Wechayachai

Omkwan Wechayachai (Baipor)

0914632, MA Children’s Book Illustration

Professor Martin Salisbury

In Search of Childlike Charm: An Alternative Aesthetic

It is true to certain extent that, as we grow older, we are limited by being forgetful of our

own childhood. We are swamped by adult concerns and are bounded by what is expected of us. We

are governed by rationality and becoming more and more conscious of the world that a lot of times

we tend to forget to let ourselves be guided by our primal intuition. We lose an ability to see the fun

in simple things, an ability to look at the world with wide-eyed wonder. As we grow older, we have

been gradually removed from the children’s rich world of dream and fantasy imagination. We are

constantly challenged by the conformity that bars us from being unique and original. We feel

insecure and for that reason we do everything to ensure that we are on the safe track and going in

the right direction—that is to say, the conventional one. We choose not to try new things because

we do not feel comfortable with experimentation and our adult egoism pains us when we have to

accept our failure. It is sad but also true to certain extent that, as we grow older, many of us forget

how to draw.

This paper will explore the passionate retreat to the state of being a child or what terms “The

Child Cult” in the time of the modern art movement “Primitivism,” the characteristics of children’s

art and their artistic approach, and some of my favorite artist and children’s book illustrator whose

works and artistic approaches resemble those of children. The exploration will be made alongside

with a self-investigation of my own creative practice in order to learn from these so-called childlike

expressions and strengthen my own work.

Primitivism and The Child Cult: A Sweet Escape to the Primitive Stage of Life

The motive behind my topic selection is the question of “what belongs to children?” In an

aspect of artistic expression, my assumption is that there is something about children and that

1

Wechayachai

something seems to be forgotten once they get older. Children seem to possess natural facility to

their creative expression as well as certain qualities that yield much charm to their artwork.

Unfortunately, as they mature, they seem to lose what they have had primarily and this passage

seems to be unavoidable.

The process of losing that magical something is interesting but regaining it is much more

intriguing to discover. Seeing myself as an adult whose fascination still revolves much around

children, creativity, and art—including the mixture of these elements such as art for and by

children, I want to be able to affirm my belief in children’s natural potential and hope to make use

of what I might discover.

The idea of a childhood reawakening and the appreciation in children’s art has been around

for quite a period of time in the modern art history. Due to an advanced technological development

and rapid growth of civilization, many artists have attempted to seek their ways back to where they

could be closest to their primitive stage: the reminiscent of their childhood. It was then that the idea

of Primitivism was introduced.

Originally, Primitivism was the idea that life was better during the early stages of mankind

and began to decline with the growth of civilization. In the world of art, Primitivism celebrates the

works that were the product of pure expressiveness and forceful emotions, regardless of artistic

traditions. Stephen Little has made a critical overview of this particular art movement in his book

Isms, suggesting Primitive Art as the antithesis of the academic art, the unconscious creative

impulse “which had not been tamed and gelded for the drawing room” (Little 103). According to

Little, it could be asserted that life at the primitive stage was happier, more natural, and less

corrupted and therefore very suited for producing the purest work of art.

It is important to mention in the first place that Primitivism does not celebrate only the art of

children, but it also celebrates that of the Ancient Primitive and the Mentally Ill whose lives are

believed to be in the primitive stages likewise. Their works seem to stem from a carefree creative

impulse of the hearts rather than being a pastime aesthetic activity, are guided by instinct and

2

Wechayachai

usually make up of dots and lines and simple abstract shapes and pattern showing no traces of an art

school training. In similar fashion, their intuition seems to remain intact and this allows them to be

capable of pure expression. A study of Dr. Nigel Spivey about prehistoric cave paintings strongly

supports this argument. Dr. Spivey is a British academic who teaches Classical Art and

Archaeology at the University of Cambridge. His study led to the shocking realization about how

the very first pictures ever made in this world were created. The study contradicts the previous

theory that prehistoric people painted as an act of veneration, believing that it would increase the

chances of the successful hunt. As the study reveals, what these prehistoric artists painted on their

caves were indeed images of the animals they had seen and had been overwhelmed by their

impressive vitality and vigorous figures such as horses and oxen, and not the images of wild goats

and mammoths which they hunted for food (see Figure 1). Provided that the archaeologists had

found bones of goats and mammoths eaten around the caves, it is obvious that the animals they

hunted were different to the animals they painted (Spivey “The Day Pictures Were Born”). This has

been suggested by Dr. Spivey that the art of the savages, in this case cave paintings, were created

out of purely intense feelings that were transformed into a compelling unstoppable urge to express.

