Naive Art
 

Perhaps you have noticed that I am very fond of naive art. Year and a half ago, while in Moscow, I visited the gallery of naive art "Dar", which is located on the spit.
There I saw some great artists. Pictures of Alexander Suvorov (1913-1999) I was so fascinated that I wanted to have one of his works at home.

I scanned reproductions of the booklet on Suvorov. Unfortunately, the quality of reproductions is not particularly fontanistoe, but Muscovites can see them in the gallery "alive".

Thank you! Also very fond of naive art.
  But interestingly, Vladimir Lyubarov, Arkady Petrov, Katia Medvedev, Lucy Voronov, - they too can be attributed absolutely to this direction? Or is it something else? Well, work Lyubarova (read here) is called "intelligent naive", Petrov, of course, also not all (read: not all works by this artist can be attributed to this trend in art). But the young lady, whose works also love for their positive attitude to life?
  (The artist in fact, actually wrote, draws, without thinking about it, and the task of art-mark his work and put the words "on the shelves.")

In daily use of the named artists call me that way. Correct?

Of all the artists you mentioned, I only know Petrova, from which I just bosses, in my opinion, the monstrous abomination, and certainly not naive, but quite the contrary (I remember a scandal one of the gallery owners that he hung Roginsky near this marzostyu, after which I was very ashamed, but then it turned out that this gallery owners - rogue, so I'm more than a set:))

Just quickly looked at the rest, give first impressions, very superficial - LVM also not naive, good work, it's a bit in line Botero, well, with national identity, of course.

Katia Medvedev - something like Zatulovskaya (ratio of images and inscriptions), no?
Zatulovskaya, in my opinion, better, more poetic, I love, but Medvedev - even nothing at all:)

Lucy Voronov - I did not like, not so alone, felt a lot of undigested influences.

But naive art for me - this amateur art, I do not know what to call it unprofessional, is not it (although the professionalism of these artists only too numerous!)


Here's another, Elena Volkova

I did not know Zatulovskaya! This site, however, one work, but they certainly will look and look again.
Katya Medvedev I like her (at her age) optimism in life - 8.10 years ago, while on the program at Dibrova, said: "This is now selling for 1000-1500 dollars quickly in the boutique and buy yourself a new outfit, then run - buy the paint, and work! ". As they say, God forbid, everyone!:)

[color="# 666686"]Added after 6 hours 4 minutes[/color]
"When Marc Chagall came to Moscow, he visited the actress Granovsky. On the wall in the room was a reproduction: - Who is the artist? - Asked Chagall. - This is a picture lover, - said the landlady.
- This drawing artist! - Cried Chagall. - I can see! Artist - is not a profession, an artist - it is fate! I know in this sense, believe me! "

I think these words Chagall (from the post of Eugene) can be safely attributed to the naive art.

If you do not complicate, please see more Alexander Zadorin. Your opinion?

Classic, very talented, professional hudozhnik.K naive art is irrelevant.

Liana does not agree with your harsh assessment of the artist.
By naive art, he also is not relevant (it's a talented, professional, conceptual artist), his work is closer to the Sots-art.
-------------------------------------
Petrov, Arkady Ivanovich
  http://forum.artinvestment.ru/showth...5385#post45385

fross,
The last portrait - Sergei Shnurov like ...: D

The truth is like. Maybe because it looks like a composite image of all "heavy drinkers".

But such a seditious question: Chagall and Pirosmani - naive art?

Sergeyitch,
Cord like to drink tossed. But the person left ....
As Chagall and Pirosmani, then I think it is too naive art. Especially in Pirosmani. Also to naive art include "Vladimir school, art of Australian Aborigines and the Inuit, Innu. Although they have it more ornamental and naive. Naivizm, it is primitive, beautiful in its simplicity and a sort of childhood. because of its many and love. And I think that we should not in Chagall look for something different, something original, he wrote as a man could, and raised to the heights naivizm original vanguard of the Jewish folklore.

For me Pirosmani - without any doubt, naive art, Chagall - no.

From the works Zadorina (which I saw for the first time) the most likable - still life with watermelon. Actually I'm not happy, but you have to look as it should.

I have the impression that in Russia such a popular "smart naive"? I ask this because frankly, the data on what is being done now, I have a pretty sketchy - I go for 2-3 weeks, go to the Art-Moscow, for a few more exhibitions - and has already had to return home:)