Notes from Wikipedia about "Naive Art:"
1) Naïve artists are aware of "fine art" conventions such as graphical perspective and compositional conventions, but are unable to fully use them, or choose not to.
2) Naïve art is recognized, and often imitated, for its childlike simplicity and frankness.
3) Paintings of this kind typically have a flat rendering style with a rudimentary expression of perspective.
Comments: I have a 'formal education' of art-instruction, wherein I spent two years exploring art history, drawing, sculpture, and painting processes.
I always felt an affinity to drawing-itself, as an action of expression for 'beyond-conscious-comprehension' - at least that was how I understood the process then.
That is, I enjoyed drawing the most.
At the time of that instruction, there was a lot of Practice, but there was an absence within the 'naming' of the actual-experience.
Also, I did not combine reflective-writing at that time with the drawing's reflective process,
and as a result, did not delve-deeper within the creative-experience.
(Pause to reflect)
I have been wondering if the world actually had an area within 'art-history,'
that my-Kind of Art would fit in,
and the closest yet I have found,
just within this moment-synchronistically,
is 'Naive Art.'
I suppose because it is 'a given,'
that there is no 'choice' within my art's expression,
that I must be 'consciously-unable,' to render what is Spiritual.
This means 'I' watch and copy what IS Intuitively-perceived as 'Given.'
This means that although I have been taught 'drawing-conventions,'
what they 'mean' to 'me,'
has little to do with Divine-Expression.
So, overall... 'I' suppose 'I' have found a True-Placement,
within art's Function-Through-the-Form,
(There are some far-off, whistling and hooting-sounds, heard from a distance,
every time 'I' read this...)
(I am smiling.)