Figure 1 Prehistoric paintings in South Africa depicting an animal of majestic presence

The case of the Mentally Ill, on the other hand, is slightly different from that of children and

the Ancient Primitive for they were not already there at the initial stage of life but somehow

something has brought them back to that absolute point zero again. Dr. Hans Prinzhorn, a German

3

Wechayachai

psychiatrist who had put together a great collection of works by mental patients, made an interesting

comment about the artistic expression of the Mentally Ill. He suggested the idea that “there is a

primal creative urge that belongs to all human beings but has been submerged by the development

of civilization” (Cardinal 24), an idea corresponding to Primitivism. For people with mental illness,

their withdrawal from the world around them gives them—what Dr. Prinzhorn called—an “autistic

concentration” on their own as a person and permits them full access to the abilities they once had

before sanity corrupted them.

Perhaps a story of a London-born artist called Stephen Wiltshire would explain very well the

above statement. With a truly beautiful mind he possesses, Stephen Wiltshire was known for his

remarkable talent in drawing an accurate detailed landscape and panoramic skyline of many great

cities from memory, after a short first experience of helicopter ride over his target (see Figure 2).

Figure 2 Stephen Wiltshire on his third day of drawing the New York skyline from memory

What is more stunning about Wiltshire is the fact that he was diagnosed as autistic and did

not speak his first word “paper” until he was nine years old. Before that, he was completely in his

own world and could not communicate with anyone. Needless to say, his story accentuates Dr.

Prinzhorn’s theory: “Mental illness cannot turn anyone into a genius but it can liberate existing

talents, which freed from conventions, stylistic, and otherwise, can create work of aesthetic merit”

4

Wechayachai

(Bihalji-Merin and Tomasevic 25). To me, Wiltshire’s ability cannot be claimed a general case for

the Mentally Ill but his story could suggest a possible chance that once our pre-damaged minds

were so beautiful that we might all be capable of doing the unimaginable. His incredible talent

indicates a possible capacity in mankind that if, by any chance, we ever find ways to regain our long

lost primitive stage, we must preserve and cherish that ability dearly.

It is also essential to point out that the idea of Primitivism has been expanded into different

classifications of art, perhaps with very little difference overlapping one another in the core concept

or no difference but how each prefers to call it. Naïve Art is one of the sub-categories. It is often

regarded as childlike in both the subject matter and the technique. A British pioneering curator

Victor Musgrave made an interesting comment about Naïve Artists in his writing; he described

them as “comforting” and “often cosy” and pointed out their “maladroit attempts to copy from life

and nature” which lend considerable charm to their works (Musgrave 11). However, many people

view the term Naïve Art as a condescending reference to academically untrained artists whose

works resulted in childlike simplicity and unrefined technique. While the values of these works are

constantly questioned, many ignore the criticisms and continue to admire the seemingly presence of

childlike charm in the works of Naïve Artists.

Another sub-genre that should not be disregarded is Outsider Art. The term refers to the

creative expression that exists outside the accepted norms of Fine Art realm. Either because of

indifference or plain ignorance toward the conventional art world, these artists tend not to bother

about fashion or the mainstream tradition that they discard traditional artistic means and concepts of

conventional beauty. It is probably this absence of desire to please and to be accepted by others that

makes them Outsider Artists. Nonetheless, in doing so, they often create works of strong

individuality and authentic impulse. In France, the idea of Outsider Art could be associated with the

French term Art Brut, meaning Raw Art. The term was invented by a French man called Jean

Dubuffet, an admirer of Outsider Art who owns a great collection of artworks with surpassingly

individual flavor and an Outsider Artist himself. In coming up with the term, one could speculate

5

Wechayachai

which aspect Dubuffet saw most important in art: the rawness of genuine expression, “uncooked by

cultural and artistic influences” (see Figure 3).

Figure 3 Jean Dubuffet’s Campagne Heureuse, 1944

However, it must be made clear that there is nothing bad that I see of about the art of the

mainstream or the conventional Fine Art areas; although, arguably, the lack of fresh fascinating

originality and pure expressiveness could be some of the case that makes the art of the Outsiders

stand out. According to Dubuffet, the denial to the mainstream culture derives from the assimilation

of every development in the mainstream art, and that assimilation seems to “take away whatever

power it might have had in the artist’s creation.” Outsider Art was his suggested solution to the

addressed problem: “It was immune to the influences of culture because the artists themselves were

not willing or able to be assimilated.”

In like manner with the Naïve Artists, these artists are mostly self-taught and have no formal

training or degree in art. Interestingly, this limitation is counted as an asset for Outsider Artists as it

6

Wechayachai

makes their works exceptionally original in both the concepts and techniques. Dubuffet admired

these artists for their “authentic creative impulses” and praised their practices in which “the worries

of competition, acclaim, and social promotion do not interfere.” Because of these very facts,

Dubuffet contended that the works of amateur artists are “more precious than the productions of

professionals” (Dubuffet 36).

