New Imagineers or Naïve Art?

The consequences of internet proliferation of art has become a stark reality faced by artists working on the margins of the mainstream art market. 

These artists are often people of colour, working in improvisational media and multiple disciplines, renewed artists rekindling new flames of tradition rather than preserving tradition as static heritage.

Although the internet purports to be a global gallery where one can be introduced to diverse artists from vastly different scopes of artistic practice, but there are few of those who resonate with some inner chord for appreciating and seeing creativity for the messages it transmits.

 

 

And reading about the APY Art Centre Collective in recent article tackling a scandal about appropriation of indigenous art by white patrons, I was interested to acquaint myself with the work from the collective.

In the world of contemporary art with its endless variety of trends and movements, what I experienced was a kind of naive art that occupies a special place, a bridge connecting traditional art forms with modern movements.

 

Debates in the art historical community are heated about unschooled and self-taught artists and their practices, deeming their art as incapable of deep transformation of art. 

But this art movement often construed as Primitivism,  borrows visual forms from non-Western or prehistoric peoples, and is recognized by the state of the spirit, a pure soul of the artist, reflection of his/her feelings. 

Before the 20th century, in its most basic sense, the so-called “naive art” was any form of visual art created by a person who lacked the formal education and training a professional artist undergoes. 

When a trained artists emulates this aesthetic, it is often referred to as primitivism, pseudo-naive art or faux naive art.

Now, seeing the works of indigenous Australian artists like Helen Curtis and Iluwanti Ken, one observes how their often “naive art” often ignores the rules of perspective. 

 

The act of “seeing” is transformed into “being within” that with is seen, and perchance “that which is seen” is transformed into the seer guiding and ever transforming view.

Often characterized by a lyrical treatment of their environments and the poetic rendering of mythological and historical subjects, their work touch on the spiritual without being escapist. 

Although their practices seemingly necessitate exclusion, where they gain power through their insularity and a cultivated need for protection from other ideas, these artists nevertheless create compositions based on their inner perceptions, not on academic norms and standards.

 

Their art could easily be dismissed as art that’s created by people who “don’t know what they’re doing”, but that undermines the raw creativity found within works of the movement and its uninhibited and instinctive approach to materials, composition and ideas. 

Theirs are reverent thoughts rooted in personal histories, language and storytelling, involved in contemplation of belonging, loss, memory, with consequent trauma experienced by those whose psyches have been re-arranged.

Their consequent images portray inherited memories to tell personal stories that have been long silenced, affirming continuity between sediments of memory and the present, redressing unresolved ideological conflicts that constantly recur.

 

Their radical ethos, political and aesthetic engagement emanating from their artistic practices in the face of constant erasure by the art community; mediates their practices and the participatory dimensions undertaken, revealing how their existence manifests a radical form of presence in which body, environment, and time enter into immediate relation.

Like some sensible apostles of “a new objectivity”, these artists continue to pave renewed paths for approaching art in ways that trends and proper form ignores, and while conventional success is desired, a less inhibited way of working is encouraged.

***

Images by: APY Arts Center Collective (Adelaide, Australia)