Is Instagram art?
This piece intends to describe the distinction between what German poet-philosopher Friedrich Schiller originally classified as naive art and sentimental art, as I understand it. My reading of his thesis helped me understand my instinctual liking for certain works of art and dislike for certain others.
He contrasts a creative who creates art for their own sake (the “naïve”) versus one conscious of other purposes, such as art’s place in history (the “sentimental”). Sentimental artists have tons of formal training and the quality of their work can be largely ascribed to its technical brilliance — they develop or imitate styles. Naive art has value because of the motivation of the artist that led to its creation. Maybe, sort of like how certain abstract pieces of art are of insane repute and value.
I was only recently introduced to this classification through Vox’s video about the famous Trout Mask Replica album by Captain Beefheart and The Magic Band — regarded a piece of work way ahead of its time. When the video talks about the two types of art and how Captain Beefheart managed to give structure to his naive impulses despite no formal music training to create this masterpiece of an album, it immediately made sense.
Popular works, be it art or media, are brilliant naive impulses executed to perfection through technical mastery. Talent devoid of such impulses also find place in popular culture — be it extraordinarily life-like sketches or Dream Theater’s music. But what about naive art that’s ripe during conception but whose execution is non-conforming and often talentless? How much of it is consumed?
I’m not sure about the amount of technical mastery considered sufficient for an abstract expressionist to create consumable art. I’m under the impression that abstract art is of much less rigor than sentimental art — its value being the rich psyche of the creator and their unique but simultaneously relatable impressions. But such art is limited in access — in ways more than one.
Instagram, that great cesspool into which all the photographers, artists and poets of the World are irresistibly drained. Artistic expressions of any kind on my Instagram feed are usually of two types — art which is made from mediocre talent and art created or shared out of pure impulse, almost childish in aesthetic. I often find the latter to be of much intrigue. Talent can range from mediocre to exceptional, but impulse is boundless.
What would even a plain flower, a spring, a mossy stone, the chirping of birds, the buzzing of bees, etc., have in itself so charming for us? What could give it any claim upon our love? It is not these objects, it is an idea represented through them, which we love in them.
— Friedrich Schiller
Wouldn’t it make sense then, that there is more vibrancy in a picture of a mucky pond close to you caught with a decent phone camera than of some magnanimous mountains far away from home? Anyone with the right dispositions can then create or find art. Talent might be necessary for mainstream success, but with your naive art, you can still possibly share your euphoria with a few people.