An Account of a Beginner: On Overcoming the Fear and Learning to Love my Work

Before I have delved into this research about human’s primitive abilities and have made

myself acquainted with such terms as Primitivism, Naïve Art, and Outsider Art, my cognition of art

was all about skills and draftsmanship. It was not until I left my country as a fresh graduate to

pursue my study in Children’s Book Illustration in the United Kingdom that I was first introduced

to the idea of pure creative impulse and genuine expression. In my country, people tend to see that

training is the most if not the sole necessity in creating a work of art. Thai students have to pay for

private tutor to teach them how to draw because it is compulsory that they have to pass a specific

drawing test in order to get into art schools to be taught how to draw again. The test involves such

things as life-drawing, still-life, perspective, and composition, the exact same things that will appear

again in the course modules. Because of this, I never heard of anything like intuitive or instinctive

approach to drawing before since it had always occurred to me all these times that there are certain

rules in drawing you have to follow in order to bring out an artistic and aesthetic value in your

artwork or so it seems.

Having realized my undergraduate degree is not related to art, I always carry around self-

effacement in doing this course, feeling that I do not have a fundamental requirement or what it

takes in doing it. When I first got here, I still had with me the same idea about art school and I

expected drawing lessons from the course. I was a bit surprised to have found out about the teaching

method of the program, especially when the first module was Observation and Experiment. I was so

worried and intimidated by others’ art skills at first but it turned out that none of my tutors looked

7

Wechayachai

for any skills or correctness in my drawings. More surprisingly, I was encouraged to keep drawing

and worry less about doing it right. It was the first time that I feel there is no right or wrong about

drawing, and also the first time that I was told to preserve “something” that I still have with me. Up

until now, I still have some concern about the fact that I never had formal training in art, but on the

other hand, it is strange to think that somehow this weakness appears to be a good thing for me. One

of my friends whose observation and life-drawing skill is outstanding was a devoted fan of my

sketchbook. She was my regular companion for this module because we both had chosen to observe

the same topic, although in different aspects. She always said to me how she loved the flatness and

awkwardness of my drawings and how she wished she would not know how to draw in order to

draw like me. At the end of the module, some of my reflections on this are projected in my self-

assessment paper, as I wrote:

“Many saw it as an advantage that I have no drawing background because I can express

freely without such things as rules. Without any knowledge in figure drawing or perspective

drawing, my teachers understand my crooked buildings and big-headed characters because they can

see that I was being honest with what my eyes can see…I was very happy with this module, both

the process of it and the outcome” (Omkwan Wechayachai).

However, I would like to make myself clear about my perception towards skilled artists. Not

that I feel draftsmanship is not important nor that I am against art school training, I adore very much

the works of those skillfully trained and I always wish I could draw and paint more skillfully. In

fact, it should be noted that I have been through quite a process of coming to term with the idea of

aesthetic in art and whether it is determined by artistic skills. Upon writing this paper, I have found

it to be very interesting for myself as I reflected my thoughts on the development of my creative

practice and how I learn to appreciate and see my work more lovingly. At the beginning of the first

module, I actually have struggled to draw most realistically as I could but I just could not achieve it

at the satisfying level. My drawings turned out to be a simplified try-to-be realistic version of

subjects drawn from life with some faults which I myself could never noticed at first (see Figure 4),

8

Wechayachai

not until someone had pointed them out. Despite the fact that people did not seem to worry about

my unskilled mistakes, I still could not help feeling less confident about my own work as I still felt

realistic drawing was the only way of drawing I see as beautiful.

Figure 4 A drawing from my sketchbook depicting an everyday life of elderly people on Mill Road

and random images of old people in action such as Quentin Blake’s book signing, a man playing crossword

puzzle, a man doing grocery shopping, and a lady singing cheerfully at a nursing home talent show, 2009

9

Wechayachai

Toward the end of the module, I eventually became more and more comfortable with my

lines that I sometimes drew unconsciously without worrying about its beauty and how I wanted it to

look like at the end. I sometimes felt a sense of ownership of my drawings. My teachers’ response

to them has been considerably encouraging and has helped me feel increasingly pleased with my

work. Despite my failed attempt to draw realistically, the difficulties in my drawings that result in

an innocent and awkward naivety have made my work be seen as charming by many people. They

seemed to laugh lovingly at my clumsy lines and that makes me happy.

