflection on art, artistic legitimacy, and the tension between formal training and raw creative instinct. What makes your writing especially compelling is that it does not simply praise or dismiss “Naive Art,” but genuinely wrestles with the deeper questions surrounding it—questions about skill, authenticity, education, perception, and cultural narrative.
Me gustaLe gusta a 2 personas
Thank you Sir for your insight and analysis of Art Naïf it is well appreciated.
Me gustaMe gusta
I agree w/ you about Frieda Kahlo. But I appreciate the joy often reflected in art naive.
Me gustaLe gusta a 1 persona
I like it too, mostly…
Me gustaLe gusta a 1 persona
You are right that Kahlo was no feminist. She was actually pretty self-destructive. But I think her art developed from her chronic emotional and physical pain. Her images depict her personal experience. I find them intriguing. «Professional» or «non-professional» really doesn’t matter. Those are just labels. «Art» is in the eye of the beholder.
Me gustaLe gusta a 1 persona
You are right, Frida was not a feminist. She was subservient to Diego Rivera, her husband, who mistreated and cheated on her multiple times, including with her own sister. As far as «art is in the eye of the beholder», I disagree. Art is objective. Taste is in the eye of the beholder and no one can dispute someone else’s taste. Cheers Dawn and all the best!
Me gustaMe gusta