Talk:Naïve art

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? Class: This article has not been assigned a class according to the assessment scale.

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)

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)

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)

[edit] That list of artists

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

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

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)
Doing the red links now. - brenneman(t)(c) 21:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

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.

[edit] Emerik Fejes

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

[edit] Standard for inclusion?

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

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)

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))

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)

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))

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

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)

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)

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)

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)