Also, the fact that I had chosen the subject of “elderly people,” which I really have for it an

affinity and a strong heartfelt passion, has affected my work perceptibly. Not knowingly, this

passion has accounted for my lack of training in an academic art, almost like a compensation for my

shortcomings. As I tried to portray lovely characters of old grandpas and grandmas the way I see

them, I have developed warm feelings toward my subject which, at some point, have allowed my

work to embrace the warmth in it. In my own conclusion, skill is not everything in creating a work

of art; how to communicate with your heart is also important. A correct drawing will become dry

and dead if the artists focus solely on nothing but the mastery of their techniques. This process of

bringing life to art was simply explained by my teacher, “like finding a balance between a heart and

a paper” (Martin Salisbury).

However, I must confess admittedly about the process of “how I learn to love my work” that

there has been some sort of ups-and-downs or some sort of dialogues going on in myself throughout

the course period. I could not believe completely what I know I ought to, or perhaps I might not

have worked hard enough that I can achieve the completely satisfying state of my work. Perhaps, I

just needed some time to fight with a deep-rooted ideology that I have always had toward the

conventional beauty in order to redefine it. This became the main problem I had in my second

module—The Sequential Image—as I had a hard time dealing with my own awareness toward my

creative expression. Such awareness emerged in form of fear and discomfort: fear that I may not do

it right, fear that I may not reach the expected outcome of my work, fear of—perhaps my own—

10

Wechayachai

judgmental opinions on my own work, fear of my technical deficiency, fear of making mistakes,

and so much more. Come to think of it again, I do not know what made me worry that much but it

really did affect me at that time and I really felt I was lost. My inexperience in art training had more

effects on me in this module than the last one because the second module tends to require the

handling with the procedures as well as artistic techniques which were not as necessary as it was in

the first module. At least, it would be easier if I were equipped with certain skills or knowledge. In

this module, I was pretty clueless in term of what to do; comparing to the first module that you just

had to keep drawing and drawing and just chose to tell stories via what your selective eyes could

see in the subject. I also wrote a reflection of my second module in my self-assessment paper:

“I have encountered great stress and discontentment in this module…The first module was

more relaxing and flexible for me but this module was like a big jump ahead from the first one. I

was not so sure of how to begin or what to do exactly. I have the story of what I want to do and I

also have in mind of how I want my finished work to be, but the process of how I have to get there

was very confusing” (Omkwan Wechayachai).

Yet, more problems occurred as I tried to improve my artwork in this module. I might have

focused too much on how I wanted it to be like that I lost the sensitivity and intuitive approach in

my drawings. The drawings that were once seen as humanistic have become dead, my teachers had

pointed that out to me, but I really had no idea what had happened in my artwork (see Figure 5). I

was not sure if it was the way my characters were too iconic or the way I color them in a computer

that had turned them into lifeless illustrations. I did not know exactly what it was, perhaps it was

something else, but I was quite certain that my investigation has somehow touched on the root of

the problem, although I am still unable to articulate or address the problem precisely.

Working on the third module—The Diploma Project—I found myself striving to maintain

my morale and keep myself happy while I work. I tried to worry less about how I wanted my work

to be like and just played and had fun with it. Part of the solution was to keep thinking: I am

creating this for myself and not others, and it is ok to make mistakes since it is essential to the

11

Wechayachai

process of learning. I kept reminding myself that by appreciating my work in the first place, the

work will contrive to communicate to others and the love I have for it will reach out to others’

hearts eventually.

Having a warm nostalgic childhood memory about picnic has been considerable helpful for

me in doing this project. By my nature, I tended to have a strong affectionate attachment toward

everything that has to do with familial bonding. Picnic, for me, is truly a family activity that is

loved and enjoyed by many children. The process of creating this handbook was like strolling down

a memory lane and it kept me constantly busy with happy thoughts. To be honest, I have not been

able to overcome that fear completely. That sort of conflict has still continued until present,

although I can detect it at a healthy level and that it only occurs to me every once in a while now.

Looking back to my creative practice, I can see that the problems are simply the matter of

lacking the confidence. It all stemmed from my idiosyncrasy that I cannot draw, the same thought

and feeling that many adults experience. The solution is very straightforward; that is for me to

change my perception about art and creative expression. I must say that, having joined this course

and having been surrounded by a stimulating environment of the United Kingdom, I have gained

new insights and understandings of art and creative expression in general, not to mention children’s

book illustration area. I have learned from my tutors, my friends, from books in the libraries and the

bookshops, and from visiting galleries and attending talks. I have met many interesting artistic

people that inspired me so much and I have tried to be exposed to every available source as

possible. This just opened my world. My perception about art is not the same anymore.

12

Wechayachai

Figure 5 Double-page spreads of my second project Grandma Flora, 2009

Figure 6 Cover of my third project The Fun-and-Friendly Picnic Handbook, 2010

13

Wechayachai

Learning from Children: An Observation on Children’s Art and Creative Expression

The review of my experience as an art student could probably explain the reason why I

decided to do my paper on childlike charm, as I feel there are many qualities in children’s creative

expression that would be much beneficial for my future practice. In order to get rid of the awareness

which has been quite obstructive in producing my work, I figured myself a suggestive solution, that

is to work like children. It should be noted that I do not intend to learn by trying to draw like a

child, but to learn to adopt the qualities in their practice which could help me develop my work.

