Abstract art is criticised with comments such as, "A child could do that." A recent psychology study explored whether a painting could be identified as being by a professional, a child or a monkey: How to tell a masterpiece from a painting by a monkey. Overall it seems that we can identify the mind behind the art. I admire the confidence of abstract artists, capturing suggestions from intangibles. I painted the abstracts above as studies for a background of a future figurative piece.
|Marcel Duchamp, Fountain. 1917.|
Everything is purged from this painting but art,no ideas have entered this work
Acrylic on canvas, 1966 - 1968
|Rodin, The Thinker. 1902.|
Naive Art sounds even worse. Is this the term used for artists who for whatever reason have not received a Western art school education.
"What is Art School really? Well, it's a bit of time you are given. A bit of time in which to learn things." ~ Maggi Hambling
One of my favourite artists, Séraphine de Senlis, is considered naive. I discovered a film about her on Twitter via @Deanthepainter.
I have not had time or opportunity to learn the crafts of the old masters, and to some extent I think this is a liberation. I am not confined by what you can and can't do, according to the current consensus on art. Having had chance to develop and mature before the influence of the art world, any skills I do learn will hopefully enhance my ability to express myself rather than obscure. If during the course of my fine art degree I turn into an art snob, please let me know. I hope I can retain a degree of objectivity. Too much specialism can distance you from the actual art. Nigel Kennedy is undeniably a fantastic violinist, but trapped in his classical training he has not been able to fully embrace and create his own individual music. Like the beauty of a rose, pulled apart in an attempt to analyse it's beauty.