A Project a Day for the Month of March! Too bad I didn't wait until May so it rhymed.

So last week I went to the Taubman Museum of Art in beautiful Roanoke, Virginia.  If you are ever inclined, I’d recommend it. 

Currently, they have an exhibit called “Folk Art Findings” which drew me in right away.  I have always been intrigued by folk art and the like.  On display were several paintings from the 19th century and a variety of pieces from the 20th century. 

The exhibit conjured up many thoughts about what makes an artwork folk, primitive, naive, outsider, or visionary? 
Art can be difficult to define, but what defines these pieces are: the people that made them have little to no formal artistic training.  That is true for both the 19th and 20th century.   During the 20th century, some artists(but certainly not all) suffer from mental or physical disabilities.  They can even come from more “isolated” areas where the influence of other artists are not prevalent, therefore having a very pure style and almost childlike approach to their pieces.  These people are simply compelled to make art on their own because of a natural drive they have to express themselves through a visual means.  Largely, these pieces were created as a matter of survival and not a mere hobby.  Another aspect many of these artists have in common is that they have come to make art later in life.  Of course there are exceptions to all of which I’ve mentioned above, but that should give you a better understanding of how to distinguish a folk/visionary/outsider/naive/primitive artist from the rest. 

In the 19th century, it was often times a means of recording or documenting certain every day activities, places, and events.  This was when photography was less prevalent and therefore a real desired to capture events in this manner was common.  In their art, proportion, scale, perspective, etc may look a bit off but where they lack in accuracy make up for in capturing the emotion of their subject matter.

A lot of the 20th century works have strong religious or patriotic themes or undertones.  Nature, cityscapes, and found objects also make their way into these art works. 

Where these works may be viewed as “unrefined” I find them to be so fresh and pure in their approach that I’ve come to be the most excited about “folk” art over many other art forms and styles over the last year.  I find that art can be quite stuffy and exclusive.  One can be judged harshly on his/her talents.  These artists do not even seem to acknowledge their “lack of training” per se.  They make art whether someone else will ever see it or not.  They make art that expresses what they can not in any other way.  They make art for themselves.  They make art so unique as it has little influence from the other art forms that have come before them.  To me, this makes their artwork pure in its approach and pure in its form. 

It’s not to say that I don’t appreciate a finely trained artist with skills that surpass what seems to be humanly possible.  I save a large part of myself for respecting their work (Chuck Close, I’m looking at you.)  However, I must admit, just because a piece of work isn’t as technically evolved as a Chuck Close, let’s say, does not diminish its value to me in the least. Art must be by the people, for the people.  We all are artists.  We all have creative minds and we all need to express ourselves.  There’s room for it all.  I’m just glad I’m getting to know more of it. 

The photos I’ve included are of the Taubman Museum of Art and from the American Visionary Art Museum in Baltimore where I visited last month.  Another recommendation if you are ever on the east coast and are tired of your run of the mill museum experiences.

Thanks for reading, more hand-made items tomorrow.  The month is winding down! 

-E.