In case you were wondering like me, this is visual art by an artist without formal training - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_art

One of my favorite piece of art is also regarded as naive art, even though it is a quite unique one, it's the Palais idéal [0] from Cheval.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Cheval#Palais_id%C3%...

This seems to be fairly good. It's a different style than mine, but I wish them well.

For fairly bad, may we present MOBA?

https://museumofbadart.org

My problem with Naive Art is that it is quite repetitive and limited.

It is a bit like punk rock. After you've heard one or 2 songs from Ramones then you've heard them all. Surely, Ramones, once in a while, can be fun. But after the 3rd song I feel that all they're saying is "we wish we were the Beatles".

Similarly, naive art can be fun, almost as much as Brueghel. But after the 100th 3rd World village with rivers and palm trees I just want to go back to Rembrandt.

This gallery is pure enjoyment!

In every context I know of, "naive" is a condescending term when applied to an adult. Do artists in this "genre" appreciate their work being labelled this way? "Unconventional" was right there. It means roughly the same thing, but without the side helping of implied... deficit.

Can an artist who submits their work to this gallery -- which features the word in its very name -- really be called "naive"?

I can't tell that the works are "naive" in any sense -- they look no better or worse to me than other artwork -- and I feel no desire to change that by "educating" myself on how "non-naive" art is supposedly better.

Naive art(I dont think it is naive) is exceptionally good, I really liked it. I have asked ChatGPT to generate image in the style of great artist Niko Pirosmani paintings. The ouput looks amazing, moody aesthetics.

Credits: Niko Pirosmani

Warning: (AI generated Imagery)

https://chatgpt.com/share/6a53afb8-31dc-83ee-9650-ee0628c75d...