After having done some research on Primitivism, I am bound to believe that everyone can draw

when we were little but now we just forget how to do it. It is probably a good idea for me to learn to

regain the qualities I had as a child; namely free and bold expression, spontaneity, and non-critical

judgment because even those who are academically trained need these qualities to strengthen their

works and retain the freshness.

Numbers of research on childhood studies suggest interesting notions about children’s

making-of-art. Many of them, as I found, are positively useful for my creative practice. Therefore,

in an attempt to improve my work, I would like to propose a brief observation of my own

comprehension toward the subject in order to understand them thoroughly. However, we should

keep in mind that every child is different and fantastically unique in his own way although there are

definitely some general characteristics that they share in their creative expression.

To begin with, we should be able to identify major characteristics of children’s art which

can be observed together with their expressions. Children tend to have direct expression and their

works obviously show significant connection with their practice. For example, it could be asserted

that naivety is the most likely term that best describes the art of children. This innocent quality does

not only portray in the outcome of their works but also inhabits in their instincts, reasoning, and

vision—in other words—their creative process. The childlike naivety is, therefore, not just a

simplification of form in the drawings but it includes the whole process of their creative practice,

that is, how children see the world and how they resolve to express in such manners. Similarly, their

14

Wechayachai

fearless enthusiastic urge to express contributes to bold expressive drawings and their inexhaustible

ability to enjoy the world makes their art so rich and full of life.

When a child first begins to draw, he starts out with spontaneous scribbles. The act of

scribbling is considered the earliest stage of children’s artistic expression. Little by little as they

grow, they gradually gain sufficient control over their movements and their squiggly scribbling will

eventually develop into simple mark-making such as loops, arcs, spirals, and lines moving freely in

all directions. After a certain period of time, these marks will begin to form into shapes and familiar

figures. In Paul Klee and Primitive Art, James Smith Pierce has made an interesting observation on

children’s drawings by contending that, at a very early stage, a child is not aware of the connection

between the motions and the marks he makes (Pierce 85). In fact, the same idea about an

unconscious instinctive approach to drawing has been famously introduced before by a famous

Swiss artist Paul Klee, who will be discussed later in the paper as the foremost intuitive painter who

led the movement of Primitivism in the modern art world. In Klee’s Pedagogical Sketchbook, he

addressed the idealistic approach to drawing, like that of children, in his famous statement: “An

active line on a walk, moving freely, without goal. A walk for a walk’s sake” (qtd. in Pierce 85).

More interestingly, according to Pierce, a child tends to tell stories as he draws and the

sequence of lines tend to be more important than their final configuration (86). In my personal

credential, I have experienced my little cousin doing this drawing-and-telling before. She would go

on narrating her drawing, telling me things like “This is mom and dad taking me to the zoo” as she

composed a drawing of her visit to the zoo. It is amazing to think how children care less about their

finished drawings and I feel I have to learn from their unconscious act as I compose my work, in

order to prevent any obstructive awareness I have mentioned earlier.

For children, an act of drawing is not so different from solving problems, for they have been

challenged by their unlearned skills and knowledge. The most common case every child seems to

have to deal with is to work on the sense of dimension. When a child begins to draw something he

sees, he usually experiences difficulties in translating three-dimensional descriptions of objects onto

15

Wechayachai

a two-dimensional surface of paper. That is why children’s drawings are normally flat. Their objects

seem to be in the same base line and have no movement forward and backward but moving in the

direction of left-and-right and up-and-down instead (128). However, an admiring quality that should

be pointed out here is their spontaneity. Children are not afraid of making mistakes. They are

usually comfortable with experimentation and improvisation. They would not mind altering their

artwork to suit their purpose (Wright 5). This explains why, a lot of times, we see children blending

different colors on top of one another as they paint for a result of desired color, or scribbling out

unwanted figure and adding complements to turn one object into another. In trying out all these

things to solve their problems, they will learn naturally which approach is suitable and favorable for

them most. They will soon come up with the practice they feel at ease with and begin to form their

own unique creative style.

