"However, does the intelligence of Picasso, Dali or even Warhol play a significant part in their creativity?"
I think for these artists (and most modern artists) a good deal of the value of their work comes from having been particularly clever about what makes something art, and what people have already experienced and now expect. Van Gogh, on the other hand, probably did much less intellectualizing about his work.
But I'm still skeptical that you can have a keen eye for color and composition, and the selection of subject matter, and be dopey. Most so-called "naive" art, or "outsider art", tends to look cluttered and ill-planned. Often that effect is the appeal, but it stands in contrast to the spatial organization of work done by more culturally established artists.
Comments
"However, does the intelligence of Picasso, Dali or even Warhol play a significant part in their creativity?"
I think for these artists (and most modern artists) a good deal of the value of their work comes from having been particularly clever about what makes something art, and what people have already experienced and now expect. Van Gogh, on the other hand, probably did much less intellectualizing about his work.
But I'm still skeptical that you can have a keen eye for color and composition, and the selection of subject matter, and be dopey. Most so-called "naive" art, or "outsider art", tends to look cluttered and ill-planned. Often that effect is the appeal, but it stands in contrast to the spatial organization of work done by more culturally established artists.