this is SO inaccurate...'primitive' art is absolutely NOT art of someone who hasn't been taught, it is a label applied by the West to art that falls outside the confines of the Academy view of what art was in the turn of the 19th century. Art by African, South Asian, and indigenous peoples, despite not following the laws of Naturalism absolutely were 'taught'. Gauguin was taught. I agree with the other commentator in that what this video is describing is 'Naif Art'. The supposed 'expert' should be ashamed of themselves for spreading misinformation and continuing to perpetuate the Western centric lie that anything that doesn't look the way the Academy defines is ignorant and basic.
Hi, I have issues with your statement. Is it that your definition is that of the Western viewpoint? From what I recall what I studied, primitivism is one of the avenues via which there was a conscious rejection of bourgeois culture. They developed from people who were taught but rejected bourgeois culture. Gauguin is an example. Primitivism as one of the symptoms and reactions in the modern period. Am I wrong or is there a bigger picture I'm missing? Im stating this in the spirit of learning.Thx
No you’re not wrong or missing a bigger picture. This guy knows nothing about the topic and is completely confused and ignorant. He can’t even see the inherent fallacy in what he’s saying. Shocking that he’s an “educator”
This is absolutely wrong. What you explained is Naive art. Primitivism is something completely different. You're are spreading false information under the guise of being an "educator" and that is ethically wrong. Please delete this.
this is SO inaccurate...'primitive' art is absolutely NOT art of someone who hasn't been taught, it is a label applied by the West to art that falls outside the confines of the Academy view of what art was in the turn of the 19th century. Art by African, South Asian, and indigenous peoples, despite not following the laws of Naturalism absolutely were 'taught'. Gauguin was taught. I agree with the other commentator in that what this video is describing is 'Naif Art'. The supposed 'expert' should be ashamed of themselves for spreading misinformation and continuing to perpetuate the Western centric lie that anything that doesn't look the way the Academy defines is ignorant and basic.
Hi, I have issues with your statement. Is it that your definition is that of the Western viewpoint? From what I recall what I studied, primitivism is one of the avenues via which there was a conscious rejection of bourgeois culture. They developed from people who were taught but rejected bourgeois culture. Gauguin is an example. Primitivism as one of the symptoms and reactions in the modern period. Am I wrong or is there a bigger picture I'm missing? Im stating this in the spirit of learning.Thx
No you’re not wrong or missing a bigger picture. This guy knows nothing about the topic and is completely confused and ignorant. He can’t even see the inherent fallacy in what he’s saying. Shocking that he’s an “educator”
This is absolutely wrong. What you explained is Naive art. Primitivism is something completely different. You're are spreading false information under the guise of being an "educator" and that is ethically wrong. Please delete this.
epic fail.