Having touched on the subject of naivety, I would like to refer to what Colin Rhodes

mentioned in his book Primitivism and Modern Art about children’s drawings that they are

“realistic in intent though naïve in execution” (Rhodes 55). One should be mindful of the fact that

children’s naïve portrayal of the world, as seen from their works, is not a product of stylistic

intention. As a matter of fact, they are being very honest to their own primitive vision, a pre-rational

vision that has not yet been spoiled by knowledge. Children seem to have their own perception of

the way the cookie crumbles that is different from all of us. The disproportioned figures and the

contorted perspective lines are a mere result of their fresh acknowledgement of things. The

unintentional exaggerations and the leaving-out of unwanted details tell us bluntly what is important

in their world. In consequence, one should see that there is a virtue in the childlike objectivity or the

innocent eyes for they are so valuable and so sincere they seem to make us ignore any inaccuracies

in their drawings. The adorable clumsiness of their vision demands most willing forgiveness from

us adults. In other words, any faults in the drawings that look right to them are so real that,

convincingly, we are prompted to feel they look right to us too.

16

Wechayachai

Unfortunately, this treasured vision that allows children to create the artwork of exquisite

charm cannot stay with them very long. When a child matures, his instinctive impulses are reduced

and the creative act is replaced by a rational conception and logical imitation (Bihalji-Merin and

Tomasevic 25). Children will become increasingly critical of their drawings and the priority placed

to the creative process is changed to focus on the end product. They begin to be held back by the

desire to create adult-like realistic drawings and, as put by Jessica Davis, “no longer satisfied with a

drawing which provides the essence or an impression of what they see” (qtd. in Rabey 127). Sadly,

many children are defeated by this self-created idealism and consider themselves unable to draw

(128). Seeing myself as one of these children who had once given up drawing, I determine to

protect any children I know from this transitional period for as long as possible. Children should be

prevented from false ideology of artistic expression and their creativity should be encouraged to

develop most naturally.

Fifty-Year-Old Children: Knowing the Works of My

Favorite Artist and Children’s Book Illustrator

As I have come to be more and more familiar with the idea of childhood appreciation in the

art world, I have surprised myself by learning how much great artists and illustrators are fascinated

by children and their art. As discussed earlier in the paper, it is certain that there is something

entrancing about children’s creative ability that makes it desirable for many artists. Moreover, while

some are fortunate enough that their primitivity is still intact, many must strive dedicatedly to seek

for it in order to regain their purely impulsive aptitude in artistic creation. This passionate pursuit of

childlike primitiveness is evident in a statement by a Russian artist Wassily Kandinsky recorded in

the book Primitivism in Modern Art:

“There is an enormous unconscious strength in children, which here expresses itself [in his

drawings] and which places the work of children on as high (and often on a higher) a level as that of

17

Wechayachai

adults…The artist, who throughout his life is similar to children in many things, can attain the inner

harmony of things more easily than others” (qtd. in Goldwater 128).

The statement explains the propulsive motivation behind the search of intuitive childishness

that has once been intensely pervaded among the artists of the modern art period, as already

mentioned in the first part of the paper. The idea of childlike primitiveness was at that time so fresh

and enticing to many that it affected even a great artist like Pablo Picasso. Everyone knows his

world’s acclaim for astonishing artistic ability. He could draw with great precision since the age of

five, yet, the comment he had made when visiting an exhibition of children’s drawings had marked

his stance among the other admirers of children and their artistic expression: “When I was the same

age as these children, I could draw like Raphael. It took many years before I could draw like these

children” (Doschka 16). Seeing some qualities in children’s drawings, Picasso became another

reason to convince many others there are virtues in children’s art.

When I first came to England and had a chance to visit Tate Modern in London. I remember

spotting one plain line drawing that I really liked. Months later, I was in a bookshop and was so

amazed by a collection of drawings and paintings in a book by one artist that I had to write his name

down in my memo. Strangely enough, I found out in my later visit to Tate that he was the same

artist whose childlike drawings once captured my attention. When I decided to write my dissertation

on children’s creative practice, I instantly thought of this particular artist whose drawings and

paintings were to me very charming and full of childlike qualities. Seeing more of his works and

learning more about his life, Paul Klee has become my favorite artist incontestably.

Paul Klee was probably the most explicit example of those who believed wholeheartedly in

the innocence and purity of children’s vision. In fact, he was usually seen as the leader of the

Primitivism movement and this fact is perceptible in his thoughts, practice, and artwork. Numbers

of evidence that I have found while doing this research could best support this very argument. For

instance, his famous method of improvisation, as already discussed—a line is a dot going for a walk

—suggested the idea of free and direct expression in the way that he let himself be guided by his

18

Wechayachai

natural instincts just like the Primitive; “allowing the hand to follow inner promptings” was how he

put it (Klee’s lecture at the Bauhaus, qtd. in Kessler 76). Also, another lucid example can be seen in

a book Paul Klee, published in 1945 by the Museum of Modern Art (MOMA) in New York. The

book features his quote which expressed Klee’s appreciation in childlike primitivity, as he said: “I

want to be as though new-born, knowing absolutely nothing about Europe, ignoring poets and

fashions, to be almost primitive” (qtd. in Goldwater 199).

