Stephen Warde Anderson
Naive Classicism
Naive Classicism
I have always avoided classifying my artwork in regard to style and have eschewed defining it by any of the many “-isms” that inhabit and inhibit art appreciation and criticism. Labels tend to be limiting and distorting and, once acquired, often will stifle creative growth in any direction at variance with the label. The visual artist, like the actor, should, I think, reject being type cast. Nevertheless, I recognize there is a certain convenience for the artist in being able to facilely classify and, therefore, explain his work, and there is greater advantage for others in being able to place the artist and his work into a comforting and easily apprehended pigeonhole. Indeed, it is inevitable that an artist will be marked with the brand of some “-ism.” It is best, therefore, that it be one of his own choosing and defining.
My own artwork, acrylic paintings, primarily whimsical fantasy tableaux and historical portraits, manifest most of the elements of what I would call Naive Classicism, which I will attempt to clarify. Classicism in art, with its emphasis on harmonious composition and formal balance, emotional restraint and understatement, traditional techniques and modalities, conventional, idealized, stylized forms and subject matter, a conservative world view, and an Apollonian sense of discipline would seem in conflict with the attributes associated with the naif -- unschooled, free-spirited, and unaware or dismissive of artistic conventions and traditions. Yet, a synthesis is achieved when an artist’s aspiration to classical values is imperfectly realized owing to incongruous skill and technique, the employment of an idiosyncratic style, the pursuit of non-traditional subject matter, or the influences of personal tastes, viewpoints, and sensibilities. The result will exhibit elements of classical art, yet have the feel of outsider or folk art. Naive Classicism thus comprises a recognizable type of artwork, but not a specific technique or style like Impressionism, nor a predictable variation on Classicism such as Art Deco.
My own take on Naive Classicism presents the following characteristics:
1. Bright, clean, strong colors, accentuated by the use of multi-layered acrylic on museum board (which absorbs the paint rather canvas or other gessoed surfaces on which the paint merely stands.)
2. Elimination of light and shadow as compositional elements. Shading is uniformly applied, e.g. the outer edges will be darkened, the middle of the object, highlighted slightly. The darkening of the natural color of an object due to lack of light is pretty much ignored. Deep chiaroscuro is rarely used.
3. Stylized poses for figures, avoiding distorting positions and limiting foreshortening, which I find difficult to render well.
4. Flexible perspective and proportion. I don’t set out to alter either, but I rely on the maxim “if it looks right, it is right,” and sometimes that is at variance with photographic reality. Sometimes the relative size of foreground or background elements may be determined less by their actual size than by their importance to the picture. A consistent viewing perspective is not always religiously adhered to, if, departing from it, some element is more advantageously presented.
5. Simplification. Since the eye is drawn to areas of high detail, unimportant areas of the composition demand a sketchier rendering than important areas, which must display finer detail, as well as stronger color and perhaps greater texture. I believe that beauty is “the expurgation of the superfluous,” and what is unnecessary for the message of the composition and its convincing execution should be deemphasized or deleted. Another consideration is that a painting should be seen at maximum effect from a distance of, say, six to ten feet and, therefore, line and detail must “carry,” (the reason I use a needle to outline objects in black paint).