This picture reminds me of Madhubani art and invokes the same sense of comforting familiarity even though they come from different cultures. Both would fall under the category of primitive art but there is something derogatory in that definition. If a piece of art comforts the viewer, and is labeled primitive, there is an implication the viewer is deficient and unsophisticated. I am thankfully not around any art connoisseurs and feel free to express my love for such "primitive" works and have them around me.
.. art is not an isolated phenomenon. It is part of a culture, linked up with the history of the culture and with the history of the people. Consequently, we should view primitive art as merely a general term covering a variety of historical phenomena; the products of different races, mentalities, temperaments, historical events, and influences of environment. Every people, however primitive, has developed a specific style by giving preference to certain objects and patterns or certain arrangements of lines and spaces.
Comments