It is important to emphasize that Klee did not only try to produce works that look as if they

were done by a child without knowing any essence of children’s creative practice; he was a true

believer in them and he spent his whole life learning from them and trying out different resolutions

in order to gain back his primitive intuition. It even occurs to me that Klee had learned so

profoundly and believed wholeheartedly in children’s approach that the childishness seemed to be

already domiciled in his mind and heart (see Figure 7). According to Jill Laidlaw’s Artists in their

World: Paul Klee, Klee talked about a childhood game people like to play when they were little: a

game of “seeing pictures in cloud formations.” He stated that he wanted his art to have the same

effect as this game and wanted people to be able to play that same game with it (Laidlaw 14).

It could be asserted that Paul Klee began to be seriously engaged in children’s creative

expression after his son Felix was born. Since being an artist allowed him to work at home, Klee got

to spend as much time as possible with Felix and had plenty of time to observe and learn from his

child’s development especially in an aspect of art. In a letter to his parents, Klee described the

works done by little Felix as “real gems” and also wrote in his diary how he could not teach his son

anything about drawing: “The pictures my little Felix paints are better than mine, which all too

often have trickled through the brain; unfortunately I can’t prevent that completely” (Goldwater

200). This fascination led him to preserve a vast collection of little children’s drawings in his studio

which consisted of his son’s, other children’s, and even his own childhood drawings. Additionally,

he had carefully dated them and assigned them oeuvre numbers. His passion in the drawings of

19

Wechayachai

small children was so discernable to others that all his friends could not think of a better present to

delight him than more children’s drawings to add up to his beloved collection.

Figure 7 Paintings and drawings of Paul Klee: The Niesen (1915), A Garden for Orpheus (1926),

Self Portrait (1919), Portrait of Mrs. P in the South (1934), Forgetful Angel (1939), Bell Angel (1939)

20

Wechayachai

The naivety in the art of Paul Klee is, consequently, a result of an influence of children’s art.

However, in many drawings and paintings of Klee, one could claim that he only took some of the

forms and motifs in children’s drawings and blended them with sophisticated content and

magnificent technique of his own. His use of color is often acclaimed and is possibly a product of

his childlike characteristic: the boldness of experimentation. Klee was inventive when it came to

finding the right methods and techniques. He tended to work in many different medias and materials

and liked to combine them into one work. This was part of the reason I found his work so charming.

He had the boldness in his expression which captured in it the fun and truthfulness; and although

the norms of classical beauty are constantly challenged in his works, I found it to be humanly

moving and filled with lively energy and childlike excitement. According to an art critic Denys

Chevalier, Klee deserved a glorification because he never ceased to cultivate unconscious forces of

expression and develop them to their outermost limits (Chevalier 11).

Moving on to the world of children’s book, the concept of naïve primitivity is also a much

sought-after element for many illustrators. The idea attracts, in the same manner to the fine art area,

even a famous figure of children’s book artist like Anthony Browne. Being a great illustrator and

renowned children’s laureate, Browne also sees the virtues in children’s creative expression. He

once posed a very worthy question in his foreword to Illustrated Children’s Books of why adults

have come to lose the lively visual awareness of childhood or the unembarrassed urge in drawing.

This is to me an interesting case since, comparing to other illustrators, Browne’s works have quite a

strong realistic flavor that is different from the art of children. Yet, this case suggests so

significantly about the conception; it emphasizes the fact that one can appreciate and learn to adopt

children’s artistic expression without having to draw childishly. It should be underlined that the

charm of children’s art is also in children’s vision and practice. As a result, despite Browne’s

realistic style, many small readers enjoy his books greatly.

However, in the world of children’s book illustration, there is no better example than a

much-loved illustrator John Burningham whose works could best represent the word childlike

21

Wechayachai

charm and primitivity. In contrast to the art of Browne, Burningham’s art embodies great childlike

qualities (see Figure 8). His books have been sold for millions of copies all over the world and his

heartwarming illustrations have made him my favorite among other accomplished illustrators.

Figure 8 Illustrations from the books of John Burningham: John Burningham (2009), Mr. Grumpy’s

Outing (1970), Grandpa (1984)

In different manner to Paul Klee who confessed that he had to devote his life trying to regain

the primitiveness in his art, John Burningham seems to be blessed with the intactness of childlike

22

Wechayachai

naivety. His drawings may appear to some as if they were the drawings which children might

aspire, although many people see them at a higher sophisticated level. However, one could hardly

deny that his drawings contrive to communicate and create a warm connection between the artist

and the audience. I, too, sense the warmth and liveliness in his drawings and usually develop

empathetic feelings towards his beautiful way of telling stories. I love his drawings because they are

lovable and very honest and they all seem to have the quality that I would describe as friendly

drawings. What I wish to learn from his drawings most is the fact that the characters in his books,

although very simply drawn, seem to be full of life and spirit. Moreover, his “idiosyncratic,

unpredictable approach” to drawing is not to be misperceived as it serves as an important factor that

makes his work very original (Carey 11). Personally, it might not be so misleading to say that his

books are, above all, an artist's expression of his own desire to create. Among other precious

qualities that he has, this pure artistic expression is considered to be the essential ingredient of his

success as well.

Also, seeing from others’ perspective, Tom Maschler from the publisher Jonathan Cape who

was the first to spot the talent in Burningham described his work as “unique,” “true to itself,” and

“true to the artist’s vision.” He continued to mention that Burningham’s book had “the capacity to

move the reader” (qtd. in Carey 4) which, I also agree, is the essence in any work of art. His book

Granpa, for example, is my favorite and it moves me strongly by subtle emotions. The character of

Granpa is very heartily and tenderly portrayed and therefore is very real to me.

In addition, Burningham seems to have a special talent in capturing the world from a

perspective of small children which enables him to communicate effectively with them. His books

often give a feeling that he is on the side of his small readers and have adults play a plain boring

role. In admitting that part of himself is forever five years old, Burningham can not find a better

explanation to why his work appeals to small children so much except that “he must have some

instinctive understanding of children” (Bedell 11).

23

Wechayachai

In closing, the process of researching and writing this dissertation has made me learn about

my self as much as about the subject I have always been interested. I have found myself answers to

questions I have always wondered and have discovered many pleasant ways that I can strengthen

my artistic practice. The crucial key is to look at the world with children’s innocent and non-

judgmental eyes and try to express most freely and directly my own creative impulse. In learning

about Primitivism and children’s creative expression, I learn to appreciate the alternative aesthetic

and learn to see my work in a new light. I learn to place more value on the heart than the paper and

understand that if I believe in my work first others will believe in it too. Toward the end of this

module, I learn to love my work for how it is and that is the most important thing for me.

24

Wechayachai

Works Cited

Bedell, Geraldine. “Books for Children/Big Draw for Littles.” The Independent. 1993. 9 May 2010.

<http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books-for-children--big-

draw-for-littles-john-burninghams-vivid-childrens-stories-with-their-luminous-pictures-sell-

millions-worldwide-but-what-are-the-real-ingredients-of-their-success-1505741.html?

cmp=ilc-n>.

Bihalji-Merin, Oto, and Nebojsa-Bato Tomasevic. World Encyclopedia of Naïve Art: A Hundred

Years of Naïve Art. London: Frederick Muller, 1984.

Cardinal, Roger. “Singular Visions.” Outsiders: An Art without Precedent or Tradition. London:

Arts Council of Great Britain, 1979.

Carey, Joanna. “Flights of Fancy.” The Guardian. 2003. 9 May 2010. <http://www.guardian.

co.uk/books/2003/mar/08/booksforchildrenandteenagers>.

Chevalier, Denys. Klee. Italy: Bonfini Press, 1979.

Doschka, Roland. Paul Klee: Selected by Genius. Germany: Prestel Verlag, 2009.

Dubuffet, Jean. “Place à L'Incivisme [Make Way for Incivism.]” Art and Text 27 (1988): 36.

Goldwater, Robert. Primitivism in Modern Art. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP, 1986.

Hunt, Peter, and Lisa Sainsbury. Illustrated Children’s Books. London: Black Dog Publishing,

2009.

Kessler, Charles S. Science and Mysticism in Paul Klee's Around the Fish. The American Society

for Aesthetics, 1957.

Laidlaw, Jill A. Artists in their World: Paul Klee. London: Franklin Watts, 2005.

Little, Stephen. Isms. London: Herbert Press, 2004.

25

Wechayachai

Musgrave, Victor. “Preface.” Outsiders: An Art without Precedent or Tradition. London: Arts

Council of Great Britain, 1979.

Pierce, James Smith. Paul Klee and Primitive Art. New York: Garland Publishing, 1976.

Rabey, Kate. “Thinking Aloud: Looking at Children Drawing in Response to Picturebooks.”

Children Reading Pictures: Interpreting Visual Texts. By Arizpe, Evelyn, and Morag Styles.

London: RoutledgeFalmer, 2003.

Rhodes, Colin. Outsider Art: Spontaneous Alternatives. New York: Thames and Hudson, 2000.

---. Primitivism and Modern Art. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1994.

Spivey, Nigel. “The Day Pictures Were Born.” How Art Made the World. DVD. BBC. 2005.

Wright, Susan. Understanding Creativity in Early Childhood: Meaning-Making and Children’s

Drawing. London: Sage Publications, 2010.

26